Talk:Piggate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ArchiveĀ 1

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

  1. ^ a b c d Jackman, Myles (21 September 2015). "A Ham-Fisted Legal Analysis".
  2. ^ a b c d e f "UK Politics: The legal situation if someone has oral sex with a dead animal". The Independent. Retrieved 22 September 2015.

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)

Does it appear in Caro's "The Path to Power" (LBJ bio)? If so, it is reliable. Thompson is not. 95.149.54.104 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I added "reputedly". The story as told by Thompson is pretty well-known though - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 12 November 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)
Yes, because it is your POV that these are "irrelevant". Disruptive. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:08, 30 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
  • Accusation
The Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft wrote a book called "Call Me Dave" about British Prime Minister David Cameron. The British newspaper "Daily Mail" covered elements of it prior to publication. On 20th September it published online an article stating that Cameron had inserted a private part of his anatomy into the mouth of a dead pig as part of an initiation ceremony to the Piers Gaveston Society. The accusation excited some comment.
  • Hashtags
Insert bumf about #snoutrage, #hameron and #piggate, #hameron, #snoutrage (similar to the Brooker episode, which used the same hashtag in the episode), #porkergate, and so on
  • Domestic reaction
  • Print and online media
The accusation and resultant furore was covered by the Huffington Post,Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Daily Star, Daily Record, The Sun
  • Audio/Visual media
UK broadcast media were more circumspect. Insert details of BBC tardy response here. "Newsjack" covered piggateas did HIGNFYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-pHuw8jVmo HIGNFY], and "Mock The Week"
  • International reaction
  • Print and online media
News of the pig incident engendered international coverage in print media in Ireland (...just one pig . . .), France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Russia, India, China, Australia, New zealand, The United States, and other countries.
  • Audio/Visual media
Insert sentence about Taiwanese animation here. The Late Late Show with James Corden 2015-09-22
  • Identity of the participants
The person who made the claim was described as a contemporary of Cameron at Oxford who is a MP (insert source). Speculation as to the identity quickly started and included Boris Johnson Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Arts Minister Ed Vaizey, Skills Minister Nick Boles, London Mayor Boris Johnson and backbencher Mark Field, with Mark Field as chief suspect
  • Rebuttals
Constrained by the LBJ maxim (insert source), the impossibility of proving a negative, and pressure to respond to other allegations, Cameron supporters could not deny the accusation directly nor offer proof that it hadn't occurred. Rebuttals were limited to the following categories:
  • Reaction of the UK public
  • Veracity of the accusation
  • Was it true?. Neither the photograph nor witness were produced by the authors, leading to accusations that the claim was fictional and that the act did not in fact take place
  • Was it printable? Other commentators pointed out that an unseen photograph and unnamed source was not sufficient evidence for publishing such a comment about an individual. Private Eye went further, stating that "...IPSO FACTOTUM. Following the lavish front-page treatment he gave to Lord Ashcroft's Cameron biography last week, will Daily Mail editor Paul dacre - who doubles up as the chair of press watchdog Ipso's editors' code of practice committee - be introducing any amendments to its guidelines? Clause one of the editor's code makes it clear at the outset that "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information", and that the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact". a suitable sub-clause to be inserted might read "Except when a) an anonymous source swears blind he's seen a photo of the prime minister nobbing a pig, but you've got absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever, and b) when the co-defendant in any ensuing libel trial would be the billionaire publisher of his own book which you're serialising...", (Private Eye issue 1403 2 October - 15 Oct 2015 Ā£1.80 Headline: "Revenge of Lord Ashcroft: pig squeals shock!" Page 7, Private Eye Editorial)
  • Legality of the act
  • Was it legal? See above
  • Was the photograph legal? See above
  • Motives of the authors
  • Other
  • Black Mirror: Insert bumf about Charlie Brooker here. The Brooker similarity was quickly noted
  • LBJ maxim: Insert bumf about Hunter S thompson article here
  • Cassetteboy: Insert bumf about Cassetteboy here
  • Reaction of the Prime Minister

"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)

"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).
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)

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? ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaganomics88 (talk ā€¢ 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 ā€˜a statement not made in oral proceedingsā€™. This means it is a statement that has not been given in court. It is effectively second hand evidence, for example something:
ļ‚· you have overheard
ļ‚· someone has told you, or
ļ‚· someone has written.
In hearsay you are asking the court to believe:
ļ‚· you are telling the truth, and
ļ‚· 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."
taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284166/Evidencev3_0EXT.pdf
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)

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. ā™« 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)

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. ā™« 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). ā™« 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)
With the intention of trying to make the article neutral you appear to have made it less balanced to the point of implying that the allegations must be untrue. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:08, 30 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. ā™« 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)
  • 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. ā™« 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. ā™« RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal September 29

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

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. ā™« 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)
Not irrelevant if you take his argument above. Btljs (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It is relevant as the article is long enough to stand on its own. Nothing will be gained by merging a token bit into another article and the rest being lost. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe wait to see if the book has any legstrotters? If it turns out to be a one trick ponyporker 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 job book. 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 ā€“ 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)
The point is there was never any realistic prospect of achieving consensus on merging so we all just have to go through the same kind of arguments as for deletion again, which is a waste of time when we should be improving the article stet. Btljs (talk) 09:32, 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 2015ā€Ž (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)
  • 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 inserting my penis inside a dead animal's mouth 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)

The criminality of the act is relevant because, if it was criminal there would be a prospect of forcing the authors to give the identity of the witness and owner of the photo to the police as part of an investigation. So this should be covered, as it casts light on the reason the allegation remains untested. Btljs (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove the bit about the legality because it looked like mischief-making. Until that got mentioned, I doubt anyone was even thinking it might be illegal. The problem is that the whole article is really just mischief-making. Ashcroft and Cameron have fallen out in a really big way - that's the story. The allegations being made as part of the spat are just that - allegations which are unproven, may never be proven and, frankly, if ever they do turn out to be true I don't think it would make much difference: Cameron went to a posh school and a posh university and I imagine we all suspect that kind of thing goes on anyway. At the risk of having a bit of a rant, I think in time this article could be held up as an example of Wikipedia's failings - it's clearly got massive WP:BLP issues and yet there's no chance of consensus to deal with that. In an ideal real world democracy the people agree the terms society follows and an impartial judiciary applies those rules equally; in Wikipedia democracy it's mob rule. It may be highly amusing to poke fun at at the political establishment but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to do it. It's ironic that some of the people supporting this article are also fighting BLP issues on Jeremy Corbyn's article. Corbyn himself, to his credit, is not making cheap political capital from this, and that's a good example to follow. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"Delete because we expect they all do that sort of thing anyway"? Are you really saying it's not notable because it's too commonplace?
I went to an all-boys choir school. Buggery in the chapel vestry was rife, but I never saw anyone with a pig's head. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's not what I said. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect that's the weakest argument I've heard for deleting this article and really does you discredit. You assume that support for the existence of the article equates to support of the "mischief making"; that is not what I see as the purpose of this article at all - quite the opposite: this article highlights the tawdry nature of some parts of the media, which pick up on anything salacious and regurgitate it regardless of its origin. Do you really think that the behaviour of the people publishing this type of stuff (and the continuous mud-slinging at Miliband, Corbyn etc.) will in any way be diluted if we piously remove this article? If it exists, at least someone searching for the term will get a clear idea of where it came from, who blew it all up and can form their own opinion on what it says about the people involved. Why would you deny them that and instead let them read whatever editorial angle suits the purposes of some media mogul? It's hardly ironic that people fighting against the tide of "scurrilous tripe" written about Corbyn should feel somewhat miffed that the one and only piece which targets Cameron is being so methodically attacked. At the end of the day, Cameron is actually making decisions every day which affect us all while Corbyn has had a fortnight as leader of a severely weakened opposition, so proportionality would suggest that character flaws in Cameron are rather more important to scrutinise than in Corbyn. In your ideal real world democracy: who would you see drawing up the rules and applying them impartially? Because I see nothing impartial about the "mob" who are hell-bent on burying this article and you are not my choice of judiciary. Research, rewrite and edit, but do not assume to take some moral high ground and censor other people's interpretation of the WP:MOS. Btljs (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't supposed to be an argument for deletion, which may be why you think it was weak! It was an explanation for why I removed a part of it because my doing that had been singled out and criticised above. In point of fact I think you are right in much of what you say - the article as it currently stands is very much as you describe it and you make a very compelling argument. We diverge in opinion in the second half of your response but that's incidental to the overall discussion taking place; I started that distraction with my rant above and I'll let you have the final word to finish it. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes well, we both had a bit of rant. As you say, a distraction from the dour trench warfare on this page. Btljs (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think there are two aspects to the legality of this alleged act. 1) It's not illegal. Whatever you think about it as a practice, UK law no more thought about it than Queen Victoria apocryphally did of lesbians. 2) The photograph (and only the photograph) would be illegal, under laws brought in under Cameron's reign. Both of these are minor, but they do clear up a detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge a small part of a book, so the book is the proper place for the story. The press jumped on it but we can and are able to rise above that gutter level of reporting. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be no consensus on merging. 12 oppose to 10 support. Despite this, I have merged this article into Call Me Dave. One problem with people proposing merging is little effort seems expended before folks talk about it, so I just went and did it. It does sound balanced in the other article and is probably less contentious there. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 07:03, 3 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
Legality of act 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)
OK, I understand now. Because Cullen had mentioned it above, I wrongly assumed it was supposed to be showing the opposite. I agree with you: plenty of room for both. It's all moot as there'll never be a consensus. Btljs (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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. ā™« 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. ā™« 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)
@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)

I just found out about this scandal 20 minutes ago, via a segment on Mock the Week. I hadn't yet learned about the incident, so I did a Google search for "Cameron Pig" and got this article near the top of the results. At no point was the title "Piggate" ambiguous, nor did it suddenly make me wonder if there are some police officers or obese people involved in the story. It was clear to me, from the beginning of my reading the article, that the word Pig in the title this article, was a reference to the physical pig involved in the alleged event, and to what they are calling the allegations on social media. And given that no police officers have been involved in this story, and Cameron's weight has not been a source of the scandal or the jokes online, I had no reason to equate the word pig with those slang uses, until reading this talk page.

Richard, I quote you, "We should treat our adult and child consumers as intelligent people who dont need the most basic things repeated again and again." No intelligent consumer is going to take the word pig in this scandal's name, as some kind of slang insult to Cameron, when it's patently obvious it's a reference to the animal involved in the alleged event. CleverTitania (talk) 09:17, 5 October 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)
Indeed. It is not our job to denounce Lord VoldemortAshcroft's motives or to defend the PM off our own bat but we do need to put the other side of the story insofar as Reliable Sources have covered it. The same goes for Dacre and his staff. After all, we still have absolutely no proof that any of it is even slightly true and it is not like the Mail never published anything that later turned out to cause cancerbe bollocks, is it? I'm sure that there will be quite enough schadenfreude to go round before this ends. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Merged into Call Me Dave

I merged the article into Call Me Dave just to see how it would work together. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ashcroft Allegations about Cameron's Wife and Marriage

Just reported by the Daily Mail, though they fail to list the allegations, stating they will be released to the public on Monday and that Cameron and his wife are publicly talking about the allegations already and are outraged. Do these belong in Piggate? Probably, but other folks should look at it Monday. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely they belong in the book, when made? Bromley86 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Possible source. Not sure what it means until we see the materials on Monday. [1] 97.126.235.119
Tabloid, BLP. Bromley86 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a living person - please stay on topic

I know this is a talk page, but - without wanting to sound too much like a teacher - please avoid jokes and conjecture on here. This is a serious discussion about allegations made against a living person, whatever we may think about him. Btljs (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not just you (although, best to wait before commenting). Btljs (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely. I find the overtly political remarks disconcerting. Please remember that, so far, this is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we be linking Categories Zoophilia and Necrophilia at the bottom of the article? For BLP reasons, unless there is evidence Cameron is a Necrophile or a Zooaphile I think for BLP reasons we probably shouldn't link those categories. I anyone disagrees please feel free to revert and join the discussion here. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. Thanks for removing them again. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The categories refer to the scandal, not the man Deku-shrub (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
These categories are a BLP violation. There is no scandal but rather an uncorroborated allegation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"There is no scandal" Media circus then. The thing that this article is about Deku-shrub (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit War over Anti-Tory Rally in Manchester

Can folks not edit war? I am a big fan of discussion. I fail to see why a gathering of 80,000 people is less relevant than a quote from CassetteBoy in the reactions section. A political scandal discusses political events like the one that got edit warred over. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Prosposed content to be added:

"... An Anti-Tory protest of an estimated 80,000 people conducted in Manchester City reported a large number of participants carrying signs bearing pigs and pig related themes, wearing pig masks, and pig costumes. The majority of the signs used by participants referenced the PigGate scandal and associated Tory rule of the United Kingdom with PigGate. The protest was intended to denounce Tory rule and anti-austerity.[2] ... " 97.126.235.119 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


  • Support - Mention of the Anti-Tory rally of 80,000 people carring PigGate signs to protest the Tory Party in the UK. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Include Anonymous Manchester take to wearing pig masks? That seems relevant. Also rather brave, at an event Cameron is attending. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Hmm. I'm a fan of talking, which is why I asked you to do it IP. I don't think it really needs a vote, more a content discussion, but if we're voting I go for "oppose". Anyway, the point is that the mob will be turning up with pig balloons at every rally from here on out, so we may well want to include a single sentence in that context. However, I'd like to see a more RS, something like this. Bromley86 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Great reference. We should use that one as well. The facts don't agree. Your source says only 60,000 attended while the other says 80,000. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the Metro is referring to pre-protest estimates.[3][4] Apparently, the TUC & police both say 60k.[5] Bromley86 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. So if I use these RS you have provided, you do not object to a sentence about the rally as it relates to piggate? Did I read that correctly? 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, sounds like it got ugly today at the rally. Take a look at this. [6]. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't really like the idea of putting a sentence in just for this rally (and I don't think we should be including the Cassetteboy point you referred to, but that's a different matter). I think it will become a theme at left rallies and that's what I think should go in, once a RS notices the theme. But it looks like I'm in the minority here. Bromley86 (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it's obviously relevant and it's suitably referenced - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It is relevant, it is notable, it is properly referenced and it is written in a NPOV way. IJA (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Photograph.

Is nobody interested in the fact that on September 25, 2015 a British newspaper published a photograph that appeared to show that the Piggate photograph was a fake, based on a picture taken by an American photographer, Larry Fink, at a ball in a New York hotel in 1978? The gentleman in the hussar's uniform appears in both photographs, in identical poses, and does not appear to have aged, or even moved, in the ten years or so that elapsed between the alleged photographs. I would have thought this might merit a mention in the article. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.214.138 (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for any of this? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that a fake exists does not say anything about whether there is a real original. There was a real Elvis once upon a time. Btljs (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the report. Do we believe the Daily Star? (Clue: No) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd just about believe them for showing that they had printed something (which is what this is), but certainly not what it was they printed.
Mind you, "World War II bomber found on Moon" is a wonderful story and completely true. Except that it wasn't the moon (it was a lake bottom in North Carolina) and they didn't print any of the real story. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw an obvious fake going around on Twitter, pretty clearly created for comedic purposes. Did the Daily Star print that? - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone believes the Daily Star. That's not a Wikipedia requirement. As a matter of fact, just about the only thing I find believable in the Daily Mail is the football results, but it is a reliable source. We do not believe that an aeroplane was found on the moon, but we believe that a newspaper said one was. It would help to make Andy Dingley's contribution more convincing if he was aware that the story of the aircraft on the Moon was carried by the Sunday Sport. This is reporting what the Star published and its relevance to the Wikipedia article. As it happens, primary sources show that Fink's photograph is the basis for the fake. Now if we can all stop being so amusing and clever and superior and read the Star article, we will see that the newspaper has reported, accurately, that an image purporting to be a genuine photograph of the alleged incident is not (so "yes," Mr. Gerard). Perhaps Wikipedia should carry that information for the benefit of those whose ability to detect humour is not as keen as others'. People turn to Wikipedia for clarification of many matters. Quite why they do beats me, but I think it should be borne in mind that sometimes Wikipedia's function is to benefit those who read it. People who see the fake photograph, and do not enjoy the wisdom and width of experience that some contributors here do, might be deceived by it. Wikipedia can then present them with additional material for consideration. So let's take a break from touching the private parts of our own and each other's anatomy for a few moments, and add to the statement that there has been no reported response from the purported owner of the alleged photograph the additional information that a circulating photograph purporting to be of the alleged incident is,reportedly, a fake. I don't see that as at all contentious, even if some contributors here feel it to be beneath them. Being part of an elite does carry certain responsibilities. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.113.235 (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about a fake photograph circulated on social media. It's about the allegations made in the book. There's no need to mention either that fake photos exist, or that a tabloid has debunked them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright of popular Cameron holding pig pic

I found the picture first appeared around 24th of May 2014 here. Alas the photo is very much commercially licensed via rexusa.com photo clearing house.

It's a pity, as as the Star says "This has to be one of the most well-known images of 2015" and would have been nice to add to the page. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it would not be "nice". A contemporary photo of Cameron holding a living pig has absolutely nothing to do with this unsubstantiated allegation regarding his student years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It does have some relevance, as that particular photo became a popular feature of press coverage (from tabloid and blog through to broadsheets) of the story. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Then we would need detailed commentary on the photo itself and its connection to the topic, in order to include it in this article. Random use of this particular photo as a filler by various newspapers when no actually relevant photo is known to exist is insufficient. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of relevance or commentary, it's copyrighted "REX USA/David Hartley/Rex" and we can't use it, period. You couldn't come close to a fair use rationale for it (How would you cite it? "This pig has got absolutely nothing to do with the article"? ), it's not public domain nor creative commons licensed, it would be up for about thirty seconds before an admin took it down. This article is flirting with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as is, but that would drive it straight off the deep end. So no, basically. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The question is whether the inclusion of this photograph (or any other photo of Cameron and a pig) would be encyclopedic, and the answer is clearly "no". The media does this a lot and it infuriates me: they put images next to stories where the connection is spurious or non-existent, knowing full well that our memories will associate one with the other. I take Cullen328's point about reporting media coverage, but that should not involve replicating what they did; rather, if this is relevant, we should note it in the text, e.g. "A particular picture of Cameron holding a pig at such and such a place on such and such a date was printed next to stories about Piggate by such and such a paper even though this has no link to the alleged incident and drew criticism from such and such a source."REF REF REF Btljs (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Merge Tag

There was a lot of discussion about a possible merge with Call Me Dave, then I merged the content into Call Me Dave, however, the editors of Call Me Dave disagreed and cut down the content to a descriptive paragraph, so at this point given that there was no consensus on a merge and a full merge/redirect was rejected by the editors of Call Me Dave, and the Afd for this article, should the tag still be in this article for merging?

  • Support - removal of the merge tag. There has been no appreciable discussion about a merge in recent days, an attempted merge was rejected by the editors of Call Me Dave indicating that this article is notable enough to stand on its own. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding why I edited back the text you copied across from this article. I still think this article should be deleted or merged - but, so long as it exists, we should not simply duplicate content. If the eventual decision is that this article be deleted or merged, we can move more content over to Call Me Dave at that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
If you wanted it merged then you should have left the content and expounded on it and attempted to take those editors with you who voted for the merge. I did it for that purpose. Had a merge been in order, then the editors would have happily moved to the other article and continued enhancing the content. They did not. So by paring it down you effectively cancelled the merge. At some point it may make sense, particularly now that Oakshott is now distancing herself from piggate. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't "cancel the merge" - I tidied up what you'd done. Anyway, we should move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Agreed. If this whole piggate thing turns out to be toxic, even to its creators (which seems to be the case now) it may need a relook. However, given all the press and the piggate "zeitgeist" that was created, this article and topic probably will stick around. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove tag for now - the other article is going nowhere unless the book becomes popular or something, and for the moment the two cover different things - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove tag. The merge has stalled with an evenish split, so remove the tag until (if) we have another merge push. Bromley86 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tag removed. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it a scandal?

No. It's a media furore about an uncorroborated, and in any case incredibly trivial, allegation about something the PM is supposed to have done many years ago. That is not a scandal - it's a means of selling books and newspapers. The "scandal" may be about the relationship between Cameron and Ashcroft, and the suggestion he gave him a place in the House of Lords for money - but that is not what this article is about. The "Piggate" allegations themselves are not a "scandal" - they are just trivial gossip. If they are not a scandal, the word should be removed from the article - as it was until an IP reinstated it earlier. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is pure political silly season fluff (other words may, in fact, apply). It dishonours the concept of Wikipedia and as such should not be retained. Collect (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A political scandal can be defined as is "a kind of political corruption that is exposed and becomes a scandal, in which politicians or government officials are accused of engaging in various illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices." So this allegation doesn't have to be true to be a scandal. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.75.49 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 15:14, 11 October 2015ā€Ž
That's not the point. What's "political", "corrupt", "illegal", or even "unethical" about it? Putting "a private part of your anatomy" into a dead pig's head is neither illegal nor corrupt. It's just a bit of juvenile silliness. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Is putting your todger in a pig not illegal or corrupt then? 15:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.75.49 (talk)
No, not that I'm aware of. It's just silly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, includes "a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)". Might make it easier to insert this section back in, no pun intended. 86.153.75.49 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I find your "insertions" improper, but, alas, can not do a damn thing about it myself. However, I suggest that the IP is on wafer-thin ice entirely on this topic. Collect (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That might not be the only improper insertion either,Ā ;-). Calling things silly and improper isn't really constructive either, I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored. 86.153.75.49 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not. But we are trying to maintain an encyclopedia, and you are inserting irrelevant material. If something is not illegal - as the Independent report says - it's not relevant to be included in this article. And, of course, the purported event took place long before either piece of legislation existed. So, its relevance is precisely zero. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Here are some of sources calling it a scandal [7][8][9][10][11][12], do we follow them or ignore them? ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.75.49 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
They are mostly unreliable and non-neutral blog posts, reporting a tabloid furore. We should ignore them. As Collect says, pure political silly season fluff. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you're just trying to disingenuously whitewash it again, there are plenty of other unreliable, non-neutral blog and tabloid coverage elsewhere. I ignored those and picked out Time, The Huffington, USA Today, Green Left Weekly instead. I'm sure there are plenty of others out there too. 86.153.75.49 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
"Scandal" is too strong a word, but newspapers don't care about that and there doesn't seem to be an ideal one. "Political scandal and public controversy" (opening sentence) is way over the top though. Rothorpe (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggested "furore" - see this. I agree, it's not a scandal. No-one disputes it's taken up a lot of column inches - but, it has no direct political implications. We should try using more appropriate words where we can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you note WP:EW and the fact that you, at this point in time, appear to be a single purpose account aimed solely at this pig's ear (fluff) engaging in an edit war making far too many POV edits. Collect (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I pruned the first sentence, as there is no evidence of any real scandal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It may be a scandal of sorts, but we don't say that. Encyclopedias don't print scandals but scholarly articles. This is not a tabloid newspaper -- Save that for The Sun or the Daily Mail. This is a scholarly article. And the simple fact is the press is dying down, even the creators of this controversy are backpedaling away from it, it looks more like a press/publicity smear campaign, and WP should not join in, just report it in a scholarly manner and tone. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the current phrasing is OK. Looking at the pattern of news coverage, within a few weeks we should be able to say "Piggate was" rather than "Piggate is" - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly not a scandal. There have been no consequences of any note, and no one appears to have been scandalised. It has been described as a scandal by those parties that wish it to be seen as such. Most people who have taken an interest seem to have been amused, perhaps the only exception being Ashcroft. Nor is it a furore, or a furor. Nor a controversy, nor any of the synonyms for such terms. There is no anger, difference of opinion, public disgust or revulsion, nor any of the strong feelings that these words mean or imply. My initial thought was that the best word to use is "fuss", but that is not very encyclopaedic, however accurate. My inclination then was to describe it as a "news event", based on the proceedings of the 34th European Conference on Information Retrieval Research, p53, which defines a news event as "a set of news articles related to the same story." It is no more than that.

In fact, it is in some ways less than that. "Piggate" is the name coined very soon after the publication of the allegations to describe the publication itself. It doesn't include the consequences of or reaction to the publication, because at that point there were none. Everything thereafter is a reaction to Piggate, not part of it. The opening sentence, then, is now ideal in that respect. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.113.235 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:LEADALT / WP:ALTNAME is "Piggate scandal"

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Alternative names:

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.

A significant alternative name for ā€œPiggateā€ is ā€œPiggate scandalā€:

Councillors poke fun at Cameron piggate scandal (Western Morning News, 22 September 2015)

#PigGate scandal: An explainer on David Cameron and that pig (Mashable, 21 September 2015)

Why David Cameronā€™s ā€˜Pig-Gateā€™ Scandal Isnā€™t Going Away (Time, 21 September 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn dragged into Cameron's #Piggate scandal after 'favouriting' a Tweet comparing it to his fling with Diane Abbott (Daily Mail, 21 September 2015)

'Black Mirror' impossibly predicted David Cameron's #PigGate scandal (USA Today, 22 September 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn Says Piggate Scandal Risks Distracting From Real Issues And World Peace (Huffington Post, 25 September 2015)

David Cameron Claims He's 'Too Busy' To Sue Lord Ashcroft Over 'Piggate' Scandal (Huffington Post, 28 September 2015)

Cameron Pig-gate Scandal -- I Talk to the Pig (Huffington Post, 24 September 2015)

FivePillarPurist (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources say that it is the name of the scandal. Several are blogs (including comedy blogs) and can be discounted, and others are tabloids. Even the ones that are more reliable and do use the word "scandal" only do so in headlines, or as one-word summaries of what #piggate is supposed to denote. Those sources, together, do not make "Piggate scandal" an alternative title, or provide justification for an encyclopedia like this describing it as a scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely ridiculous objection, and you know it. Wikipedia itself doesnā€™t have to call it a scandal (which is why I made no attempt to put it in the scandals category), but it does have to point out what much of the worldā€™s media calls it. By your argument, we would not be able to have any article referring to any of the films, novels, etc. titled ā€œScandalā€.
As for ā€œSeveral are blogs (including comedy blogs)ā€ thereā€™s only eight sources up there - can you point out which ones you mean? FivePillarPurist (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
#2, #5, #8 are blogs. #3 is commentary; #4 is a notoriously unreliable tabloid; #7 and #8 are a single source, and #1 is a regional newspaper. Not the best sources, all told. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not the best answer, all told: not really ā€œseveralā€, not against WP:NEWSBLOG, and not answering the MOS:LEADALT / WP:ALTNAME issue. FivePillarPurist (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
None of which dancing addresses the fact you've had to scrape the barrel to get those quotes. Care to try The Guardian? The Telegraph? Although google news search results are far from perfect, you get a mere 600 for "piggate scandal" vs. 18,000 for piggate. Bromley86 (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The local ā€œWestern Morning Newsā€ was already in the article references, the others are high-ranking on Google, so there wasnā€™t much scraping. And 600 Google news search results for "piggate scandal" is far more than for hashtags ā€œ#snoutrageā€ (~48) and "#hameron" (~259), both of which are considered notable enough to be in the article, so thatā€™s not a very good point either, is it? FivePillarPurist (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The hashtag #piggate is already in the article, so that's a red herring. The first question is whether reliable sources call it a scandal; as far as I can see, they don't. The next question is should we; the section on that subject above would indicate no. Looking at your better source, TIME, if you read the text it's clear that they're calling it "Pig-gate" and not "Pig-gate Scandal". Unless, because sources often add a noun after piggate in the article titles (#piggate claims,[13] #piggate storm,[14] 'piggate' furore[15]), you think we should also set up more spammy redirects for those? Bromley86 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What exactly do you think the suffix ā€œ-gateā€ indicates? A gate on a pig-pen? Piggate is already on Wikipediaā€™s List of scandals with "-gate" suffix which, as is explained there, is ā€œby analogy with the Watergate scandalā€. Itā€™s not in doubt that ā€œ-gateā€ as a suffix and ā€œ-gate scandalā€ are significant alternative names and longer or shorter forms, the issue is that per Manual of Style they should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. FivePillarPurist (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone knows what MOS says, and also know that some sources are reporting it, at least in headlines and commentary, as a "scandal". But, that's not enough. What we are discussing is whether enough reliable sources give it the name "Piggate scandal". And the answer to that is, no, they don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Then youā€™re WP:OFFTOPIC, because this thread is titled: MOS:LEADALT / WP:ALTNAME is "Piggate scandal". Since Huffington Post, Daily Mail, Time.com, USA Today, Mashable are routinely used as WP:RS on Wikipedia, your claim that they are not WP:RS is a WP:VILLAGEPUMP issue (ā€œtechnical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipediaā€) which belongs there. Bye-bye. FivePillarPurist (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You're still missing the point. And the Mail is definitely not used as a WP:RS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is certainly usable for many things on Wikipedia as a reliable source - but not in any case for "celebrity gossip" at any level. In fact, there are zero good sources for "celebrity gossip" at all. Collect (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-endorsement issue already covered above, and still WP:OFFTOPIC. And giving notice that Iā€™m aware of the WP:GAMING, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM etc. FivePillarPurist (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh? My post was directly and precisely on-topic here, and I do not know what the "alphabet soup" provided means specifically in the case at hand. The "significant alternative name" - isn't. Collect (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No: the ā€œidle gossipā€ ploy was directly and precisely on-topic on the failed AfD, but rejected. Given that the article exists, it must conform to MOS:LEADALT like all other articles.FivePillarPurist (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
That assumes that a significant alternative name for Piggate is Piggate Scandal. It's clear to me that this is not the case. Using your refs (which, as has been said, aren't great), analysing the use of the expression "piggate scandal" (or similar):
  • WMS - Once, in title. Piggate not used again in the article, neither is scandal.
  • Mashable - Once in title. Piggate used 4 times in article, scandal used not at all. Interestingly, 3 of those uses are in sub titles, where they'd be more inclined to use their full version, if it was the name by which they referred to it.
  • TIME - Once in title. Piggate is used 2 times in the article, scandal once (but not in conjunction).
  • Daily Mail - Once in title. Pigate used 2 times in article (once as "'piggate' storm"), scandal used twice (but not in conjunction).
  • USA Today - Once in title. Piggate used once in article, scandal not used at all.
  • 1st HuffPo. Once in title, once in body. Piggate also mentioned one other time, by itself.
So the HuffPo is the most promising, for you, but even then it's pretty weak. Bromley86 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
However many times you repeat that point:
FivePillarPurist (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
WP is not a reliable source, and this is an example of why. Just because we have a page labelled "gate" and scandal" doesn't mean all "gates" are scandals, especially given some of those entries (Donutgate - not mentioned by that name in her article. Of three cites, one doesn't use -gate, one uses it in the title only, the last once only in the body; none use scandal at all, because it wasn't a scandal). Bromley86 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, non-endorsement is covered above: Wikipedia itself would not be asserting itā€™s a scandal (no use of scandals category), just pointing out that multiple WP:RS have used WP:ALTNAME "piggate scandal". The policy around the distinction is WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article ā€“ even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
FivePillarPurist (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Note WP:CONSENSUS and the clear fact that you do not have a "consensus" here for what you are certain is the proper article name. Collect (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I was reverted for changing the first sentence of the lede (diff). This is a MOS:LEADALT / WP:ALTNAME issue, not WP:TITLE. FivePillarPurist (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are only for likely alternate searches - as once one types in "piggate" this article shows up, your favoured extended title is thus not utile. And for that you would need a WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What has that got to do with anything in this thread? MOS:LEADALT doesnā€™t mention redirects. FivePillarPurist (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Well don't use a WP article to support your point if you don't want to use a WP article to support your point, namely "longer form of suffix ā€œ-gateā€ is still ā€œ-gate scandalā€". Bromley86 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I cited that WP article because you were apparently unaware that the suffix ā€œ-gateā€ is used to indicate scandals. Itā€™s strange that youā€™re not obstructing that page too if youā€™re so certain you're right. FivePillarPurist (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So now because I disagree with you, I'm obstructive? Also, do I really need to remind you again that it's no business of yours which articles I edit? Seeing as you like WP links, have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (which are summarised on this page). Bromley86 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I hate to break this to you, but it was you who invited yourself into this edit dispute between User:Ghmyrtle and myself - again, and again, and again. You wanted dispute and you got it. And trying to keep the term ā€œpiggate scandalā€ away from a subject termed ā€œpiggate scandalā€ is indeed obstruction. FivePillarPurist (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've no problem with having a discussion with you; that you don't feel the same is also not my problem. Bromley86 (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"The allegation was made by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott ..."

No, it wasn't. The allegation was made by the unnamed MP, and it was then reported by Ashcroft and Oakeshott. That is not at all the same thing, and the opening paragraph should be reworded accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I initially raised an eyebrow at this edit, but thought a moment and realised this is the case - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert of PMQ Edits

The following was added to the article and reverted by one of the editors. His edit summary was not particularly informative. Given that this is an article about a political controversy political events seem relevant.

" ... On October 15, 2015 during Prime Ministers Questions before the British House of Commons, Kevin Brennan, Labour MP for Cardiff West, raised questions surrounding Lord Ashcroft's allegations that David Cameron had knowledge of Ashcroft's non-dom tax status prior to the 2010 election and asked if Cameron was "telling porkies". David Cameron ignored the question as did his spokeperson and later make the statement, "I would think of many better uses of his time than reading that book. I managed to procure a free copy and in order not to give anyone royalties I'll gladly lend him a copy."[16]

  • Support - inclusion in the article. If the wording or form of the content needs improvement please feel free. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use of the word "porkies" is just another cheap political insult, and has nothing substantive to do with the topic of this article. If worthy of mention (which I doubt), Call Me Dave would be the proper place.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This wasn't some quote from Cameron in between dinner parties, it was made before Parliment and is on the public record forever. I agree that the MP took a cheap shot, but that does not make the matter less relevant to the article, at least one of the articles anyway. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think that every witty retort by every prime minister made in parliament ought to be inserted into this encyclopaedia? I certainly hope not. This remark was about other allegations in the book, not this topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Put it in Call me Dave, if anywhere. Cut the porkies reference; the fact that people crack jokes/insult each other is not encyclopaedic. Bromley86 (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cheap one-liners are trivial and irrelevant. Ignore. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as being even further into silly season stuff than we need - and noting that this article, itself, is a pretty horrid example of such. Going another mile deeper into a morass is unwise as a rule. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is oppose. Edit abandoned. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal (3rd Attempt)

Invalid and withdrawn proposal. To create a valid Merge proposal, follow all of the exact steps in WP:MERGEPROP. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it time to think about merging this article into Call Me Dave. I think the press has died down and this topic is just floating in the tabloids. May not belong in a separate article.

  • Support - Discussing merging the article into Call Me Dave. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Always should have been a part of the book. Bromley86 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are you going to keep repeating this until we give the 'right' answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Just seeing where the consensus is. Thanks for adding your voice, it does help. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sounds a bit like the Scottish referendum. Two separate issues, best to keep separate articles. 86.153.75.49 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I am obviously clueless here. There's no mention of the Scottish Referendum and Piggate together. That sounds like an interesting angle. I did not see any sources for that after browsing the web. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
He means that generational votes have a habit of occurring every few years. Bromley86 (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Looks like piggate will stick around. Removing tag. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't close something you have voted in, but anyway, I think that it was way too soon to have another proposal for this merge. Can any other editors shed light on guidelines for how long should be left before repeating a proposal? Btljs (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't plan to try again, let another editor propose it. It's been proposed several times and there is no consensus. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is an article about an entirely unsubtantiated allegation and in my opinion, a self evident BLP violation. There was an initial Media circus about this cheap shot, which has now died down. Weeks have gone by, and not a shred of evidence supporting this triviality has emerged. The only recent news concerns Oakeshott's furious backpedaling. There is a proper place to give due weight to this sleazy rumor: the article about the book Call Me Dave where the crude rumor was published, and where it can be given the due weight that it deserves. I am astounded that experienced editors support keeping this ephemeral tabloid trash as a freestanding article, and will support merging it into the book article three, five, seven, nine or eleven times. And so on, forever. Unless actual credible evidence emerges. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Cullen328 and Bromley86. As Andy Dingley said some time ago: "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. ". But, this article, now, barely considers that serious issue (worthy of being called a scandal). It's about the Ć¼ber-trivial tabloid furore around what Cameron did or did not do decades ago - which is just silly season fluff that 12-year-old boys find funny. The real Ashcroft/Cameron scandal has not yet been properly written up. In the meantime, the two articles we do have overlap, with this article only in existence because of the book's publication. They should be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeThis is disgracefully disruptive behaviour. This is at least the fourth attempt to remove a widely sourced article in a couple of months. AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    It's easy to write a widely sourced article. Just cut a section out of an existing article and rename it. That doesn't mean it should exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    This did not come from an existing article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    That's not the point - the point is that is easy to have multiple articles that should be (or have been) combined into a single article, if they cover essentially the same topic. It's a moot point as to whether a merged article should be called Call Me Dave, Piggate, or something else like Relationship between David Cameron and Lord Ashcroft - but that's not a matter for this discussion. They should still be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The previous failed merge is still on this talk page. I'm afraid this repeated merge nomination primarily comes across as disruptive - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    I apologize for relisting it. Several editors continue to state they feel it should be merged but there is no consensus. I don't understand why talking and getting consensus is disruptive but I will refrain from doing this again if people think that , I was just trying to help. Sorry. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You really don't need to comment - the proposer has withdrawn the proposal. 97.126.235.119 maybe you should strike through the original proposal to make this clear. Btljs (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid Merge discussion and any "consensus" reached here is invalid. If you want a binding Merge proposal, you need to follow all of the exact steps in WP:MERGEPROP, including the tags on both articles. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Er, it's crossed out. Please, no more comments below this one.
MERGE PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN. END OF DISCUSSION. Btljs (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ref Stripping?

@Andy Dingley. Re. this revert.

  • Not my intention to stip references just for the hell of it (or to hide issues), but do we really need 6 references to confirm that The Mail serialised the book? I'd normally say the ref on the previous sentence, to the Mail's serialisation itself, would be good enough, but I could see that it might be seen as primary, so a couple of reliable cites can't hurt. But 6?
  • Ā£8m or Ā£10m. We are currently using refs that say Ā£8m and refs that say Ā£10m to support Ā£10m. This is not sensible. I jusdged that The Guardian and Telegraph were likely more reliable on this than the Mail. You disagree?
  • "Some commentators". It's been pretty-much "all commentators", hence my cutting of "some". You disagree? Bromley86 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
More refs are better than fewer I would think. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
For contentious points, maybe. However, although I suspect you're more au fait with WP that I am (passive aggressive way of asking you to register, or use your a/c), you might want to look at WP:OVERCITE. As I said, we do not need 6 secondary cites to support an assertion that the quasi-primary source (also cited) serialied the book. Bromley86 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
We should put the cites back where they were, supporting a broader article, not (as has happened here) moving them all onto one already-obvious point and then removing them. In what way was that an improvement? Unless of course the agenda (as you have advocated all the way so far) is not to improve the article, but to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • How to delete an article
Roll up all the citations to one place
Remove most of them as "superfluous to this section"
Delete the other sections as "unreferenced"
Delete the article as "trivia with few sources"
I am concerned that this is the push happening here. The section on knock-on effects and the local Conservative party cancelling its pig race has gone, and this was sourced from one of the removed refs. The Belfast Telegraph piece, in a country where the Tory party are foreigners, gave context that this was a story of interest outside the English heartland.
The article was not made better by stripping these refs. Very likely these refs were better when cited throughout the article (as they had been at first) and could also be used to support broader claims than the single core. So use them, don't remove them as "too many references". Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, whilst I can see what you're saying, I'd suggest that you're looking at it backwards. The sentences in the article should all be referenced, but the references in and of themselves don't determine whether or not the sentence (and, using your logic, the para->section->article) is retained. Using that logic, every article would be massively overcited, which makes it hard to read.
Frankly, if editors have decided that the pig event should not be in the article, then who cares if the Belfast Telegraph reference is kept if other reliable references cover the point? Bromley86 (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit. Should have said, the flaw in your How to delete an article is that there are plenty of references. In the event of an AFD, that'd be highlighted by even non-involved editors, as it doesn't take long to confirm that over on Google News. Given that, I'll have another stab at putting the changes through to see what happens. Bromley86 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You called for delete on AfD. For an article unworthy of existence, itā€™s remarkable how much time youā€™re spending on it. FivePillarPurist (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, I called for delete because it was an AFD and I hadn't considered a merge possibility. Also, my time is my own; perhaps you'd like to pull me up on the time I've put into Louis Lesser and International Debutante Ball, both clearly important UK political issues? If that's the best reasoning you have, I'll put through those changes you reverted later today. Bromley86 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"anecdote" per Oakeshott

Oakeshott refers to this whole bit as an "anecdote" which is likely a more apt term than "allegation" here. Collect (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur, though "it was alleged" is still fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Fine. Definitely not a "scandal" anyway (see above). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I changed to claim and then stated that the claim comes from the anecdote. When people talk about Piggate they are talking about the claim that David Cameron put his penis in a pig, not about the anecdote that subsequently gave rise to this claim. Many people talk about Piggate having no awareness of the anecdote at all. The page is inaccurate as stands and should read "Piggate refers to the claim that..." then "this claim first appeared as an uncorroborated anecdote in..."Wikiditm (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The authors themselves specifically call it an anecdote - thus we ought not aver it is a "claim that there is an anecdote" which is around Robin Hood's barn. Collect (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The authors themselves are not entirely relevant. References to piggate generally make no mention of Ashcroft. See the effigy burning for a big example of this. Piggate doesn't refer to the anecdote. This is simply not true. Piggate refers to a claim which first appeared as an anecdote.Wikiditm (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Ashcroft is in it up to his (blank). The anecdote does not become a "claim" of anything where it is presented ab initio as an anecdote, along with an indication that the anecdote may lack veracity as fact. No one has made a claim that there is substance to the anecdote as a matter of fact. Collect (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your reply is largely nonsensical. Almost everyone talking about piggate suggests there is substance beyond the anecdote, hence the scandal. It wouldn't be a scandal or even a story if everyone understood the situation as an uncorroborated anecdote. Piggate refers to a claim whose genesis appears to be an anecdote. That's the accurate way of describing the situation and that's what should be written.Wikiditm (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Find a reliable source stating that it is more than an uncorroborated anecdote if you wish to make that assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Alas - the authors of the book state that it is an unsubstantiated anecdote. As for calling Wikipedia policy "nonsensical" - live with it or suggest that it should be changed. I suggest that you ask at the talk page for WP:BLP first in that case, not here. Collect (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This very article notes that it is more than an uncorroborated ancedote. We cover things like popular culture references, which are not part of the anecdote. If anything, piggate is a hashtag more than it is an anecdote from a book. I'm not calling the wikipedia policy nonsensical. I'm saying your basic grasp of English is off. For example, see http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/david-cameron-piggate-10-tweets-sent-wake-lord-ashcroft-revelation-call-me-dave-1521259 featuring tonnes of references to piggate which do not mention the anecdote. Wikiditm (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The author of the book states it is an "anecdote." That means he does not regard it as more than an "anecdote." Claims that the author of the anecdote does not know the meaning of the word is where your problem lay. Cheers. And note that you would need a positive consensus on this talk page to reverse the clear current consensus which is that the anecdote is an anecdote. Collect (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(od) Also note the IBTimes states clearly: "news emerged that he once allegedly ..." and that s a far cry for "claims" by a league or two. Possibly 20,000. The Mirror: "With that, Isabel look visibly offended and hit back: "Hang on, this isn't Watergate. I don't think you would have put a team of researchers on one little anecdote."" The Guardian: "Call Me Dave co-author admits source of pig anecdote ā€˜could have been slightly derangedā€™ and says different standards apply in books and newspapers" "Furthermore, Oakeshott admitted it is far easier to slip questionable anecdotes into books than it is into newspapers ā€“ before insisting her exposĆ© should still be regarded as a ā€œseriously well-researched bookā€. According to the Times, she said it is a false premise that ā€œthings that are written in books need to have the same standard ā€“ if you like to use that word ā€“ as things that are written in newspapersā€." " ā€œThe thing to point out about that story is that there is no need for burden of proof on a colourful anecdote where weā€™re quite upfront about our own reservations about whether to take it seriously.ā€" Collect (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps spend a little more time reading and understanding English before you post. I'm not saying that the claim is true, or based on anything more than an anecdote. I'm saying that piggate is a claim, now completely detached from Aschroft, and usually surfacing unrelated to him or the book. And no consensus is needed, Wikipedia is not a vote. You're simply wrong.Wikiditm (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The established consensus here is that "anecdote" which is the term used by the author is a proper term in this article which must conform with WP:BLP. I suggest you start an RfC (WP:RFC) if you wish to change the established consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivia of the wertlos variety

[17] re-added a tidbit about a Cameron effigy with a "pig's head" being used in the town of [[Lewes]. (More important in that article "A model of Pope Paul V - Pontiff at the time of the Gunpowder Plot - is burned every year to remember 17 Protestant martyrs burned at the stake in the town during the 16th Century.") I suggest that this is wondrously irrelevant to the article about the anecdote, and that it is trivia about a living person which has no encyclopedic value. Other views? Collect (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The serving prime minister is burned in effigy, in a bizarrely humiliating pose, and he says nothing about it, not even using the litigant-friendly British libel courts against the author of this story? Now that's a political story worth talking about. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Such effigies have been made of many folks - yet you do not seem to wish to add the other effigies burned at the fair? I would note that almost every major politician has been burned in effigy somewhere - including Blair, Churchill, et al. And note that the legal definition of "libel" under UK law has been held to exclude effigies. So as he could not sue for libel, it is not amazing that he did not sue for libel. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
For all his sins, I don't think Tony Blair was ever involved with a pig, nor has Lewes portrayed him as such. So why would he be relevant here? They have however done it to Cameron.
As to libel, then there's still a case waiting against Ashcroft (obviously the "author" here) and yet that remains strangely quiet. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It shows the lasting significance of the allegations - lasting for several weeks, rather than hours or days. Cameron's porcine associations may well live in the public memory as long as John Major's underpants. As such, the Lewes effigy is worthy of being mentioned, very briefly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The effigy was done by private individuals - there is zero official connection of any effigy to Lewes (possibly excepting burning a pope in effigy each year, of course). Collect (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Errr.... No. You don't know how Lewes works, do you? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"...zero official connection of any effigy to Lewes..." Huh?? I have no idea why you think that is important, let alone worthy of emphasis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact is that the main effigy historically in Lewes was - the pope. Did that get placed in the appropriate BDP by anyone? Were any other effigies added to BLPs for the current effigies across the UK? Why is this particular one important? If it is pure trivia, then it belongs where pure trivia belongs - on the cutting room floor. Collect (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It made the papers with a photo - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Trivia" is subjective. Given Wikipedia's substantial efforts in the fields of Pokeman and Batmon, clearly some editors disagree as to what is important and what trivial. So instead we work by a more objective criterion of whether substantial independent coverage was given to a topic. Which for the giant public effigy of David Cameron getting his pork crackling, was substantial across pretty much every UK media channel.Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Big yawn. Look, Lewes' choice of effigy is a regular nationally newsworthy thing which tells you something about who has been offending certain sensitivities in the population each year. Yes, they burnt Sepp Blatter and Jeremy Clarkson as well. So what? This page isn't about them. It's about a news event in 2015 and public reaction to it. Get over it; this is Wikipedia, not Pravda. Btljs (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piggate/Archive_1&oldid=1215228995"