Anameofmyveryown (talk | contribs) →Merge proposal: Legality of the act |
Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 303: | Line 303: | ||
:::::::::::I think you're going off topic here. Yes I did link them and I think putting a certain bit of one's anatomy in a dead pig's mouth are quite fitting for them two words. Whether or not he received sexual pleasure is another subject which I'm not willing to discuss here as I don't think it is appropriate. Some porn stars are straight but are gay-for-pay, I'd still consider what they do as a homosexual acts even though they aren't receiving sexual satisfaction from it. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 12:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::::::I think you're going off topic here. Yes I did link them and I think putting a certain bit of one's anatomy in a dead pig's mouth are quite fitting for them two words. Whether or not he received sexual pleasure is another subject which I'm not willing to discuss here as I don't think it is appropriate. Some porn stars are straight but are gay-for-pay, I'd still consider what they do as a homosexual acts even though they aren't receiving sexual satisfaction from it. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 12:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::For the avoidance of doubt, Cameron is not guilty of necrophilia nor bestiality. Necrophilia only applies with dead humans. Bestiality only applies to live animals. If the act occurred, it was not criminal. Regards, [[User:Anameofmyveryown|Anameofmyveryown]] ([[User talk:Anameofmyveryown|talk]]) 12:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::::::::::For the avoidance of doubt, Cameron is not guilty of necrophilia nor bestiality. Necrophilia only applies with dead humans. Bestiality only applies to live animals. If the act occurred, it was not criminal. Regards, [[User:Anameofmyveryown|Anameofmyveryown]] ([[User talk:Anameofmyveryown|talk]]) 12:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::: There was once a substantial and referenced section explaining that legal situation; it was of course deleted by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piggate&diff=682293840&oldid=682293106 RichardOSmith] as "commentary" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piggate&diff=682301885&oldid=682297498 Reaganonomics] as "risible". If they can't delete this article honestly through AfD, they will strip it section by section until only trivia remains.[[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Different elements for Piggate and CMD articles== |
==Different elements for Piggate and CMD articles== |
Revision as of 12:43, 2 October 2015
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legality
User:RichardOSmith has reverted text concerning the legality of the act and its photograph. To prevent the links being lost the text is given below. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Later revised to include sources from other editors. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Legality
|
---|
Legality of the act Sexual activity with an animal is covered in UK law by Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.[1][2] Allegations that David Cameron had oral sex with a dead pig would not be an offence under law because it specifies that the animal involved must be alive.[2] UK law on necrophilia also refers to 'a dead person', thus not a pig or other animal.[1] The offence of outraging public decency is also inapplicable, as having taken place at a private dining club.[1] Legality of the photograph Photography of sexual activity with an animal is covered in UK law by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.[2] One opinion has been given that, 'whilst the act itself is legal, possessing a photograph of it could be a criminal offence'.[1] For such images to be an offence it must be both extreme and pornographic.[2] The alleged photograph of David Cameron having oral sex with a dead pig would meet the extreme criterion because it includes "a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)".[2] It may not meet the pornographic criterion because for an image to be pornographic, it must "reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" and an image taken as part of an initiation ritual may not be so assumed.[2] References
|
LBJ anecdote
The section about Lyndon B. Johnson needs a rewrite. Hunter S. Thompson describes it as part of LBJ mythology and ascribes it to an early campaign. LBJ first ran for office in 1937 and dropped out of the U.S. presidential campaign in April, 1968. So the 1968 date has got to be wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- That could be my mistake. I thought The Great Shark Hunt described the 1968 campaign? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Turns out it's actually in reference to an earlier LBJ campaign, in Texas, although reported by HST during his coverage of the '68 campaign. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with title change from 'Piggate' to 'Ashcroft Allegations'
I would argue this is currently incorrect as the social media circus has very much been focused on specific allegations under this name, rather than general allegations under this new name. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Moved back. There was no consensus for such a move and there needs to be - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed; Ashcroft Allegations is OR. Btljs (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also agreed - move was overly WP:BOLD given the current AfD discussion and WP:AFDEQ. Let's seek consensus first. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is more than just WP:BOLD. The user has been continuously removing well-sourced information from the article and they've attempted to vote more than once in the AfD. Fojr (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer to WP:AGF. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that User:Reaganomics88 attempted to vote twice at AfD here and then here suggests a lack of good faith. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can assure you that was intended as a comment rather than a vote; your failure to WP:AGF is disappointing.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- So is your WP:NOTHERE removal of sourced content. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are seriously accusing me of not being here to build an encyclopaedia because I have removed sourced but irrelevant content? Classy. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- So is your WP:NOTHERE removal of sourced content. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can assure you that was intended as a comment rather than a vote; your failure to WP:AGF is disappointing.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that User:Reaganomics88 attempted to vote twice at AfD here and then here suggests a lack of good faith. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer to WP:AGF. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is more than just WP:BOLD. The user has been continuously removing well-sourced information from the article and they've attempted to vote more than once in the AfD. Fojr (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also agreed - move was overly WP:BOLD given the current AfD discussion and WP:AFDEQ. Let's seek consensus first. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed; Ashcroft Allegations is OR. Btljs (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support rename - to 'Michael Ashcroft's allegations about David Cameron' Jonpatterns (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- This hasn't been proposed; do you propose it? If so, can I opine that this is an article about the media storm accompanying ONE of the allegations in a book that is currently being serialised, NOT about the book or all the allegations which may come to light. Btljs (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Source Farm
I think it's clear that the AfD will not succed, so attention turns to improving the article. I've come up with a possible format below and will be adding sources as time become available. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like a very good framework on which to hang the meat of the article (no pun intended). The lede needs to make clear that this concerns one allegation and the subsequent reaction rather than the entirety of the allegations in the book. Btljs (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
PIGGATE Source Farm
|
---|
|
"Mistaken identity"
Two thirds of the way through the book extract about the pig story, Ashcroft and Oakeshott write "The owner [of the photograph], however, has failed to respond to our approaches. Perhaps it is a case of mistaken identity. Yet it is an elaborate story for an otherwise credible figure to invent."
User:Reaganomics88 initially used five words from this to end the lede section with a wildly misleading statement about "Ashcroft subsequently admitting that the allegation have resulted from "a case of mistaken identity"." - even if that was meant to say "may have resulted", it wasn't said "subsequently", it was in the book. I cut it back to "In their book, Ashcroft and Oakeshott conclude that "Perhaps it is a case of mistaken identity. Yet it is an elaborate story for an otherwise credible figure to invent."" but even then, it's not really a conclusion, it's just a gently back-covering shrug about not being able to source the photograph. Saying as much, I cut it, but Reaganomics88 has now restored it, finding my edit "bizarre" and misinformative.
I've now toned it down from a "conclusion" to a "comment", since the line appears midway through the extract and is not presented as Ashcroft and Oakeshott's conclusion. Does this belong in the article and/or the lede at all? --McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:Reaganomics88 has been systematically doing disruptive edits to the article, including removing clearly sourced statements (with multiple references). The claims they added are not what the Daily Mail article states so the whole paragraph ouhgt to be reworded from what they initially wrote down. Fojr (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- They added a string of five references to the end of the sentence, but so far as I could see it was a direct quote from the book extract rather than Ashcroft (alone) standing up in response to the press coverage and announcing that it had been a case of mistaken identity, which does not appear to have happened. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me User:Reaganomics88 is continuing to disrupt the article with edits in violation of WP:NPOV. AusLondonder (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Disrupt? Oh please, enlighten me --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Almost everything you've done here has been disruptive. Multiple !voting at the AfD, repeatedly blanking of multiple, sourced sections. Those interested should merely take a look at your contribs history. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- A more involved editor could consider an ANI report. AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, resorting to threats now are we? Lovely. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please think a minute before each edit you make. Although no doubt sincere, you have been enthusiastic to the point of near-disruption. Please slow down and consider your work more carefully. Discuss first, that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, resorting to threats now are we? Lovely. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Disrupt? Oh please, enlighten me --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
"No evidence has been produced"
User:Reaganomics88 has added "No evidence has been produced to prove that the allegations are true" back to the lede a few times attached to no particular source. Is it a fair summary of the article, a redundancy when the lede already says "photo rumoured to exist, photo not produced", or an unsourceable negative? I've considered rewording it to be more WP:PRECISELANG ("At the time of the extract's publication..."), because the article and its mirrors shouldn't become instantly inaccurate if evidence did surface in the future, but it seems clunky when spelled out. --McGeddon (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hate ledes: they invite conclusions which life rarely provide. OK, try "At the time of the extract's publication, the photograph and eyewitness were not produced, leading to doubts as to their existence and the truth of the allegations." Everything in that sentence can be sourced, whereas "No evidence has been produced to prove that the allegations are true" is an unsourcable negative. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, take out "leading to doubts..." as this is completely subjective (whether sourced or not) - nobody who has no direct evidence can comment on the truth of an allegation and their feelings are irrelevant. I agree that "no evidence has been produced" is wrong - verbal evidence is evidence. As a stop gap, I've changed it to "no further evidence", although, let's face it, this page is going to go through a lot of contortions before it settles down. Btljs (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and added "at the time of the extract's publication" for the sake of WP:PRECISELANG. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- "At the time of the extract's publication, no further evidence had been produced"-This (particularly the usage of the pluperfect: "had been produced") suggests that since the extract has been published more evidence has emerged that confirms the claim, this is not the case. In addition, "no further evidence" implies (if not outright states) that evidence already exists, it doesn't. A claim that somebody owns a photo of the event is not evidence, it is an allegation. The key points of the lede should be A) What the allegation is. B) Who it has been made by and how. C) That it is unsubstantiated (because the implications would be very different if it was).
- I've gone ahead and added "at the time of the extract's publication" for the sake of WP:PRECISELANG. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, take out "leading to doubts..." as this is completely subjective (whether sourced or not) - nobody who has no direct evidence can comment on the truth of an allegation and their feelings are irrelevant. I agree that "no evidence has been produced" is wrong - verbal evidence is evidence. As a stop gap, I've changed it to "no further evidence", although, let's face it, this page is going to go through a lot of contortions before it settles down. Btljs (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be more accurate to say "Since the extract's publication, no evidence has been produced to confirm the allegations." If this statement really needs a source I would be more than happy to find one. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, I have to disagree with you: a person claiming to have seen a photograph is oral evidence as defined in law (as long as they were prepared to repeat it under oath). This is not hearsay, eg. someone had been told by someone else; it is someone who claims to have been a witness to a photograph of an event. So "no further evidence" is the correct formation. Btljs (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- This person has not said that they would do that though. What about "no evidence apart from the original statement from the unnamed MP has been produced to confirm the allegations"? (or similar) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is hearsay, the allegation was made by Ashcroft and Oakstrott in their book. They claim that an MP has told them that he has seen a photograph of the alleged incident owned by someone else, if this MP were to step foreword and confirm the allegation then there would be oral evidence to support. However, the alleged MP has not stepped forward, for all we know this MP could not exist at all. Therefore no evidence has been produced to support Ashcroft's allegation and 'Since the extract's publication, no evidence has been produced to confirm the allegations' would be the better phrasing.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- By taking the view that there is evidence we are assuming that Ashcroft and Oakstrott's claim that an MP has told them he/she has seen the photograph is true, there is no evidence to support this assertion. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is hearsay, the allegation was made by Ashcroft and Oakstrott in their book. They claim that an MP has told them that he has seen a photograph of the alleged incident owned by someone else, if this MP were to step foreword and confirm the allegation then there would be oral evidence to support. However, the alleged MP has not stepped forward, for all we know this MP could not exist at all. Therefore no evidence has been produced to support Ashcroft's allegation and 'Since the extract's publication, no evidence has been produced to confirm the allegations' would be the better phrasing.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- This person has not said that they would do that though. What about "no evidence apart from the original statement from the unnamed MP has been produced to confirm the allegations"? (or similar) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, I have to disagree with you: a person claiming to have seen a photograph is oral evidence as defined in law (as long as they were prepared to repeat it under oath). This is not hearsay, eg. someone had been told by someone else; it is someone who claims to have been a witness to a photograph of an event. So "no further evidence" is the correct formation. Btljs (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be more accurate to say "Since the extract's publication, no evidence has been produced to confirm the allegations." If this statement really needs a source I would be more than happy to find one. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the wrong way of looking at this. If a newspaper refuses to reveal their sources, you don't say that "no evidence" is provided. It is not hearsay just because the original witness to the photograph doesn't wish to be identified. At some point in the future, if no corroborating evidence ever came to light you might come to the conclusion that the veracity of the original statement is dubious, but we are a long way from that. As it stands there is a piece of oral evidence reported by a book which may or may not be accurate. There is no reason to doubt that such a person exists based on the previous work of the journalist who wrote it - why would she risk her credibility by inventing a witness and fabricating what they said? Btljs (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- What you are presenting there is actually logical fallacy.
- Ashcroft's claim is not that Cameron has committed the act, it is that an MP has told him that they have seen a photo of the act and that it has taken place.
- The conclusion that you want to reach is: 'there is evidence'.
- You therefore construct the following statement: 'There is evidence because the MP has provided oral evidence. '
- 'the MP has provided oral evidence' is the premise that justifies your conclusion. How can their not be evidence if the MP has provided oral evidence?
- However in order to prove that 'there is evidence' you need to prove 'the MP has provided oral evidence'.
- You therefore list reasons why Ashcroft's claim that an MP told him about the photograph may be true:
- Because that the MP does exists would be believed if it was a newspaper that had made the allegations.
- Because evidence may be produced that proves the MP did see a picture of the event.
- Because it would damage the journalist's reputation to invent a source.
- The problem with these statements is that they only prove why the allegation may be true, none of these prove that it is true. You yourself admit it: "reported by a book which may or may not be accurate".
- You therefore end up with this:
- 'There is evidence because the MP has provided oral evidence. '
- 'The MP has provided oral evidence because the MP may have provided oral evidence'
- 'The MP may have provided oral evidence because points C, D and E.'
- I.e. A=True because B=True because B may be true because C=True D=True E=True.
- See? It doesn't make any sense, how can B be true because B may be true? Therefore how can A be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaganomics88 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is an interesting point, but may be based on a misunderstanding of the argument I was trying to put forward, which I may not have phrased unambiguously. There are, as you say, two statements which we are looking at the truth of:
- 1. Somebody made a statement concerning a photo they had seen;
- 2. Somebody committed an act involving a pig;
- If you go right back, my original assertion was that verbal evidence is evidence and therefore the statement "No evidence has been produced to prove that the allegations are true" is incorrect. Some evidence has been produced: viz. a statement by a source quoted in the book. It doesn't matter whether argument 2, above, is correct: argument 1 is the contention here. If you look at third party sources discussing these allegations, I have yet to find any which don't actually believe that the MP exists and did say those things, even ones that are of the opinion that is is idle gossip and should never have been included in the book (such as this). To dismiss this as "no evidence" you have to assume that the writers completely fabricated the MP and their account, and why would they? It is reasonable to assume that somebody who has climbed to the top of their organisation is going to have caused some resentment among others and, given a promise of anonymity, reasonable that they would happily tell tales, either true or made up to show that person in a bad light. This is supported by all the third party sources out there that I've seen.
- In summary, there is evidence, it is oral, may be extremely flimsy and unproven, even unprovable, but is evidence, nevertheless. Therefore, I argued that the statement in the lede should read "No further evidence..." or "No corroborating evidence..." or you could even go as far as "No independently verified evidence...". As there have only been a few days for anybody to dig for evidence, I consider that it is reasonable to allow more time to elapse before we make judgements about the quality of the evidence that we have. Btljs (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Chapter 2 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 tells you that hearsay is ‘a statement not made in oral proceedings’. This means it is a statement that has not been given in court. It is effectively second hand evidence, for example something:
- you have overheard
- someone has told you, or
- someone has written.
- In hearsay you are asking the court to believe:
- you are telling the truth, and
- the person who told you or whom you overheard was also telling the truth.
- It is the second assumption which means that hearsay is generally not admissible in court."
- In terms of would this evidence stand up in court, I think we have an answer.
- However, you do make a fair point. I agree that "no corroborating evidence" would be the best wording to use.
- There is a remaining problem: "at the time of the extract's publication, no further evidence had been produced to support the allegation.", this construct and the use of the pluperfect suggests that since the extract's publication evidence has emerged that confirms the allegation. For example, you might say "When the suspect was arrested, the murder weapon had not been found." This suggests that the murder weapon has since been found and the subject is guilty.
- "Since the extract's publication, no corroborating evidence has been produced to produced to prove that the allegation is true" is completely unambiguous and accurate phrasing. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- If there are no objections I will assume that a consensus has been reached. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- "No corroborating evidence" sounds a good way to word it.
- We should avoid flatly saying "the murder weapon was never found" because if the murder weapon is found at a later date, that sentence of the article immediately becomes incorrect. These sentences can be written so as not to suggest a reveal later in the article. WP:PRECISELANG does give an exception for current events, because those articles are likely to be patrolled and kept updated, but we're going to have to put a useful date on this statement at some point. --McGeddon (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- "no corroborating evidence" is good with me too. I've added "as yet" since this is a live story. (Presumably at some point, if none showed up, it could become "to date") - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Further Ashcroft allegations
- It's a relatively small point as to what Cameron stuck where. The much bigger issue (and what this article should be about) is that Ashcroft has funded the writing and publication of a book of allegations based on it. What is the story about why Ashcroft, who has previously sunk millions into Cameron's career, has turned against him in such a fashion? That is very obviously sourced (in the broad terms at least). Nit-picking about "Delete this article as it doesn't have a quote from the pig itself" looks far too much like bad spin doctoring from Central Office (I don't think it is, they are surely smarter and more subtle than that by now). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is indeed a huge story here, hopefully the press will have something this weekend - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's one of those chicken and egg situations where the future direction of events and news will dictate how the subject is defined. At the moment all we can do is point out that this one specific passage in the book has generated a lot of attention. It may not last, it may become synonymous with a whole raft of allegations or it may be a defining moment in somebody's career. "The much bigger issue (and what this article should be about) is that Ashcroft has funded the writing and publication of a book of allegations based on it.": this prejudges the future direction of events. That is not the story at the moment. Btljs (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is indeed a huge story here, hopefully the press will have something this weekend - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Other language wikipedias
Hi I've been unsuccessfully trying to write about this story in Russian and Romanian and it keeps being deleted because my skills arent good enough in those languages so I'm obviously not the right one to do it (its not the sort of thing that i've ever really had to talk about in language lessons).
Is anyone else going to have a go? Fourdots2 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just a small remark. There are now obviously two other language versions, Czech and French. Both are up to now very short. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC) - Meanwhile, the French version has been substantially enlarged. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- What has this thread got to do with improving this article? Trying to copy this into a language one doesn't understand is trolling, I am not surprised the attempt was speedily deleted. I at least have enough French to afd that version. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is awesome
It definitely should stay. It should neither be deleted or merged, since it really is able to be a standalone Huritisho (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Huritisho: As awesome as I personally feel it is, we've got notability guidelines to stick to, and the page would probably be better off merged. See WP:WHYN. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 22:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not many people agree with you at the deletion discussion, User:NottNott. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. Given the number of references anyway. Not bad! ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not many people agree with you at the deletion discussion, User:NottNott. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
NPOV
I have tagged this article as not neutral. I am no supporter of Cameron but even so I can see this comes across as a pure attack piece from the title to the way we portray the so-called scandal. IMO it requires both a neutral and a re-write to fit our WP:NPOV neutral policy and WP:BLP living people policy. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have addressed the worst neutrality abuses in the opening, which was essentially giving untrammelled support to Ashcroft's version and not giving space to Cameron's refutation or other criticism such as that the claims are uncorroborated. But the title is still not neutral and if the merge doesnt happen it will need to be changed before I am happy to see the article tag removed (though it can be removed if the article is merged). ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Simply not true. There's balance and there's bending over backwards to distance yourself from something you find distasteful. I now find the article NPOV because it is implying that we have knowledge of the falsity of these allegation when we don't. The authors' motive is irrelevant. Your "I am no supporter of Cameron but..." comes across as sincere as "I'm no racist but..." (even it that's not the intention) and you can't have a "so-called scandal" as a scandal is "rumour or malicious gossip about scandalous events or actions" which this clearly is. It doesn't require said actions or events to be true or "corroborated". Btljs (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not an attack article but the topic itself was in fact an attack from Ashcroft, so I guess from a neutral perspective it may look that way. That doesn't mean it should be suppressed. So I have not seen any attempts to tone it down. Removing tag. It's neutral. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I reinstated it. Article seems pretty neutral to me now, but it makes sense to get Richard's view on that first. Bromley86 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I should say, I support a merge into the Call Me Dave article, but that, if it were retained as a separate article, I don't see a neutrality problem with "Piggate" as a title. Bromley86 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- We need to give equal weight to both Ashcroft and Cameron's version of events. When I added the tag all we seemed interested in giving was Ashcroft's version of events. I suggest we wait till the merge proposal is over before either name discussing or tag removal. The name clearly started as an attack on Cameron and remains so and yet wikipedia and all serious editors need to neither support cameron nor Ashcroft. using the attack term used by the twitterati is not balance. Something like David Cameron 2015 initiation controvery would, IMO, be better. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- You can call it "Flight of the pig" if it makes you happy. You and I both know that Piggate is what people will search for and they'll just get a redirect to a page with a different title which you will struggle to ever get consensus on. On the equal weight issue: in the long run I agree, but you can only report what Cameron has said otherwise it's OR. So there's one quote from a book and one sort of denial and that's it. The rest of the article is reaction and that is mixed. Btljs (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since Ashcroft and his camp are the only ones to express a view, that's what's in the article. What scant views from Cameron's camp are in the article but he has failed to publicly comment on this controversy to the extent Ashcroft has. I mean we are talking about a book vs. Cameron in terms of sources. Cameron has provided very little and what he has is in the article. This does not mean that an editor can "make up" or, (sorry about the play on words) "Perfume the pig" under some nebulous claim of unbalanced content because they feel his views are not represented. The article is balanced based on who has been talking about it from reliable sources we can write about. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- We need to give equal weight to both Ashcroft and Cameron's version of events. When I added the tag all we seemed interested in giving was Ashcroft's version of events. I suggest we wait till the merge proposal is over before either name discussing or tag removal. The name clearly started as an attack on Cameron and remains so and yet wikipedia and all serious editors need to neither support cameron nor Ashcroft. using the attack term used by the twitterati is not balance. Something like David Cameron 2015 initiation controvery would, IMO, be better. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - removal of NPOV tag. From what I have seen of the proposed NPOV changes by the submitter, they make the article POV towards Cameron with absolutely no reliable sources to backup the changes. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Be Bold, I took out the tag. The other editors have made the article very NPOV. NPOV and the proposed merge are not related to one another in any meaningful way. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- We don't vote on whether to keep an NPOV tag, we address the neutrality issues. We are addressing them, yes, but we need to go further before I am satisfied that the tag can be removed. Are you suggesting, anon, that we just giv Ashcroft's views with no rebuttal from cameron? Also explain exactly how my "version" gave more weight to Cameron's views than Ashcroft's cos I cant see it. bring bold applies to editing articles not removing tags. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 23:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is nonsensical to say a POV tag should be applied because "Cameron's views are not represented". He has given no such views. Given that, for a POV tag to be applied you must explain how the article does not conform to NPOV. The fact of the article merely existing is not enough. Please do so before re-inserting the tag. And this comes from someone who !voted for the article to be merged with Call Me Dave. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsensical is an attack, please desist from making personal attacks. They dont help create a better encyclopedia, they do poison the atmosphere here and generally on wikipedia. I have explained how the word pig is an attack in the very name itself, see below. If you cant see why edit warring over a tag is wrong (ie it shows the neutrality IS disputed) I can only despair, as I despair of your cheap personal attack. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piggate closed as no consensus (for there was none) but that leaves open the question of what to do about this article. One thing I note about the on-going discussion was that opinion appeared to shift towards being in favour of delete/merge to Call Me Dave as the week went on. I do not attempt to surmise why people voted the way they did but it should be remembered that at the outset the Call Me Dave article did not exist so the opinion in favour of that may be under represented.
I suspect that this article will remain controversial and if nothing is done it will be renominated for deletion in the not-too-distant future. The closing admin rightly suggested we explore the option of merging to Call Me Dave first and that may be a good option all round: those who dislike the article and especially the title may be happier to see it pruned and absorbed there; those who like it may also be happier given that there is far less chance that Call Me Dave would be nominated.
I therefore propose the merge.
- Support as nom. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support for same reasons I tagged as not neutral above. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just so that you can again delete all mention of it from the book article?
- This is not a merge to improve WP's presentation of coverage, it's a thinly veiled attempt for a few editors, having failed at AfD, to delete it by an alternative route. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, the complete opposite. We should avoid over-duplicating on wikipedia as a whole (a subject I know something about) and by merging we would ensure better coverage of the topic on wikipedia. BTW, are you seriously suggesting I shouldn't have removed an obviously potential BLP violation when it was only ref'd by the Mail? which is not merely suspect as a reliable source but is only a primary source and not a secondary source. I beg to differ, Andy Dingley. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 01:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge to an unpublished book? The votes to keep this article were over twice as many as those to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, this is about merging not deletion.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe wait to see if the book has any
legstrotters? If it turns out to be a one trickponyporker then maybe it could end up being merged here instead. OK. That sounds unlikely, but maybe just wait for the dust to settle and then decide? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC) - Not yet. Until the book is actually published, that article is likely to remain a stub. When it is released and there is a full article to be written, then yes, this is a possibility. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support basically the same topic anyway. Brustopher (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support These allegations are the most noteworthy thing to come out of the book, mainly because they say lot about Michael Ashcroft. By giving this one wholly unsubstantiated allegation a separate article we are completely taking it out of context. It is important that it is recognised as a development in a long running political feud between Ashcroft and Cameron. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Part of the greater whole that is the
hatchet jobbook. Bromley86 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC) - Oppose The argument that a failed Afd means that this article will be re-nominated is not a good reason. The motivation for the writing of the book is not a good argument either. Supposing all the accusations in the book turn out to be true except this one, then it would be very difficult to include this in a balanced article about the book without leaving the impression that this was also true. Deal with the book separately. What is controversial anyway? - editors have crowbarred in so many 'uncorroborated's that it reads like a legal disclaimer already. It was a published allegation which was in a national newspaper; it received a lot of understandable attention for a period of time which is still ongoing; nobody's saying whether it's true or not - what are you all so scared of? Btljs (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support The article about the book is the proper place for neutral discussion of this unproven allegation. The current article title is inherently non-neutral. The book is notable even though not yet published. All editors should refrain from politicised comments.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – The topic clearly meets the requirements for GNG with all the significant coverage received in numerous relevant non-trivial, independent, reliable third party and secondary sources, and is large enough to have a stand-alone article. Merging all of the information in the article might violate WP:UNDUE and nothing will be gained by merging a token bit into another article and the rest being lost.
- There is also potentially enough information to expand the article further. The topic is far more notable than the book, the book has gained notability due to the coverage it has received from the scandal, therefore, if anything Call Me Dave should be merged into Piggate. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Possible Merge - The press is dying down. This looks to be just a minor blip on the radar and the main event has passed. Possible merge but wait til the book is out. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - many good reasons given already. Following the failed AfD, this looks very much like "how else shall we manage to get rid of it?" The controversy is notable, and the book hasn't even been published yet. Stroller (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose merge - The two items are sufficiently different (see below) to merit different articles. "Piggate" is an international news story that has raised questions about the propiety of publishing a news story about an individual with only uncorroborated in pectore evidence. "Call me Dave" is a book that contains many allegations (not just the pig), and will need entries on publishing schedules, reviews, sales. Given that, and the fact that there are more than enough sources to write both articles, the "merge" proposal is contra-indicated. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment If the two articles were merged, then the chart below would immediately be irrelevant. The properly merged article would be green checkmarks down the line. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- What is that (unsigned) table supposed to show anyway? It can only be relevant if its purpose is explained. Btljs (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've replied to your and User:Cullen328's points in the table section below. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This has already been discussed at the AFD nom. Very few favoured a merge. AusLondonder (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Merge To call me dave. As per Cullen above, the table below is based on what is the situation *now* not what it would be with a merged article (which as he says, would be ticks all the way down). Realistically this deserves a one-line mention in camerons BLP with a link to the book article which should contain the details. This week has seen almost zero on-going mention of piggate, the news outlets being more concerned with Corbynmania. (EC) AFD's are either delete or not delete, sometimes resulting in a merge if enough people vote for one. The problem is people do not always comment on a merge option because that is not what they are voting for. Which is why a dedicated merge discussion is the most appropriate place to decide a merge. 'AFD already decided this' is not a valid rationale for opposing a merge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, yes it is. To open another discussion after overwhelming community consensus to keep is disruptive and a waste of time. AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion at AFD was about deletion of content with a passing mention of merging. The decision was to keep the content, it was not 'keep as is and no further discussion of merging' which your and other 'decided at AFD' comments above are attempting to say. This discussion is about merging the content to a more appropriate place for it. Unless you actually have an argument based on the merits as to why it should/shouldnt be merged, your objection holds no weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, yes it is. To open another discussion after overwhelming community consensus to keep is disruptive and a waste of time. AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose This is clearly a separate thing Deku-shrub (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There are significant differences between the affair and the book, see below. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose for the above reasons - the book and Piggate may overlap in terms of content, but they are separate topics.--Autospark (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, not yet - the incident is by far the most notable thing about the book so far - David Gerard (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I also agree with Cullen's arguments. An unproven accusation of a living person, should not have an article in our encyclopedia. Just by existing, even if written with a NPOV it gives the issue an undeserving status that can only damage the subject. In addition, since the subject happens to be the prime minister of the United Kingdom, we should recognize that there may be interests to use Wikipedia as a tool to damage someone's reputation. The proper place for this yet unproven allegations is the book Call me Dave where it was included.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support While I remain unconvinced that the material is proper under WP:BLP and falls, IMHO, into the class of scurrilous tripe found during silly season at best. Collect (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- You might well see "What David did at college" as trivial, but this story is far bigger than that: it's just the most visible aspect of a falling out between Ashcroft and Cameron and that's a major dynasty-changing event in British politics. WP needs to cover that part of it too.
- As to your new allegation, that of "scurrilous tripe", then I know nothing about any other ruminant species being involved. If you have photographs, I believe Lord Ashcroft is buying. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"it's just the most visible aspect of a falling out between Ashcroft and Cameron"
: If it's all about Ashcroft then surely its the same topic as the book and you should support merging? Brustopher (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)- In an encyclopedia I might do. This is Wikipedia though. Merging the story to the book is an obvious (see Richard Weiss's deletions already) attempt to delete all mention of it by "merging" the content by putting a one-liner into the book article, then deleting the book article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia? --Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- In an encyclopedia I might do. This is Wikipedia though. Merging the story to the book is an obvious (see Richard Weiss's deletions already) attempt to delete all mention of it by "merging" the content by putting a one-liner into the book article, then deleting the book article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Piggate is an internationally Notable subject in its own right and much of this article's content has nothing to do with the book Call me Dave. Piggate itself is more notable than the book. I think User:Btljs puts together a very good argument in the thread below. At the AfD, the merge proposal was very unfavourable. This merge proposal seems to be the second best preference for the Delete Camp from the AfD. IJA (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's been covered by user Only in death above, i.e. that people often don't think to vote merge. For example, I voted Delete, but I didn't vote Wipe all mention from WP, as I fully expected it to be covered in the article on the book and, if weighty enough, in the article on Cameron. Bromley86 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support merge. The media interest is about part of the book. "Piggate" does not exist outside the context of the book. The idea that the topic is notable outside the topic of the book is absurd - it does not exist outside the context of the book. The topic has been published in the media simply because it is mentioned (briefly) in the book (and, cynically, forms part of the book's promotional activities). In any case, it is "scurrilous tripe" of ephemeral interest, worthy only of a brief mention in any encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- All the book did was bring it into public light. The book will be forgotten, piggate will live on and will be quoted for years to come. IJA (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's one interpretation (but see WP:CRYSTAL). Another interpretation is that it's no more than a dubious attempt to drum up publicity for the book. In any case, the only possible notable feature arising from the incident is the resulting media furore and the scale of the public curiosity. The light it sheds on the relationship between Ashcroft and Cameron is also marginally notable, but in the long term rather minor, and in any case can easily be dealt with in the article about the book. The reported incident itself is about as trivial as an incident can possibly be. Haven't we all done stupid things when younger? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- You might call it a trivial incident but the huge global media attention to it would suggest it is very notable. It isn't as trivial as Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich, that is about as trivial as an incident can possibly be. Yes, we have all done stupid things when we were younger, but I don't recall performing a Necrophilia-Bestiality act when I was younger. I'd say that would be a notable incident for a D-list celebrity, never mind the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; this would suggest why it has received such a high volume of global media attention. IJA (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Enabling lots of people to have a good laugh is not a factor in its notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- See "Significant Coverage" for Wikipedia:Notability. Oh and I didn't have a good laugh, I was quite disgusted by such allegations. IJA (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the fact that there has been significant coverage, but in itself that is not relevant. We don't cover everything that receives significant media coverage and, in this case, it's part of the publicity for the book. The reporting is still largely in tabloid sources, and the reported incident is treated as a joke, and is inherently trivial. Incidentally, you may want to remove the implication in the previous post that he may have received some sexual satisfaction from what he is reported to have done. There is not the slightest suggestion that was the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think global media constitutes as largely tabloid. It is your opinion/ interpretation that is being "treated as a joke" whereas I'd say it is being treated as a scandal. I have not said that he has received some sexual satisfaction therefore I see no reason to remove what is not there. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure if the incident actually took place but it is a scandal nonetheless. IJA (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- You linked to necrophilia and bestiality, neither of which are appropriate and which are libellous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're going off topic here. Yes I did link them and I think putting a certain bit of one's anatomy in a dead pig's mouth are quite fitting for them two words. Whether or not he received sexual pleasure is another subject which I'm not willing to discuss here as I don't think it is appropriate. Some porn stars are straight but are gay-for-pay, I'd still consider what they do as a homosexual acts even though they aren't receiving sexual satisfaction from it. IJA (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, Cameron is not guilty of necrophilia nor bestiality. Necrophilia only applies with dead humans. Bestiality only applies to live animals. If the act occurred, it was not criminal. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was once a substantial and referenced section explaining that legal situation; it was of course deleted by RichardOSmith as "commentary" and Reaganonomics as "risible". If they can't delete this article honestly through AfD, they will strip it section by section until only trivia remains.Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, Cameron is not guilty of necrophilia nor bestiality. Necrophilia only applies with dead humans. Bestiality only applies to live animals. If the act occurred, it was not criminal. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're going off topic here. Yes I did link them and I think putting a certain bit of one's anatomy in a dead pig's mouth are quite fitting for them two words. Whether or not he received sexual pleasure is another subject which I'm not willing to discuss here as I don't think it is appropriate. Some porn stars are straight but are gay-for-pay, I'd still consider what they do as a homosexual acts even though they aren't receiving sexual satisfaction from it. IJA (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- You linked to necrophilia and bestiality, neither of which are appropriate and which are libellous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think global media constitutes as largely tabloid. It is your opinion/ interpretation that is being "treated as a joke" whereas I'd say it is being treated as a scandal. I have not said that he has received some sexual satisfaction therefore I see no reason to remove what is not there. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure if the incident actually took place but it is a scandal nonetheless. IJA (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the fact that there has been significant coverage, but in itself that is not relevant. We don't cover everything that receives significant media coverage and, in this case, it's part of the publicity for the book. The reporting is still largely in tabloid sources, and the reported incident is treated as a joke, and is inherently trivial. Incidentally, you may want to remove the implication in the previous post that he may have received some sexual satisfaction from what he is reported to have done. There is not the slightest suggestion that was the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- See "Significant Coverage" for Wikipedia:Notability. Oh and I didn't have a good laugh, I was quite disgusted by such allegations. IJA (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Enabling lots of people to have a good laugh is not a factor in its notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- You might call it a trivial incident but the huge global media attention to it would suggest it is very notable. It isn't as trivial as Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich, that is about as trivial as an incident can possibly be. Yes, we have all done stupid things when we were younger, but I don't recall performing a Necrophilia-Bestiality act when I was younger. I'd say that would be a notable incident for a D-list celebrity, never mind the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; this would suggest why it has received such a high volume of global media attention. IJA (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's one interpretation (but see WP:CRYSTAL). Another interpretation is that it's no more than a dubious attempt to drum up publicity for the book. In any case, the only possible notable feature arising from the incident is the resulting media furore and the scale of the public curiosity. The light it sheds on the relationship between Ashcroft and Cameron is also marginally notable, but in the long term rather minor, and in any case can easily be dealt with in the article about the book. The reported incident itself is about as trivial as an incident can possibly be. Haven't we all done stupid things when younger? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- All the book did was bring it into public light. The book will be forgotten, piggate will live on and will be quoted for years to come. IJA (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Different elements for Piggate and CMD articles
Element | Should this element be covered in the Piggate article? |
Should this element be covered in the Call Me Dave article? |
---|---|---|
Allegation of drug use | No | Yes |
Allegations of poor army relations | No | Yes |
Allegations of pig thing | Yes | brief mention only, then "see Piggate" |
Delingpole being ostracised | No | Yes |
Cameron attempt to prevent the book | No | Yes |
Book publishing schedule | No | Yes |
Book reviews | No | Yes |
Book sale figures | No | Yes |
Piggate international coverage | Yes | No |
Suspects for pig leak | Yes | No |
Propriety of publication | Yes | No |
(table originally inserted by Anamofmyveryown on 29 Sept 2015)
- What is this supposed to show? This could be done for any two articles on similar overlapping subjects. Btljs (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. I've changed the table to make the headings more explicit and changed the ticks&crosses to yes&noes. The table is meant to emphasise that the articles dont overlap, and does that by pointing out that:
- there are enough elements to merit two articles
- the elements are sufficiently different to render a merge insppropriate
- Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. I've changed the table to make the headings more explicit and changed the ticks&crosses to yes&noes. The table is meant to emphasise that the articles dont overlap, and does that by pointing out that:
Name change
Those opposed to the name, why not suggest alternatives, not a merge or deletion which does not have consensus behind it? AusLondonder (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- If I had a spare tenner, I would invest it in Piggate futures; this will be the name by which this scandal/smear will be remembered and will be quoted whenever something vaguely similar occurs in decades to come. The book, I suspect, will be forgotten much sooner. Btljs (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with you there.--Autospark (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Btljs:You can! http://longbets.org/ Deku-shrub (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Deku-shrub:Can you lend me a tenner? Btljs (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should probably include "Scandal" in the title. Similar to Watergate Scandal. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need! Deku-shrub (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nope Deku-shrub, you are wrongly assumin the problematic half-word is gate, that isnt my objection at all, my objection is to the insulting term pig (normally used as such to insult policemen and fat ppl in the UK), that is the problematic attack half-word. Are you seriously claiming the half-word gate was the problem? I suggest Cameron initiation ceremony controversy or something eually neutral, and most importantly something not chosen as an attack word by his enemies on twitter etc. Using this attack word is taking the side of cameron's enemies, ie it isnt neutral. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The word "pig" in this context does not refer to the attack word "pig". It refers to a pig. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anameofmyveryown, if you can reliably source your claim that would be great, otherwise its just your opinion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- To summarise. I think the word "pig" in "piggate" refers to the pig. You think the word "pig" in "piggate" refers to the attack word "pig". Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anameofmyveryown, if you can reliably source your claim that would be great, otherwise its just your opinion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- @RichardWeiss:That's the first interesting point anyone's made for a while. A comparison with Plebgate is appropriate, considering it was the cause of a libel case. By your reasoning, if Mitchell had won the case, would the name be inappropriate (or do you think it is anyway)? I had not personally assumed that the word 'pig' was an attack word, or that the term was created by "Cameron's enemies" (this is my opinion, but can you support your claims with sources either?). Rather, I assumed that whenever some allegation against a politician is made, there is a current tendency to find a media-friendly sound-bite title for it. This does not support the truth of the allegation, it just makes for pithy tabloid style headlines. The use of "Plebgate" supports this view, as it was used both by people attacking and defending Mitchell (or more accurately attacking the police over the incident). Btljs (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The word "pig" in this context does not refer to the attack word "pig". It refers to a pig. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nope Deku-shrub, you are wrongly assumin the problematic half-word is gate, that isnt my objection at all, my objection is to the insulting term pig (normally used as such to insult policemen and fat ppl in the UK), that is the problematic attack half-word. Are you seriously claiming the half-word gate was the problem? I suggest Cameron initiation ceremony controversy or something eually neutral, and most importantly something not chosen as an attack word by his enemies on twitter etc. Using this attack word is taking the side of cameron's enemies, ie it isnt neutral. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- No need! Deku-shrub (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should probably include "Scandal" in the title. Similar to Watergate Scandal. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Deku-shrub:Can you lend me a tenner? Btljs (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The issue with media coverage
It may be a useful thought exercise, which I recommend, to reframe this debate about something that you feel differently about (e.g. if you feel a certain Schadenfreude about this powerful man brought low by this scandal, imagine that the subject is someone you strongly support or feel is often unfairly targeted); do your arguments still feel right in this new scenario? My own reaction on re-reading the article is that it is light on comments on the easy-target sensationalist media coverage - only the Corbyn quote seems to deal with this. It would put the whole thing in perspective if there were a whole section (I'm sure the sources are there) covering how easy it is for news media to take something flimsy and unsubstantiated and give it prominence while covering themselves with "we're only quoting someone's book". This would move the focus of the article and might assuage some of the criticisms from editors who feel this shouldn't exist outside of discussion of the book itself. Btljs (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. In the table above I pointed out that this article should cover the propriety of publishing a newspaper article sourced by only an unnamed source and an unsubmitted photograph. In normal circumstances such sources would not have been considered sufficient and discussion has occurred as to whether Dacre should have published (there is also discussion over *why* he did so, but I assume WP:RS for that would be in short supply). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)