This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Piggate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Tanbircdq David Gerard Collect - Apologies for being blunt here but this content is really, really, really stupid. I mean seriously. This goes to new depths. Wikipedia is not commentary. It's not trivia. Why, oh why do we need to include some barely notable commentary from some barely notable porn industry lawyer? We do realize the sourcing for this is "vice.com" and a commentary in the Independent. Really not stellar sourcing. Would those supporting the inclusion explain what they see as the value to the reader of keeping this kind of information?
All this said, perhaps it sorta silly to expect rationale behavior on an article about such a questionable subject...... Sigh.... NickCT ( talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The vice.com bit is a blog entry, and clearly such. Jackman should be identified as a solicitor (not "lawyer" as the Americanism) who specialises in "sexual liberties and obscenity law" and the quote about the drafting of the law is not on point for the pure anecdote which no one seems willing to assert is accurate at this point.
Collect (
talk)
13:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Is an anecdote. Not an "affair." By the way, many places used "pig-headed" in reference to Ashcroft and others as well ... Oh how those pig-headed men do cling on to a grudge, Opinion: Corbyn plays pig-headed politics as shadow minister picks a beef with Britain’s farmers, etc. Might we try to at least pretend we seek to obey the strictures of WP:BLP here? Collect ( talk) 13:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
just wow Barjimoa ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's true, but the UK government extorts billions from UK citizens and has the resources to hush it up. Or try at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.155.193 ( talk) 18:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we should be explicit with exactly what Ashcroft is alleging here: That Cameron inserted his penis into the mouth of a dead pig. I understand that this topic makes people squeamish and it seems too vulgar to be talked about without lowering the wiki's dignity, but it is essential to understanding Piggate. It is the sexual taboo of both masturbation and symbolic bestiality that makes the hazing ritual a shameful thing for Cameron to have allegedly done. Using only the euphemism of "private part of his anatomy" is not adequately informative. Yes, most people would be able to grasp the implication, but some people wouldn't. There is a lot of weird ignorance out there, and an encyclopedia shouldn't confine itself to only reporting within socially acceptable expressions. Wikipedia is not censored. While Ashcroft himself didn't explicitly discuss which "private part" was in play, everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis, leading to jokes about him supposedly having a pig fetish, so citations can be derived from secondary sources. -- OGoncho ( talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
While Ashcroft himself didn't explicitly discuss which "private part" was in play, everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis. The problem is that that isn't sufficient to say that Ashcroft claimed it was Cameron's penis. I do think there's some weight to the idea that there's no other body part that could plausibly be being described here. The way I see it there are three options: quoting only, no inference; connecting the dots but without saying that Ashcroft said it, "Ashcroft insinuated an allegation that..." (probably this can be worded better); making the inference fully, "Ashcroft alleged that Cameron put his penis ...". Which option to choose depends on how explicit we judge the quote "placed a private part of his anatomy ..." to be, and how explicit secondary sources are (after taking into account that some have strict language style guides). I'm in two minds about which I think we should choose. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to itemise all the reasons why that material should not be added to the article? (1) It's irrelevant - the T-shirt pre-dates the allegations (it does not "predict" them). (2) It's inherently trivial - a minor band print a T-shirt. So? How does it add encyclopedic content to this story? (3) They reprint the T-shirt to gain publicity. So? Not relevant. (4) It's only reported in blogs - not reliable sources. (5)... and tabloids. Also not reliable. There are no good reasons for adding even more crap like that into this article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I made a couple of edits that have been reverted by David Gerard:
1. Diff. Addressing a problem with the source misquoting. Instead of using HuffPo, I swapped in the original ITV News source. I can't see a problem with that. It did have a cut down version of the quote; is losing the "too much of our media is obsessed with personality politics" that the ITV piece didn't quote a real issue? If it is, I can cite AV media on the same link and add it back in, but I didn't feel it added anything and text confirmation is always an easier cite for readers to confirm.
I also removed "appeared to criticise", as it's clear that when Corbyn says "The media treatment of any politician on unsubstantiated allegations, be it David Cameron, me or anybody else is wrong", he is criticising.
2. Diff. Non-notable pic. As far as I can see, that's merely a pic an editor has taken of some random graffiti. It may be real reporting by that editor (although using pictures of non-reported graffiti is opening a door, I'd have thought), but how is that different to OR? Bromley86 ( talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
(3. Diff. Sic. Just spotted this. We had a sic template ( [ sic]), it was changed to plain-text ([sic]), so I reverted, and was then reverted myself. Not a big deal, as it'll drop out when we fix the quote, but generally I assume the sic template is preferred?) Bromley86 ( talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not see how the legality of the alleged act is relevant. Let us be clear with what we are dealing with here: this is a piece of hearsay passed on (without the assertion that it was true) by a political enemy of Cameron in an unauthorised biography. No evidence of this allegation has been produced and no formal allegation has been made. Therefore to have a discussion of the legality of such hypothetical act seems not just unnecessary but actually a violation of WP:BLP as it is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did. I have brought this to the talk as suggested by Andy Dingley but there does not seem to have been a talk consensus for adding this in the first place. Reaganomics88 ( talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm no admirer of Cameron or the Tories generally, but the allegation about the pig's head is completely unsubstantiated and was one of a number of dubious and sensationalist assertions in Isabel Oakeshott's 'biography'. In 2015 there was a narrative among Cameron's critics that he was just an effete privileged 'posh boy', and the biography was written to play to that and hence sell copies. 5 years later, Cameron is no longer even an MP, and there is still absolutely no evidence that he was ever a member of the Piers Gaveston Society while at Oxford (he was a member of the Bullingdon Club for a time, but that is a completely different grouping - Bullers generally despise PGS members as nouveau riche poseurs).
Incidentally, this story has never been known as 'Piggate' in general British political conversation. -- Ef80 ( talk) 13:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Piggate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Tanbircdq David Gerard Collect - Apologies for being blunt here but this content is really, really, really stupid. I mean seriously. This goes to new depths. Wikipedia is not commentary. It's not trivia. Why, oh why do we need to include some barely notable commentary from some barely notable porn industry lawyer? We do realize the sourcing for this is "vice.com" and a commentary in the Independent. Really not stellar sourcing. Would those supporting the inclusion explain what they see as the value to the reader of keeping this kind of information?
All this said, perhaps it sorta silly to expect rationale behavior on an article about such a questionable subject...... Sigh.... NickCT ( talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The vice.com bit is a blog entry, and clearly such. Jackman should be identified as a solicitor (not "lawyer" as the Americanism) who specialises in "sexual liberties and obscenity law" and the quote about the drafting of the law is not on point for the pure anecdote which no one seems willing to assert is accurate at this point.
Collect (
talk)
13:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Is an anecdote. Not an "affair." By the way, many places used "pig-headed" in reference to Ashcroft and others as well ... Oh how those pig-headed men do cling on to a grudge, Opinion: Corbyn plays pig-headed politics as shadow minister picks a beef with Britain’s farmers, etc. Might we try to at least pretend we seek to obey the strictures of WP:BLP here? Collect ( talk) 13:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
just wow Barjimoa ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's true, but the UK government extorts billions from UK citizens and has the resources to hush it up. Or try at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.155.193 ( talk) 18:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we should be explicit with exactly what Ashcroft is alleging here: That Cameron inserted his penis into the mouth of a dead pig. I understand that this topic makes people squeamish and it seems too vulgar to be talked about without lowering the wiki's dignity, but it is essential to understanding Piggate. It is the sexual taboo of both masturbation and symbolic bestiality that makes the hazing ritual a shameful thing for Cameron to have allegedly done. Using only the euphemism of "private part of his anatomy" is not adequately informative. Yes, most people would be able to grasp the implication, but some people wouldn't. There is a lot of weird ignorance out there, and an encyclopedia shouldn't confine itself to only reporting within socially acceptable expressions. Wikipedia is not censored. While Ashcroft himself didn't explicitly discuss which "private part" was in play, everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis, leading to jokes about him supposedly having a pig fetish, so citations can be derived from secondary sources. -- OGoncho ( talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
While Ashcroft himself didn't explicitly discuss which "private part" was in play, everyone on the Internet interpreted it as Cameron's penis. The problem is that that isn't sufficient to say that Ashcroft claimed it was Cameron's penis. I do think there's some weight to the idea that there's no other body part that could plausibly be being described here. The way I see it there are three options: quoting only, no inference; connecting the dots but without saying that Ashcroft said it, "Ashcroft insinuated an allegation that..." (probably this can be worded better); making the inference fully, "Ashcroft alleged that Cameron put his penis ...". Which option to choose depends on how explicit we judge the quote "placed a private part of his anatomy ..." to be, and how explicit secondary sources are (after taking into account that some have strict language style guides). I'm in two minds about which I think we should choose. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to itemise all the reasons why that material should not be added to the article? (1) It's irrelevant - the T-shirt pre-dates the allegations (it does not "predict" them). (2) It's inherently trivial - a minor band print a T-shirt. So? How does it add encyclopedic content to this story? (3) They reprint the T-shirt to gain publicity. So? Not relevant. (4) It's only reported in blogs - not reliable sources. (5)... and tabloids. Also not reliable. There are no good reasons for adding even more crap like that into this article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I made a couple of edits that have been reverted by David Gerard:
1. Diff. Addressing a problem with the source misquoting. Instead of using HuffPo, I swapped in the original ITV News source. I can't see a problem with that. It did have a cut down version of the quote; is losing the "too much of our media is obsessed with personality politics" that the ITV piece didn't quote a real issue? If it is, I can cite AV media on the same link and add it back in, but I didn't feel it added anything and text confirmation is always an easier cite for readers to confirm.
I also removed "appeared to criticise", as it's clear that when Corbyn says "The media treatment of any politician on unsubstantiated allegations, be it David Cameron, me or anybody else is wrong", he is criticising.
2. Diff. Non-notable pic. As far as I can see, that's merely a pic an editor has taken of some random graffiti. It may be real reporting by that editor (although using pictures of non-reported graffiti is opening a door, I'd have thought), but how is that different to OR? Bromley86 ( talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
(3. Diff. Sic. Just spotted this. We had a sic template ( [ sic]), it was changed to plain-text ([sic]), so I reverted, and was then reverted myself. Not a big deal, as it'll drop out when we fix the quote, but generally I assume the sic template is preferred?) Bromley86 ( talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not see how the legality of the alleged act is relevant. Let us be clear with what we are dealing with here: this is a piece of hearsay passed on (without the assertion that it was true) by a political enemy of Cameron in an unauthorised biography. No evidence of this allegation has been produced and no formal allegation has been made. Therefore to have a discussion of the legality of such hypothetical act seems not just unnecessary but actually a violation of WP:BLP as it is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did. I have brought this to the talk as suggested by Andy Dingley but there does not seem to have been a talk consensus for adding this in the first place. Reaganomics88 ( talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm no admirer of Cameron or the Tories generally, but the allegation about the pig's head is completely unsubstantiated and was one of a number of dubious and sensationalist assertions in Isabel Oakeshott's 'biography'. In 2015 there was a narrative among Cameron's critics that he was just an effete privileged 'posh boy', and the biography was written to play to that and hence sell copies. 5 years later, Cameron is no longer even an MP, and there is still absolutely no evidence that he was ever a member of the Piers Gaveston Society while at Oxford (he was a member of the Bullingdon Club for a time, but that is a completely different grouping - Bullers generally despise PGS members as nouveau riche poseurs).
Incidentally, this story has never been known as 'Piggate' in general British political conversation. -- Ef80 ( talk) 13:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)