Talk:Dominic Cummings scandal

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

information Note: see Talk:Dominic Cummings#Note for a discussion of this draft. Seagull123 Φ 15:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... I did not give undue weight to any point of view in writing this page. I described it as a scandal, which is how it has been described by BBC News, The Washington Post, The Independent, LBC and other national and international news outlets which have covered the situation. The draft had a good number of references with in-line citations and as far as I was aware all the information I gave was fully accurate. Addressing WP:POVFORK, I believe I gave suitably-weighed opinions, with both reaction in favour of Cummings and against his actions, in the section about political reaction. I completely reject WP:ATTACK - at no point in the article was there anything which could be considered attack content, so I don't understand why this was given as a reason for deletion. --Andysmith248 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Libel' is the key here. The word 'scandal' in the article title is used as if it is a fact, when it is only a subjective opinion. To use that word like that requires a consensus that the consensus amongst reliable sources characterises the event as such, and not just your say-so, Even then it would probably have to be characterised and attributed as 'opinion'. See WP:YESPOV. There are also assertions, such as "The government confirmed that ... had displayed symptoms of COVID-19 and was self-isolating at home.", which are unsupported. There's an unsupported assertion that "There were reports of the family being seen in a wood near Durham on this day, and elsewhere in the area." There's an assertion that "Reports said that ... was seen in his father's garden.", whereas the cited source only says "was reportedly spotted" - i.e. doesn't say he was spotted. I could go on. Even the evolution of the draft (looking through its short history) suggests it is being edited to maximise the impact of the accusations and implications, rather than to present a neutral representation of the events. (Copied here from Talk:Dominic Cummings#Note, with some additions.) -- DeFacto (talk). 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyBoy826: as you deleted the speedy deletion notice, would you care to join the conversation, and perhaps give the rationale for your disagreement? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: @Andysmith248: The criterion says "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". However, this draft has many sections that serve another purpose. This is also WP:NPOV and does not threaten anyone. CrazyBoy826 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CrazyBoy826: thanks, that makes it clearer, now I can see what you mean. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: there are lots of reliable sources I could find which describe the situation as a scandal: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], but I would still have been happy to change the title if another had been put forward. Some inline citations for the lines you mentioned could easily have been added in as the page was further incubated in the draftspace. Regarding the line about him in his father's garden, to say that reports said he was spotted has the same meaning as "reportedly spotted". I don't understand your last argument - the "evolution of the draft" doesn't suggest anything. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248: scandal is subjective, so the proof level to state it as fact is very high - see WP:REDFLAG. WP:BLP is very strict about the necessity for sound sourcing, so the RSs need to be there from the start to avoid any danger of confusion. No, I don't think "reportedly spotted" means the same as "was spotted" - by any stretch of the imagination. We can discuss that other article on it's talkpage, so its 'watchers' don't miss anything. The "evolution of the draft" is what you see when you compare the diffs in its history page. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I understood what you meant by "evolution of the draft", but I had no intention of maximising "the impact of the accusations and implications" instead of presenting "a neutral representation of the events"; I added more information in each edit, but with no undertones. I continue to believe it was WP:NPOV, and so a neutral representation. Andysmith248 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248: fair enough. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: In regards to WP:REDFLAG, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any of the criteria listed there would lead someone to think that calling the situation a 'scandal' would be an exceptional claim. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@DeFacto (and others), while there may be issues with the content/naming of this article, it is clear there are multiple RS's for this article, and many which describe it as a scandal (although I do understand there may be other WP policy concerns with actually calling it that in the title), as Andysmith248 mentions above. I described why I disagree with speedy deleting this draft here (essentially I don't think it met the WP:G10 criteria). My opinion is that this draft should continue to exist, possibly under another name if that's what's decided is best/per a relevant policy/guideline, and expanded/updated with the many RS's that are appearing about this subject. Then we can see if it is 'worthy' enough to be moved to the mainspace as an actual article. I've attached {{Friendly search suggestions}} to the top of this page to help editors find other RS's too. Seagull123 Φ 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Seagull123: I agree multiple RSs use the word, but is it the consensus amongst RSs? I'm not so sure about that. And, I'd suggest, if it's in an RS article headline, but not supported as such in the RS's article body, then that doesn't reliably support it either. I'm not going to continue to argue for G10 deletion, but there seems to me to be another reasons not to keep this article; WP:POVFORK, why can't this content be added to the main article? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: WP:POVFORK says "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view". I think, as I think you may also think, that the page I created was WP:NPOV, and did not follow a particular point of view. Andysmith248 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248: so let's suppose we manage to iron-out any NPOV disagreements, why would we want it to be in a separate article, and not in the main one? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: it's lead to a huge amount of national and international coverage, sources have said it has been deeply damaging for the government ([8], [9], [10]) and I think it's worth focusing on as it is unique for a government strategist to be the main part of headlines for a succession of days. (His press conference in the 10 Downing Street rose garden, where usually the Prime Minister or foreign leaders are positioned, was also unprecedented for an aide.) Also, there's still information I feel can be added to the page, which if added to the Dominic Cummings page would lead to an overly detailed section under "COVID-19 pandemic". Andysmith248 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248: perhaps we should have waited until the dust has settled, and see if this story stands the test of time, or blows over like a storm in a teacup. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@DeFacto: in reply to your first point: I don't know what the consensus of RS's is on how to name this "scandal"/event/whatever. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by if it's in an RS article headline, but not supported as such in the RS's article body, then that doesn't reliably support it? Why not? The headline is still part of the RS, is it not? Secondly, I'm not 100% sure if WP:POVFORK applies here: POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. It's my impression that WP:POVFORK is when there's an article on an identical topic, but with an alternative "viewpoint" presented? Ie: if an editor disliked the current Cummings article, and wrote another article about him that presented him in a different, non-neutral point of view (I may have got this wrong, though, so forgive me if I have). WP:NPOVFACT describes a POVFORK as an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts (emphasis added). It's my impression that this isn't the case here - this draft appears to be a WP:SPINOFF which is permissible under both criteria #1 and #2 at that link, that can (or should and will) present this topic neutrally, not to evade neutrality. Also note (from WP:SPINOFF): Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork. However, the moved material must leave a WP:NPOV summary section of that material behind. If it doesn't, then the "spinning off" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others and ignore one viewpoint. Seagull123 Φ 17:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: the job of headlines is to grab attention and boost readership, not to give the dull facts up front - and may well be written by someone other than the skilled journalist who wrote the actual article, and without reading it all. Surely you remember having your attention grabbed by a headline, and having to get three-quarters of the way down the article before the "allegedlies" and "claims" and so on basically trash the headlines as a source of the truth.
I thought POVFORK fitted as I couldn't see a good reason to split this off as a separate article from the main one, other than to steer it in another direction. What is the point otherwise when the other article is still relatively small? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@DeFacto: Ok, looking into headlines and stuff, I accept that headlines may - by themselves - not be as reliable as the article content for Wikipedia's purposes. But RS's do describe it as a scandal in the body of the articles - please read the BBC News article, the Independent article, the Al Jazeera article, and the LBC article provided by Andysmith248 in their comments above. Please also see the three French language sources I provided below. All of these explicitly call it a "scandal". I'm sure there are many others which refer to it as a scandal in the body of the article. Regarding POVFORK etc: Cummings' main article is getting longer and longer as time goes on, and the current COVID-19 section on that article is particularly part of this growth. Per WP:SPINOUT: Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles., and further: It also violates the neutral point of view policy to create a new article specifically to contain information that consensus has rejected from the main article However, I don't see anyone saying this shouldn't be in the main article - ie: no one's saying it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, so I don't see how it breaks WP:NPOV. Also, per WP:SPINOFF, two reasons to create an article like this: Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections. Especialy with the first rationale, I fear this section may get comparatively "too" long if it were on the main article, so having this draft, and then a short, neutral, summary on the main article linking here, would be - as far as I can see - both desirable and permissible. Seagull123 Φ 19:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: the title aside, which I'm still troubled by, the main article content is quite comprehensive now, and I don't see anything here that would improve it, and plenty that would be rejected. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some more refs that mention the "scandal" that may help with the draft (don't think Andysmith248 mentioned these ones) The Independent - Coronavirus tracked: Charts show how Dominic Cummings scandal changed the political landscape, The Spectator - The real Dominic Cummings scandal, BBC Radio Ulster - Has the Dominic Cummings scandal undermined the government's public health strategy?, Le Monde - Royaume-Uni : malgré le scandale, Boris Johnson refuse de lâcher son conseiller Dominic Cummings, Euronews - Affaire Cummings, le scandale qui embarrasse Downing Street, LCI - Malgré le scandale, Boris Johnson soutient son conseiller Dominic Cummings, accusé d'avoir enfreint le confinement (also adding some non-EN-GB sources to show that this has received international attention). Seagull123 Φ 16:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: I'd suggest that we need to be careful if using sources published before Cummings held his press conference, because they could be based on some of the, now discredited, rumours and opinions that were in widespread circulation at that time. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I agree that we should be careful with this article, as it does deal with WP:BLP matters. But can I ask what you mean by we need to be careful if using sources published before Cummings held his press conference, because they could be based on some ... now discredited, rumours and opinions? It's my understanding that Wikipedia policy/guidelines say that we should simply state what is verifiable based on what reliable sources say about a topic, and that if RS's from different dates contradict each other, state that? Ie: before the press conference, X, Y, and Z said this; but after the press conference X, Y, and Z then said this? And may I ask what "rumours" you're referring to? Seagull123 Φ 17:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: well, I think we should aim for verifiable and not now known to be false or even seriously contested. That is, not air out-dated and now discredited material. As for rumours, at one point some of the media were reporting along the lines that police turned up at the Cummings house to explain the lockdown rules after getting a tip-off that he had broken them. That is now known to be untrue in all respects. Also there are variations on the idea that he went back north after returning to work. I suspect that if we go back the the 'primary' "reliable" news reports about these events it might have been couched in 'allegedlies" and the like, but after it has cascaded across the media competition, it has lost many of these refinements, and the last "reliable" source in the pecking order states the worst case as absolute fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: again, what do you actually mean by not now known to be false or even seriously contested ... out-dated and now discredited material? What specifically are you referring to, and can you back up what you're saying with reliable sources? As for the police speaking to Cummings, according to reliable sources, and the police themselves, that is not a rumour, and is fact.[1][2] Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but on Wikipedia, we're meant to state what the reliable sources say, not put in our own synthesis of sources, so I'm confused about your scare quotes around reliable. Per WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, [Editors should] not mak[e] claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth ... they are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia. Seagull123 Φ 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: what I mean is that if we try to incorporate out-dated and discredited assertions, and even allegations, such as those about the nature of the police involvement in the days following DC's arrival in Durham, and assertions of wrongdoing, we need to be very careful how we attribute them and word them to avoid the potential of misleading readers. And, obviously, we have to balance them with the facts about the denials, the police u-turn and investigation findings. There is also the matter of the alleged new sighting after he had recovered and returned to work, and how we deal with that and the press reports that there is a DC lookalike living, or at least working, in Barnard. The challenge is to present a verifiable and balanced account of the facts, and not be complacent with balance being sacrificed so long as we have (reputedly) reliable sources supporting the assertions of fact and interpretations that we now know to be untrue or false, or at least challenged and subject to significant doubt and reinterpretation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft title is too general. It needs to describe the specific scandal - something like "Dominic Cummings - breach of UK Covid-19 lockdown rules controversy". Note, the police have confirmed that there was a "breach" so there shouldn't be any problem using that word.Felixkrater (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Felixkrater: what makes you think the police have 'confirmed that there was a "breach"'? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Durham Police have said that Cummings didn't break Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, but "there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention".[3][4][5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seagull123 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: in other words, they have not confirmed a breach. The headlines exemplify what I was saying above too, because despite what they say, the underlying articles, in fact, say that the police have confirmed that no offence had been committed when Cummings travelled from London to Durham and that a minor breach might have occurred at Barnard Castle. But but as there was no apparent breach of social distancing rules, and no-one was placed in danger, no further action would be taken. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: please see my above reply regarding headlines vs article body content. Yes, I agree with you there, the police say that "there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention", although no breach of those specific regulations I stated above. However, on Wikipedia, we are to state what the reliable sources say - many of which discuss how there "might" have been a breach of regulations, which is what the police also say. The reference I made above to WP:!TRUTHFINDERS is important here I believe, because whatever actually happened regarding Cummings and his travels can only be included in Wikipedia if reliable sources state it. We can't just say, although the RS's say this, what actually happened is this based on how we interpret the police press statement. What I believe we can say in this case would be W, X, and Y say this; but Z says this. Seagull123 Φ 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seagull123: I think I've addressed most of this previously, but I'll restate that I think the challenge is to present a verifiable and balanced account of the facts, and not be complacent with balance being sacrificed so long as we have (reputedly) reliable sources supporting the assertions of fact and interpretations that we now know to be untrue or false, or at least challenged and subject to significant doubt and reinterpretation. Of course everything we write must be fully supported by RSs, and that doesn't mean that we should tolerate headlinese and journalese in the article, beacause that would contravene Wiki guidelines and policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weaver, Matthew (22 May 2020). "Pressure on Dominic Cummings to quit over lockdown breach". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 May 2020. Police spoke to Dominic Cummings about breaching the government's lockdown rules ... Durham Constabulary said: "On Tuesday, March 31, our officers were made aware of reports that an individual had travelled from London to Durham and was present at an address in the city. Officers made contact with the owners of that address
  2. ^ Mackie, Rachel (24 May 2020). "Police have paid a visit to Dominic Cummings' London address after recent allegations of breaking lockdown". The Scotsman. Retrieved 28 May 2020. Two police officers have been seen knocking on the door at Dominic Cummings' London address after the latest allegations of his lockdown violation.
  3. ^ Evans, Martin (28 May 2020). "Exclusive: Dominic Cummings row re-erupts as police deliver verdict on lockdown 'breach'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 28 May 2020. Dominic Cummings might have broken lockdown rules when he made a 50-mile journey to Barnard Castle, an investigation by Durham Police has concluded.
  4. ^ Dodd, Vikram (28 May 2020). "Dominic Cummings potentially broke lockdown rules, say Durham police". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 May 2020. Dominic Cummings' family trip to Barnard Castle potentially broke lockdown rules and would have led to police telling him to turn around had he been stopped, Durham police have concluded. ... [The trip] has been assessed by police as a potential minor breach of health protection regulations
  5. ^ "Durham Constabulary press statement". Durham Constabulary. 28 May 2020. Retrieved 28 May 2020 – via Scribd. Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father's premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to "stay at home".) ... there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention

Move this to mainspace

There's no doubt given the volume of coverage that this deserves a standalone article. Move it to mainspace, link from the Cummings and UK COVID articles and more eyes will resolve any problems more effectively than holding it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, for this reason on and this reason only. IF you remove the timeline section, which seems rather copyvio/rather OR from the media (a lot has been debunked) you have 2 paragraphs. Last time I looked that doesn't denote an article and is nothing more than a stub and I think would fail content fork as it can be adequately hosted on Cummings' article. I'm sorry but your claim more eyes will get on it and resolve any issues in the main space, is really IMO trying to bypass all the points Defacto has made without reason. Sorry. Games of the world (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Games of the world: can I ask why you think the timeline section is copyvio/OR? And as for "a lot has been debunked" - where? I'm looking at the RS's I've recently added to the draft (many published in the past few days), and I can't see that anything has been "debunked" - genuinely interested if I'm missing anything? Seagull123 Φ 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks rather like what the Guardian and BBC have published. Also that section is over detailed. 30 March 2020 irrelevant, he hadn't told anyone where he was. 31 March 2020 Not particularly relevant. 1 April 2020 not relevant as it is without qualification at the moment and to do with security not COVID, but that particular point doesn't mean it shouldn't be included again might be better in prose as it. 5 April 2020, relevance to the article? 6 April 2020 that's blatant OR. What Cummings said was that he is unsure of the date and to say it was that day is OR and can be covered in reaction prose. For example around 6 April BJ was aware that Cummings was in Durham, at a press con on this date he said x. 12 April 2020 felt sick is irrelevant. 14 April 2020, don't see the relevance. 19 April on wards all needs to be deleted from the timeline as there are better ways to denote that information. Games of the world (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Games of the world: I have deleted parts of the timeline section and taken on board some of what you have said by moving some information to new sections, but left the detail regarding his presence in Barnard Castle - this part of his journey should be emphasised as it is the one part where he may have broken lockdown rules. I didn't see the sentence leading from 6 April as OR, as it was found in a reliable source - BBC News reports he spoke to Boris Johnson at some point leading up to that date. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's no shortage of coverage which could be included - it's dominated the press for almost a week now. All the content from the main Cummings article can be incorporated too i.e. Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article. There's a lot of information out there which isn't really specific to Cummings though e.g. Johnson's and the Cabinet's responses which doesn't belong in the Cummings article. Off the top of my head, there's nothing about the bishops, barely anything about opinion polls or MPs opinions. Also, if early reports have been proven wrong, then an encyclopedic article of the scandal should make this clear, but it shouldn't omit the information entirely. Draft space is not for finessing articles - it's for incubating and once notability is established, then there's no reason not to move to mainspace. If DeFacto disagrees, WP:AFD is the place to discuss, not here. SmartSE (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Games of the world that this is not an article yet. There would not be enough left is you removed everything that fails WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:BLP or WP:OR. Also, as the paragraphs about this in the Dominic Cummings main article are much better than this, I don't see what could be kept by copying it to there. Also, I think that some of the early content of this draft was copied more-or-less directly from elsewhere, perhaps from another Wiki article, which also needs addressing - perhaps Andysmith248 could clarify if that is the case. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a few early parts of the draft were copied over from the Dominic Cummings page, which I realise now I should have made clearer. These were some of the sentences in both the timeline section and rection section. I think that some of these sentences were on an earlier version of the Cummings page. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248: in that case, I think you need to read, and comply with, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary should have made the copying clear - all a mistake on my part. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248: fair enough, but WP:RIA in that guideline explains what you can do to fix it in that case. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: everything that fails WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:BLP or WP:OR Examples please. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: some examples. A lot of Cummings's statement is given in the article in Wikipedia's voice. This contravenes WP:NPOV as it should all be explicitly attributed to him (see how it's now done in the Dominic Cummings article). In a couple of places the article mentions police involvement in Durham, but there is no mention of the fact that the police 'revised' their account (twice I think) of what happened when, and so there is no clarity as to which of their versions is being discussed. This also contravenes WP:NPOV and probably WP:BLP. The first paragraph of § Political reaction is totally unsourced - a WP:VER violation, especially in a BLP. Other WP:NPOV problems are that there is no mention of the threats of violence that Cummings mentioned in his statement, and in a situation like this, where there are two materially different eras to the situation, that before, and that after Cummings's statement, it is import too to make it clear which era each of the reactions, investigations, comments, opinions, etc. belong to, so that readers can interpret them accordingly. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something is missing from the article

The article title suggests there is a 'scandal' here somewhere, but this is not supported or discussed anywhere in the article. 'Scandal' implies something seriously immoral or illegal had taken place, but there is no discussion of anything like this in the article. Sure some of the media reports had the word 'scandal' in their headlines or leads, but we need something a bit more convincing than that, I think, to support the use of that word in the article title. Or perhaps we need to rename the article to better reflect the article content? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about a scandal which means that the events were immoral or illegal. Take a read of the definitions used at wikt:scandal. Numerous reliable sources have called it a scandal and continue to do so e.g. [11]. SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, Wiktionary is not a reliable source, it can be edited by anyone. Take a look at Lexico, it defines it as "[a]n action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." And as I said, the word is used in sources, but never substantiated. We need to put some meat on the bone here, if we are to justify the use of the word. Currently it seems we accept editorialised headlines as statements of fact. We need secondary sources which discuss the use of that word, rather tham the sources we currently have, which are primary source use of that word. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was an RS - just pointing you there. Using your definition, the key words are regarded and public outrage i.e. it does not mean that anything illegal or immoral occurred, only that the public considered it to be and were outraged by it. There can be no question that this was a scandal by that definition. What kind of substantiation are you looking for? And why do you think it is "editorialised"? SmartSE (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, we need, at least, evidence that the public were outraged by what Cummings did, and not that just some who had read the inaccurate and misleading accounts and personal attacks from some news outlets were outraged by what they had read in them. And 'editorialising' is what news outlets do for a living. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.newsmediauk.org/news/Page-4/news-media-reflect-the-publics-outrage-about-dominic-cummings for a good summary which includes e.g. from the Mail (yes it's deprecated, but important to show this isn't from a left-leaning source) Our poll today shows how spectacularly wrong they are. In the court of public opinion, Mr Cummings is very definitely guilty as charged. Eighty per cent of people believe he broke lockdown rules. Almost as many disbelieve his excuses. Sixty-six per cent want him to resign similarly from YouGov A YouGov poll conducted after his press conference on Monday showed six in ten (59 per cent) think he should now resign, and even more (71 per cent) think he broke the rules. inaccurate and misleading accounts and personal attacks from some news outlets were outraged is your unsubstantiated opinion and does not belong here. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, the inaccuracies are all supported by reliable sources, but they came after the 'public' had made their mind up. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I remember you voicing your dissatisfaction with 'scandal' a few months ago and understand your point of view that it has a fair amount of weight attached to it. However, it is a word that many reliable sources have chosen to use. If you think there is a different term, maybe something tamer and in as much common usage (in enough reliable sources), then please do put it forward as a new title. The scandal definition you provided in my view fits with what has happened here. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248, news outlets need 'scandals' to sell their wares, so try to create as many as they can, in name at least, and often use outrageous headlines to attract readership. Scratch beneath the surface though, and the underlying facts (as opposed to the journalese used in the intro to the story) tell a less 'scandalous' story, and one that most 'normal' citizens will probably identify with. This was a storm in a teacup, whipped up by the media. Cummings survived, so will, no doubt, be 'involved' in another 'scandal' soon. You asked for an alternative title; how about "March 2020 Attack on Cummings"? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, Looking at the article, that title is fundamentally different. The article right now is about Cumming's actions and the results from that action; that title would transform the article into something it isn't, namely an article about the press attacking Cummings, not what he actually did. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even media thought of as on the right like The Telegraph, [12], has reported on the episode damaging the government and its popularity. The idea that "most 'normal' citizens will probably identify with" Cummings' story is an opinion. We use what reliable media reports irrespective of how "outrageous" it sounds and how they try to attract readership. You are possibly on the right yourself and have suggested a title that could very well contravene WP:NPOV. See WP:POVNAMING which says that in some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias, but that name should be used if it widely employed and recognisable. Going back to developments a few months ago, sorry for bringing this up, but I'd like to know if you have anything to say about deleting the early draft version of the page incorrectly claiming it was attack content. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248, I've never said this is a left-wing-media vs. right-wing-media thing. I think it's a media with a vendetta against Cummings thing. Elements of the media are smart enough, ruthless enough, morally bankrupt enough and powerful enough to influence public opinion with misleading and, frankly, untruthful articles. They know that once they've sown the seed of a scandal, the public will swallow it and do their dirty work for them. Whether it is a 'scandal', or not, is opinion, not fact, and there are sources that say it's an attack on, or the hounding of, Cummings, so that opinion is clearly not incontrovertible fact, yet it is presented here as such, and the current biased title presents that one-sided-POV as fact.
As for my historic edits to the page, I refer you to my edit summaries and to any talkpage contributions I may have made at the time. If any of those are unclear, feel free to start a discussion on the edit in question, with appropriate diffs. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are serious personal links between senior figures at The Telegraph and the senior figures of the Conservative Party, and so I find it hard to believe they'd have a vendetta against Cummings, but either way, what it reports should be taken seriously, and its words held in as high a regard as any other quality press newspaper. It has, including in this reference, [13], used the term 'scandal', where it quoted a survey that seems to give evidence for a detrimental effect on the public; "the proportion of people who believed the nation would be united after the pandemic halved in three months". This is the diff in which you blanked an early copy of the page as attack content. At the time I didn't think it satisfied the criterion for an attack page of serving "no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject". This is probably worth forgetting though, as the article title is the main issue now.
Although 'scandal' may give an appearance of bias, its use in reliable sources are what make me believe it should stay, even though it is a loaded word. However, I should say that "Dominic Cummings affair" may well be a page name contender. I'm still not convinced by "March 2020 Attack on Cummings". Andysmith248 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248. 1) The Telegraph is reporting the opinion of an opposition party leader, who - surprise, surprise - will obviously look for ways to use the survey data to attack the government. It would be more notable if he didn't.
2) That's not a diff, it doesn't show my edit. This is the diff, and you can see that I didn't blank the page, all I did was add the template, and my reason is in the edit summary.
3) Whatever we call the page, we need to balance the reports from the media that created the situation with the reports that emerged some time later showing that much of what was reported was misleading and (deliberately?) false. We also need to start trying to achieve compliance with WP:NPOV by differentiating attitudes before the truth of the situation emerged and after, including coverage characterising the creation of the story as an attack on Cummings or characterising it as another excuse to attack Cummings. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that's the actual diff. You requested that the page be speedily deleted with only the edit summary of "unsourced and misrepresented attack content", but I didn't think after reading WP:ATTACK that what was characterised as an attack page fitted with the page.
The first link I gave to a Telegraph article shows that researchers found a big decrease in public confidence in the government, starting on the day that news of his Durham trip broke. I think this gives greater reason for us to say there was enough "public outrage", as the definition of scandal goes, for that word to continue in the title. It is a good idea to make changes to the article to show the views and attitudes as fairly as we can. Andysmith248 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248, I thought it fitted the biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced bit exactly. But that's history now, and I'm not sure why you raised it here.
The interpretation of the data reported was from an opposition party leader though. We need to read sources carefully, and understand whose opinions are being reported, and realise that there might be other opinions out there too. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many opinions out there, and I want to continue improving the page to voice all the important ones. It wasn't "entirely negative in tone"; this was the version before the attack page accusation, where there were multiple lines written on Cummings' side of the story, and reaction in support of Cummings, including Boris Johnson's supportive comments. I agree it doesn't matter now, but all I want to know is if you have anything to refute my argument that it didn't fit the criterion of an attack page. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248, as I said in my previous post, it did fit one of the criterion, the one I quoted: biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly. It was entirely negative in tone, and it was poorly sourced. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To have been an attack page it needed to be both entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. I believe that what I had written was fair. Going back to the reasons I gave for its positive tone, and seeing the version of the page I gave a link to should give further clarification. I covered Cummings' perspective and his supporters' opinions in the article meaning by definiton it wasn't entirely negative in tone! Andysmith248 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Perhaps you want to respond to my reasons and/or retract the attack page accusation now? Andysmith248 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248, my view is still that the article I templated in May was poorly sourced and entirely negative in tone, and thus fitted the definition of an attack page. And by 'tone' I mean the general character of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not going to convince you, so never mind. In terms of the page name, I still think that 'scandal' should be used, ideally, but have recently taken a fancy to 'affair' being in the title, which I'd like to hear your views on. Andysmith248 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate title

A lot of the previous discussion seems to be about the use of the word "scandal". Are there better forms of words? As a start, I suggest Dominic Cummings lockdown trip controversy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: "Scandal" is used quite a lot among references and at the moment is my preferred choice. A different name I mentioned in the discussion was "Dominic Cummings affair" which is currently in the lead and has also appeared in sources. Or perhaps we could be more specific and use "Dominic Cummings COVID-19 pandemic scandal". Andysmith248 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, I like that name, it's definitely more neutral. 'Scandal' tends to imply wrongdoing or reason to be disgraced, condemned, or the subject of public outrage, where no convincing evidence in support of any such thing has yet come to light in this case - against Cummings at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: SmartSE gave some decent evidence of public outrage against Cummings, and so did I, when quoting Telegraph coverage of studies appearing to show a disgruntled public. I'm not saying your names couldn't be good ideas though! Andysmith248 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andysmith248, no, the outrage was in response to the portrayal of Cummings by some of the media, which we now know was a long way from being accurate. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto - The outrage was clearly against Cummings and the politicians who endorsed him, rather than a response to his portrayal in the media - perhaps we just see different media. But I'm not keen on "scandal", as clearly two sides of the story were put forward and need to be reported. It was not neutrally a "scandal". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, a common term, online at least, is "Cummings saga". It probably needs a bit more precision though, something like "Cummings lockdown trip saga", perhaps. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto - "Cummings saga" is bland and meaningless. But I agree that the words "lockdown trip" (or similar) should be included, and are preferable to "COVID-19 scandal". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look on ProQuest (accessible via the WMF library) to try and gauge what phrase is most widely used by reliable sources. Limiting the search from May 2020 onwards, for "cummings saga" there were 209 hits, "cummings scandal" = 255, "cummings affair" = 512 and "cummings controversy" = 123. Dominic Cummings affair therefore seems like the most WP:COMMONNAME and fits the other criteria. I'd argue against including "lockdown" etc. in the title because there doesn't appear to be any other "affair" involving Cummings and so it is better to keep the title succinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a suitable approach. The term may have been used by news media, but only within the overarching context of the current pandemic and lockdown - which is a time-specific context that should not provide a basis for an encyclopedia article title. The word "affair" also generally has connotations of an extramarital relationship. "Dominic Cummings affair" would be even less clear than the current article title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 updates

Reminder that we need to add the updates as of 26/05/21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.88 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

Says "all but non-essential travel was forbidden during the lockdown" That's backwards, surely. But I have just got in from working a grinder for 4 hours and my brain is not up to totally rational thought. Someone with a clear head please review. Kcor53 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Dominic_Cummings_scandal"