Talk:Commons Privileges Committee investigation into Boris Johnson

What FPNs show

At the moment this article misrepresents what FPNs show (and is unsourced) - it says some members of staff and politicians received fixed penalty notices for contravening public health restrictions. This is clearly untrue as none of the cases for which the FPNs were issued were tested in court. Please read this source which I attempted to add which explains how FPNs are issued, and this one which explains that It is possible to pay a penalty without ever admitting guilt, or any formal finding of guilt. The police only need to ‘reasonably believe’ that someone has committed an offence to give an FPN under the Covid-19 regulations.

I propose correcting this. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have since removed the specific wording you don't like, so that point is moot. More broadly, your interpretation that no public health rules were broken is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. You've been banging on with similar attempts to minimise events around Partygate for over a year, generally with zero support from other editors. You were warned after a 3RR violation on this matter on 7 May. Can we please stop wasting time on this? Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, you misrepresent my views on the breaking of public health views. I've never said that no rules were broken, but I do object to people asserting that rules were broken when we simply do not know whether they were, or not.

As FPNs were used, rather that charges and court cases, the police evidence has never been tested. The only thing we know is that, for a few dozen individuals, someone somewhere in a police station has declared that they 'reasonably believe' that the individuals broke the rules and thus issued them with an FPN. FPNs are a civil escape route from a criminal prosecution and neither signify nor imply guilt in relation to the event they were issued for, even if they are unquestioningly paid in full.

That is not a 'fringe' theory, that is the law of the land. Any source that asserts that Covid regulations were broken is clearly speaking out of turn as no-one is in a position to know that. Sure it suits some people's agenda to cherry-pick such sloppily written sources and assert that if their favourite source says it, it must be true, but that is just bollocks. The question is, should we knowingly write bollocks in our article because unscrupulous sources support it, or should we have more respect for our readers and for the principles of Wikipedia? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

All the RSs (including one you inserted) refer to them as "fines". That is what they are in the public consciousness. In any event, even Johnson in his testimony to the committee acknowledged that some events were unlawful ("I obviously did not know at the time that any of these events later escalated beyond what was lawful after I left."[1]) And speaking to the Commons he acknowledged that he broke the rules: “It did not occur to me then or subsequently that a gathering in the cabinet room, just before a vital meeting on Covid strategy, could amount to a breach of the rules. That was my mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly.” [2]. So stop banging this drum. It will get you nowhere. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, whatever the media choose to call them, they are FPNs, which are subtly different to fines. I know we all hold Johnson in very high esteem, and hang on his every word, but even he doesn't know for sure whether the courts would have found that any rules were actually broken. All I'm doing is telling it as I find it - and if others find the bollocks written in the 'reliable' media aligns better with what they would prefer to be the truth, then what more can I do other than to say I've done my best to keep Wikipedia out of the 'fake news' zone. I agree that there is a drum being banged, but not by me. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

An admission is an admission. He has admitted to breaking the rules. Period. He has admitted that some events at Number 10 were illegal. Period. You are verging on WP:NOTHERE. Drop the stick. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, even if he now thinks that rules were broken, that doesn't mean that he's not mistaken. He's not a lawyer or a judge and he is not the supreme arbiter of these things. We should be striving for accuracy and verifiability, not looking for excuses to sensationalise the story as if we were writing for a tabloid. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability is met by RS. You don't have to be a lawyer or a judge to realise that you have broken the law! If I thought I was parking my car legally because I didn't see a sign, received a fixed penalty notice and then noticed the sign, I would realise I had made a mistake and accept it. That is what Johnson has done. He has said, in effect, "I didn't think I was breaking the rules at the time, but I now accept I was". Nothing "sensational" about it. It's about what he now accepts, as reported in multiple RS. Really, drop the stick. Your argument is going nowhere. You are being tendentious. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, you are attempting to make an argument based on principles that is contrary to what reliable sources say. This is a classic example of original research. We’ve had this same discussion multiple times before. There is no consensus for your view. Bondegezou (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, reliable sources support what I am saying and none of what I am saying is OR. OTOH, you are attempting to justify the stating of opinions as facts in Wiki's voice - that is a classic example of a failure to observe WP:NPOV. That news media choose (whether in ignorance or systemic bias) to state opinion as fact does not make it fact, and as editors if we choose to use that source regardless, we have the duty to attribute the opinion as whose opinion it is, and balance it with other WP:DUE opinions and even to condemn it as false if there are suitable RSes to support that. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto WP:RGW. Bondegezou (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, thank you - yes that supports my point exactly, as I said just above, specifically this paragraph: on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do.

Now perhaps we can move on bearing that in mind, and not mirror RS errors in Wiki's voice. Here's another interesting discussion drawing the same conclusion: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!". -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

here is a solicitor explaining FPNs. Note: "They include a fine..." So it is quite correct to say that Johnson and others were fined. And as I have shown, that he has accepted that rules were broken. Seriously, stop digging. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, as that is just an opinion though, that is a red herring. There are other sources say it is not a fine.

• Government Lawyer: It must be stressed that a FPN is not a “fine” - there is no obligation to pay it: but non-payment may result in a prosecution for the underlying offence.[3]
• In an answer to an FOI asking about Covid FPN "fines" by West Yorkshire Police: FPNs are not 'fines' specifically as fines are imposed by the Court in contested cases or those where the FPN is not paid.[4]
• Here's an interesting and confused one in the Independent.
  • Headline: What is a fixed penalty notice? The Partygate Covid fines explained and if they go on your criminal record
  • Body 1: You can accept you have committed the offence, as alleged, and pay a fine.
  • Body 2: An FPN is not a fine or a criminal conviction because the recipient can opt for the matter to be dealt with in court rather than paying the penalty.
  • Body 3: Regulations issued in 2020 introduced FPNs for breaches of Covid restrictions, with fines ranging from £30 to £10,000.

So we see that it is not clear-cut, so it is wrong for us to take sides per WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto, Again, you are quoting opinion. Here the Chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council refers to them as "fines". If someone like him is getting it wrong, is it any wornder everyone else is? And here, in the House of Lords, several Peers (on both sides) refer to them as "fines". So I'll take a police chief's and a solictor's opinion over a journalist's, a government lawyer (whose job it is to defend the government after all) or even yours. These are fines in common parlance, even if opinion may differ on whether they are or not. And the vast majority of sources refer to them as fines. So that is what we go with here on Wikipedia. Your horse is dead. Time to bury it in that hole you've been digging. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, yes I know it's opinion, that's what I've said all along - that we cannot assert opinion as fact. In most cases they are probably just sloppiness to be fair.

But the best we can do is to try and stay neutral and avoid taking sides (per WP:NPOV). We can call them "FPNs", which isn't controversial, but avoid use of the word "fine", which is. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding anyone's opinion, Wikipedia relies on what is reported in the preponderance of reliable sources. And the preponderance of RS state that Johnson and others were fined for breaching COVID-19 rules. You may think that is incorrect, but that is neither here nor there. To deviate from what the preponderance of RS state would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:OPINION. Your opinion doesn't matter, only what RSs state does. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have come adrift from any actual consideration of the text of this article. Could you clarify what changes you would like to make to the article? Can we stop having arguments in the abstract? Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto has already made the changes they want to see. You reverted them. I think DeFacto has given up on that particular argument (it is clear that Johnson accepts rules were broken even if inadvertently). The claim is now that he wasn't "fined" because PCNs aren't fines, although almost every WP:RS states that Johnson and others were fined, and as I say above, we have to go with what RSs state. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, please do not try and speak for me. And no, I do not accept that your fallacious argument excuses the presentation of your personal opinion as fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well you certainly haven't countered my response to your specious argument that you have to be a judge or a lawyer to accept that you have broken the law. I have laid out clearly Johnson's statements that he now accepts rules were broken. As for your suggestion for changing the article, Bondegezou has already reverted similar wording so I don't think that is going to fly. As I say, Johnson accepts that restrictions were contravened. He accepts what the police have found. It's not opinion, it's reported in many RS, and that is what the article should state. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, it doesn't matter what Johnson said, he's a politician remember, and a wordsmith. We don't know exactly why he said what he said, but it's not safe and is against Wiki policy to synthesise a conclusion based on, or assert as if fact, his personal opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, to keep it neutral and verifiable per WP:NPOV I would change "that contravened public health restrictions" to "that police believed contravened public health restrictions". There are plenty of RSes that explain how FPNs were issued under the Covid regs.

The alternative per Wiki policies (described above) is to attribute "that contravened public health restrictions" as common opinion amongst journalists (or similar) and to clarify that FPNs are civil measures with a low evidence bar and where payment is optional. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a concrete suggestion. I believe the suggested edit would be a mistake: the police believe public health restrictions were contravened, the current and former PM believe public health restrictions were contravened, the Commons Privilege Committee believe public health restrictions were contravened, and a broad array of reliable sources believe public health restrictions were contravened. The only people who question whether public health restrictions were contravened are clearly WP:FRINGE. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, okay, so, assuming the opinions of all those "believers" can be reliably sourced, we could expand it to something like "that police, Boris Johnson, and the Commons Privilege Committee believed contravened public health restrictions". If there is a due weight of RSes covering those who question it, then we could balance it by adding them too. But we need to remember, that no matter how many people believe (or disbelieve) it, it is still personal opinion as none of the cases have been tested in court, and thus needs to be accurately attributed (particularly in the context of BLP). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Fact does not need to be decided in a court of law, even when it comes to legal matters. As I said above, I can accept the fact that I parked illegally even if it never goes to court. Johnson has accepted that rules were broken (I repeat: "I obviously did not know at the time that any of these events later escalated beyond what was lawful after I left."[5]) and “It did not occur to me then or subsequently that a gathering in the cabinet room, just before a vital meeting on Covid strategy, could amount to a breach of the rules. That was my mistake (my emphasis) and I apologise for it unreservedly.” [6].) That is not his "opinion". It is what he now accepts to be true, and that's all that matters for WP:BLP. We don't need to jump through semantic hoops. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, you might think you parked illegally, but you might get a surprise if you challenged it, especially if you employed Mr Loophole.

Besides, we'd need RSes that covered each and every of the 126 individual FPNs issued if were want to make the general case - even your beacon of sound judgement BJ doesn't have the power to declare that for each of those the regulations were definitely contravened. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No, if I parked directly under a no-parking sign I would know I had parked illegally. Anyone who tried to claim I didn't would be holding a WP:FRINGE position. Johnson's statement means that he accepts that rules were broken and that is all that is required for saying that they were in WP:BLP. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, Johnson's statement is nothing more than his opinion - he could be wrong. And it doesn't, indeed could not possibly, cover all 126 cases. Please stop taking us around in circles. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Johnson accepts that rules were broken. He has been presented with the evidence and accepts it shows he made a mistake. This does not need to be tested in a court of law to be true. Even if that were only his opinion it's sufficient for us to say that rules were broken without falling foul of WP:BLP. That you cannot accept this is what is taking us around in circles. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto, the idea that we can't say anything unless it has been tested in court is nonsense. What you're suggesting contravenes WP:WEASEL and WP:DUE. No-one agrees with you on this. Your repeated pushing of this is verging on WP:TE. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou we can't assert opinion as fact wrt to allegations of law breaking - we need proof. This is not weasel or due - it is NPOV and BLP. And please stop making inflammatory mentions of behavioural norms - they are not constructive. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, I suppose we also need a rewording to avoid giving the impression that it was the events that contravened the regs when, in fact, it was only people that could have contravened them. Also we need to make it clear that the regs were not believed to have been contravened at all of the events investigated.

So let's consider replacing "that contravened public health restrictions" with something like "at some of which some staff were believed by police to have contravened public health restrictions". I'm sure you could word that more eloquently - give it a try. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's not... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Ferrier

Margaret Ferrier was listed as a See Also article here. She's the SNP MP who travelled on a train after testing +ve for COVID-19: see Margaret_Ferrier#Breaches_of_COVID-19_regulations. An IP editor removed that article today, saying it was "not relevant". A politician and questions over COVID rules means it seems to me relevant. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree it's a similar case. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't about Covid rules though, it's about whether parliament was deliberately misled, so I tend to agree with the IP editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a Commons investigation into COVID breaches by politicians. Ferrer faced a similar investigation. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, no, that's not what the investigation is about at all. It is only concerned with what Johnson believed compared to what he told the house. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Related articles don't have to be about exactly the same things. Beyond the specifics, they are about MPs who breached COVID rules and were investigated by a Commons committee as a result. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, and of the 83 individuals issued with FPNs related to partygate, as far as we know, only 2 of them were politicians. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Given 2 of us are in favour, but 1 raises the point that this article is about Parliament being misled (albeit about COVID rules), I've tried adding Ferrier as a See Also to the original Partygate article as opposed to here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Subsequent events

I have objected to DeFacto's proposed changes to the fact-checking paragraph in this section. The article was fact-checked by the Independent and several errors were found. Johnson wrote that he secured the biggest majority in 40 years. This is simply not true, as the fact-checkers in the supplied ref point out, and so we should state that it's not true in the article, not try to use wording that dismisses it, which I think DeFacto's wording tends to do. He may have meant the biggest share of the vote, but that is not what he wrote. He made a claim; it was wrong and we should say so. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, the source used to support it was the podcast of a radio chat show. The "fact-checkers" were two guests on the show who nit-picking their way through Johnson's statement, reinterpreting it, and taking bits out of context, to find reasons to ridicule it. That was unsustainable, which is why I removed it. The bit about "handful of points" which I also challenged, is a biased account from one biased media source as there were also polls, Opinium for example, which gave a 5% difference. Per BLP and NPOV we need to ensure balance and neutrality.

I challenged the addition of this content shortly after it was added, so, per Wiki guidelines, the status quo should be restored (i.e. the disputed content should be removed, not edit-warred back in) until we have decided here on a consensus on what to include. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There was also the iNews ref which I have moved up to replace the BBC one as I stated in my edit summary. The text in that paragraph follows what that source says and there is no lack of balance. Johnson made claims in a very important document which will be preserved for the historical record, and some of those claims were not true. There is no "lack of balance" in stating that. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks to try to address the concerns raised. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, that's your perspective, perhaps, but it could also be seen as confusing majority with vote difference. Also, arguing that 11% isn't a "handful" is not proof that the statement wasn't true, especially when there were also polls which gave 5% as the value. This section needs removing until a policy-compliant wording can be agreed. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That is why we use the aggregate of the polls because there will be some that are lower and some higher, so to avoid cherry-picking to suit our preferences it is good NPOV to use the aggregate.

And it's not my "perspective". He wrote something (in the historical record) that is simply not true. That is simply a fact. You are speculating (that he might have confused the two figures) but that is just that - speculation. He wrote what he wrote and it was wrong. It's fair enough to give the context of the popular vote, but not to suggest that might have been what he meant because that is WP:OR Lard Almighty (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, there's no mention of "aggregate", either in Johnson's statement, or the i's "fact-checkers" mistaken criticism. How big is a handful anyway? The context of the confused stats is fine now, but we should not judge which we think he meant. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When there are questions of interpretation like this, perhaps looking for more citations would be a good way forward. That said, perhaps these concerns belong more on the Boris Johnson article. Here, we should focus on any inaccuracies he wrote about the process that this article is about. Bondegezou (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to find more articles, but I keep finding articles fact-checking Johnson’s previous resignations! It’s almost like there’s a pattern… Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no "question of interpretation". Johnson wrote a letter containing several claims. A WP:RS fact-checked those claims and came to some conclusions which they back up with facts. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to second-guess what Johnson may have meant or interpret his words. We have to stick to the facts that WP:RS report. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I accept that Johnson said things that were not true in his resignation letter. We should follow RS, and DeFacto’s tags seem odd. However, I suggest that many of those false claims are somewhat tangential for this article. I think it would be better to focus on his claims about the Committee’s process. Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, I explained each and every tag. We can discuss any that are still unclear to you, if you like. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, thanks for removing all the disputed content. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reactions

@Bondegezou: I felt it was important to include the responses from Johnson's supporters - it's up to the reader to then decide what that means. I don't see a justification for just including Dorries' quote but not anyone else. I had planned to add more reactions across the political spectrum too, including Sunak's non-response [7].

To you and @DeFacto:, I have doubts about including the Spectator commentary, unless we are also going to start adding columnists from all the other newspapers. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse, when I removed coverage of BBC News columnist personal opinion pieces they were restored as reflecting "RS views". So I added content from another RS columnist's opinion piece, who had different views, to add balance. We need to be consistent here - exclude them all or include them all. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd favour more rather than less - Johnson supporters, Tory MPs, opposition MPs, and general summaries from high quality reliable sources (BBC, Guardian, Independent, NYT). This is another good source from the BBC covering various reactions. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the better we cover the diversity of opinions on this the better. I'd question your assertion though that the Guardian is a quality reliable source for this sort of political stuff - their entry in WP:RSP has a black mark against them saying: Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. So it is probably best avoided as it is contentious. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

And so does the Telegraph. That doesn't mean that we can't summarise what they say and readers will be well aware of their respective biases. We almost certainly shouldn't be summarising a single columnist at length as you have now done twice. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse, but I never argued that the Telegraph is a quality reliable source for this. Nevertheless, we need to be consistent on this. I only added columnist views after four single columnists' views had already been added to the section - and those latter views are still there, despite contributions of mine having been summarily deleted. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The only columnist's view included is the Spectator article. The other material is reporting by journalists, not columnists. There's a clear difference between a, say, Reuters journalist explaining what the report says and a Spectator columnist making a partisan argument about it. The initial edit with the lengthy coverage of the Spectator column was laughably WP:POV. While we should, for WP:BALANCE, reflect the range of views expressed, I think the amount of space taken up on the Spectator column is still too long. Bondegezou (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, what do you think makes the personal views of a columnist less notable than the personal views of a journalist? All personal views are POV, and the most laughable tend to be those that least align with one's own personal POV - don't you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You have tried this line before. You have clearly expressed that your own view is that Partygate is a media confection. You often want to disregard sources you don't like as being biased. Well, you are entitled to your own views, but editing on Wikipedia follows Wikipedia's rules. The reporting of the four citations given is trusted because it is reporting (a journalist explaining and making sense of events) from reliable sources (adjudged to have robust editorial practices and thus to be accurate). This is different from a partisan columnist, like the Spectator column or, worse, the Lord Frost piece (which should only count as a primary source). Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, you misrepresent my views about partygate.

As you know, I have for a long time been concerned about the sensationalist and loaded language that the news media often use, and do not accept that it is permissible under Wiki policy to mimic or repeat their biased language in Wiki articles. But no, you are wrong again, I do not normally want to disregard those sources which are usually based, despite the language they use, on underlying facts, but the substance of what our articles say should, of course per wiki policy, be presented using an impartial tone. It is the Wiki rules that guide my edits, which is why I take the stand on the mimicking of biased language that I do.

The personal POV of a partisan journalist is still personal POV though, so why do you think it should be given more weight than the personal POV of other notable commentators, whether they are partisan, or not? Which Wiki policy says that? Any journalist's or columnist's personal POV presented in commentaries intermingled with the reporting of facts is, in effect, the primary source of that POv. Have you ever come across a non-partisan journalist or columnist? (that is a question, and no, I am not necessarily saying that there aren't any). -- DeFacto (talk). 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

SmartSE, I chopped the quotes from several Johnson-supporting MPs because WP:NOTNEWS. We're writing an encyclopaedia article, we don't need the back-and-forth soundbites of politicians saying what you'd expect them to say. I left Dorries's words in as a compromise, given she is one of Johnson's most notable supporters.

An encyclopaedia article needs to explain what the report says, why it's significant and what happened as a result. That Johnson's supporters didn't like it and Johnson's opponents did can be covered very quickly, I suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

How to choose reactions?

@Bondegezou, @Lard Almighty, these valid criticisms of the committee investigation were removed as "soundbites" and this political soundbite which is totally unrelated to the investigation was restored as a valid reaction? Remembering that the subject of this article is the committee investigation, what are the criteria being used here? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The reaction of the families is a direct reacton to the publication of the report. They were one of the main involved parties and their comments have been widely reported. One sentience on their reaction to the report is of course relevant and not undue. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty, given that the reactions of the MPs were a direct response to the publication of the report would you support restoring them too? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that one representative sentence from each side as reported in a reliable source would be sufficient, bearing in mind that the vast, vast majority of MPs seem to be supportive of the report (we'll know of course exact numbers on Monday) so that balance should be reflected. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty - how many sides are there? I can only count two - those who support the report and those who do not. So how would you pick the representative sentence for each side? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly a lot more complicated than that and just presenting two sides in in equal proportion is not compliant with WP:NPOV. We need to look at all of the sources and weight them accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou I agree with your removal of the Frost article which gave his views too much weight, but can you please comment on how you think we should cover the reactions? SmartSE (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing context

@Nomoskedasticity, can you please clarify your reasons for this revert. One-sided? I added that about the questions being asked about the integrity of the committee, balanced with denials made, to add an essential piece of missing context to the subject. This is especially in relation to accusations made against the committee as the content of its report emerged, which currently seem to be portrayed as unfounded.

Don't you think it says something about the current POV balance in the article that, although the doubts about Harman's neutrality have been circulating in the media since she was appointed in June 2022, and the accusations of hypocrisy against Jenkin for the past several days, that there wasn't already a single sentence about either in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it should be necessary to describe how something is one-sided when it is obviously one-sided. Your text had no balance at all re Harman. Re Jenkins, you included a denial but in the same sentence you dismissed/downplayed the denial. Again -- obvious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, is the article better without that context though? Why not restore that section, or even just bring it here, and show us how it could be improved?

What do you think about the rest of the article? Is there anything else that you think needs to be better balanced? Was my addition the only content that was so bad it was irreparable and had to be totally removed? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about Harman could be included where she is already mentioned. It would be good if any other opposing views could also be included i.e. the Tory majority. The info about Jenkins is probably best dealt with in the reactions section - it's only Johnson's supporters who raised this as an issue, after the report was published. It's most definitely undue to give it it's own section. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should tread very carefully when saying anything about Bernard Jenkin. Some Johnson supporters have made claims, but Jenkin has dismissed them, the House of Commons has said there's nothing to them, the police aren't investigating. By WP:BLP, we shouldn't be accusing Jenkin of a criminal act, or even reporting others accusing him of a criminal act, with so little support. Bondegezou (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)