Talk:Gammon (insult)

To-do List

A number of us are keen to strengthen the article by ensuring that claims are properly referenced. In the section "attempts to introduce POV wording" below, we're working through the article, identifying things which could be made clearer or referenced. There's a to-do list here. Bmcollier (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Find a good reference for the 2012 start date which seems to mark the beginning of popular modern use of the word.Bmcollier (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
2. There appears to be hidden text on the page that only shows up in the search summary. ' there is considerable debate over whether the term may be considered "racist", mainly by racists.'Diyman66 (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability?

This is not a notable subject and should be deleted. The entire entry is baseless journalistic tittle-tattle and is beneath wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.210.68 (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Not every single descriptor in British political discourse needs its own wikipedia article. 95.150.241.129 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd keep this page while the term is still in common use. It's far from the only page at which this criticism could be leveled. Chrismorey (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a political battleground the middle section should be r removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.48.186 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is used as a political battleground, because as an open, anonymous source it's vulnerable to abuse by those who are loud and opinionated. That doesn't of course mean that it should be condoned Chrismorey (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable to me to have an article on this. It has been discussed widely in the UK press for one thing, and it has a fair number of sources about it. Wikipedia is often the first place people come to look up information, so it would be odd if there was no article on it. The objections raised above don't seem particularly relevant. There is no criteria for what is "beneath" Wikipedia, and it's not a political background either. If editors feel there is another side to anything said, the obvious solution is for example to put in the views of some other newspaper columnists. John Smith's (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I came here to find out what “gammon” means when used to describe a person. So FWIW, I’m with John Smith’s. 180.150.36.202 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Corbyn

We can't do this, I'm afraid - just like we probably shouldn't quote the rest of the Guardian article which describes gammons as "middle-aged, right-leaning white men who won’t stop railing against a system they feel is working against them, even though they are ultimately among its greatest beneficiaries" and "like the skin tone of almost every furious, spittle-mouthed wingnut ever to scream borderline racist nearly-questions at the panel on Question Time".

It's already done. Wikipedia has an article on "Rednecks". This seems to be the UK's equivalent pejorative. Indeed, the UK term seems to be far older with a reference in the article to an 1838 usage by Charles Dickens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railhis (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 'gammon' is not quite the UK equivalent of 'redneck', as it refers predominately to middle-class people, whilst redneck is overwhelmingly used to describe rural working class people. 95.150.241.129 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, for reason given below Chrismorey (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Look at the title of the section. I was referring to the (now removed) link to Jeremy Corbyn, not the article itself. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Working class?

"Gammon is a pejorative term used to describe older, often working class[1], white men" This isn't true. It's often used to describe older, bigoted middle class white men. The cited article is trying to subvert the common usage for rhetorical purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.165.98 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Concur. There's a rather marked debate going on between people who appear to actually be working class who agree that gammon primarily describes certain middle-class "golf club types", and people who appear to be Defending The Working Class who insist that it's exclusively working-class. Give it a couple of days and that will probably have made it into print. ;p Vashti (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(for the record and acknowledging WP:NOR, I consider myself working-class and I don't recognise my family or the various communities I've lived in in what appear to be accepted as "gammon types") Vashti (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I have never heard it used in reference to anyone but middle-class Englishmen expressing reactionary views. 95.150.241.129 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've seen it used to refer to Katie Hopkins, Shaun Bailey, Kanye West and disgraced former International Development minister Priti Patel, none of whom is a white middle-aged Englishman. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. The only recent use I've seen for it is as a pejorative for people of lower social class ("the gammon", collective noun, cf. archaic "the mob", "the proles" etc.) by those who consider themselves as of higher social class. It's also used to mock those pretensions. Chrismorey (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Moving this discussion down. Can I suggest that in the presence of active controversy over this point, it's not neutral to cite opinion pieces in the lede and thus give one side of an opinion-based argument the weight of fact? The article body is the place to discuss people's opinions about this, e.g. "Suzanne Moore stated X". Vashti (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• JohnBull1914.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Attempts to introduce POV wording

I have reverted several attempts by an anonymous editor to introduce what seems to be POV wording giving excessive credence to the claim that this term is racist against white people. This goes beyond what is supported by the existing source and no new source is offered in addition. I have encouraged the anonymous editor to discuss it here and I still hope that they might do so. Here is their least objectionable attempt so far: diff. Are we all in agreement that this is not an improvement? Are we happy that the existing wording ("There has been considerable debate over whether the term is racist") is both in line with the source and a good neutral description of the matter? Is any improvement necessary here? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I wrote the original shortened line "there has been considerable debate" and it was an attempt to write a neutral statement, as previous lines contained POV additions which attempted to argue the point. At the time I made the change, it seemed as though there was a lot of left-wing POV in the article which needed moderation. As the author of the original, I obviously don't think it needs changing! The fact attested to by all sources, is that *some people* consider the term racist, and it's a matter of debate. Other people have added bits about its use in the 19th century which is both descriptive and a better way of educating the reader about the debate. Let's try to describe that debate as accurately as possible, rather than having a partisan edit war. Bmcollier (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I've previously removed a number of lines which added POV such as descriptions of the views of targets of the "gammon" label as being "uninformed" and so on. I think the article in its current state is a good balance. Bmcollier (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that we now have a persistent IP vandal so I have requested page protection. If anybody has any other suggestions then they can put them here but, at least for now, I think we have a consensus that the article stays as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We've had another edit in this direction, this time changing the short description. I've reverted it and directed the user to the talk page. I notice the protection on the page expired, so I expect we'll see more of this. (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So apparently on Wikipedia you are allowed to introduce racist language, deny the victims the ability to call it racist because the offenders using the language don't want to be called racist. When you don't want to accept this, you violate Wikipedia's own rules and revert 3 or more times. Then, when upset, you call a mod to lock a page. [Comment added by User 2600:1700:4860:1010:847F:571C:55DB:F45C]

We're still getting regular anonymous attempts to mark this as a racial slur when this is still a matter of debate. Could we have the page set to only allow edits from autoconfirmed users? This isn't the only issue of course, the other side want to fill the article with references from historical fiction to imply that the issue must be decided in the opposite direction. Bmcollier (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And as if by magic, someone removed all references to the racism question while I was writing this comment. I've requested that the article be semi-protected. Bmcollier (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been witnessing yet another IP-user edit-war over the past few days. Again, attempts to include POV text. I have therefore looked at the structure of the first paragraph and rewritten as best I can including all the cited facts in a balanced and justifiable way. I would like to see this page protected, as this is becoming a frequent problem.Lowndesc (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a definition of the term, included in Collins English Dictionary from 2018, which provides a meaning 'a person, typically male, middle-aged, and White, with reactionary views, especially one who supports the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union'. The use of the modifier 'typically' suggests the dictionary editors were certainly not of the opinion the term is an exclusive ethnic slur. Lowndesc (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I, too, have noticed there are a number of changes lately suggesting that the term gammon is used to describe people of all races. However, each of the citations and references available only appear to reference people with white skin. Going by these references and citations, it is clear that this pejorative is used only in reference to people with white skin. Let us not forget that this article does not question whether or not anyone's skin can become flushed when flustered, it is focused on the actual usage of the term - of which the targets are, typically, "middle aged white men". Lowndesc, I understand you feel that the Collins Dictionary is not aware of what their own definition refers to - but when paired with all other sources referenced in the article, the common denominator here is "white". Perhaps you (or IP users) could provide some reliable sources whereby the use is demonstrated against those other than the demographic already mentioned? Whilst I do not agree with edit wars, I do feel as though this apparent battle over the usage of the term is still unresolved. Could we perhaps agree that once some reliable sources are found and provided, which clearly demonstrate the intended targets of the term are not just white people, we can revisit the target demographic? FancyDonut (talk)

There is a definition leading to simple tests for ethnophaulisms. The definition is 'words used as ethnic slurs to refer to out-groups in hate speech', as opposed to ethnocentrism, which focuses on the ethnic in-group of the speaker. The speaker cannot therefore, by definition, be a member of the ethnic out-group, as it would not then be an ethnic out-group from the speaker's POV. For a term to be considered an ethnic slur, its usage would be widely applicable to members of an ethnic out-group, often using caricatures distinguishable to that ethnic out-group alone. In the case of the topic under discussion here, the term:

1. is not widely applicable to members of any one ethnic group
2. is not using a caricature exclusive to members of any one ethnic group
3. is not used exclusively by persons against members of an ethnic out-group from the speaker's POV

The term therefore fails this series of tests against the definition of ethnophaulism and cannot then be considered to apply to any one ethnic group. A separate argument could be whether the usage of a term is disproportionate against a particular demographic (such as age-related or gender-stereotypical pejoratives ('aryans', 'blondes', 'boomers' etc) , but this in itself does not make these terms ethnophaulistic. Lowndesc (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lowndesc, I think you are perhaps misunderstanding my point, and that I have not explained myself very well. I am not debating whether the term is or is not racist or an ethnic slur. My point is every reliable source/citation points to the subject being of white skin color. With this in mind, I am confused as to why you believe the term applies to "any person" (for which there is no evidence of), when the sources state otherwise? I believe the article should include this detail per the sources. Can we agree that much? FancyDonut (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, I've reverted this to the version from prior to the recent edit warring. Both of the recent versions which the page has been flapping between contain inaccuracies. May I suggest that we work on the page on a sentence-by-sentence basis and work out what can be evidenced and is accurate. The current first sentence reads "Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012." Anyone disagree? Bmcollier (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bmcollier, I've moved your comment down the chain as indentation was missing from Lowndesc's last comment. I do believe that the sentence "Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012." is accurate, though it may prevent future warring if we could also find a source to demonstrate this. FancyDonut (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I think a lot of us intuitively know that date to be about right, but I don't think we've successfully demonstrated it on the page. This is made more complex by the POV-vandalism which tried to claim that the terms wasn't modern, and conflated sparse historical usage with modern use by presenting them on a single timeline. Of course, we know there were occasional usages historically, but the explosion in use is modern. I'll add a "To do List" section to talk, and the first item will be "establish a reference for the occasion on when 'gammon' became a popular pejorative". Perhaps Google Trends or another of their tools might work for this. This search: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=gammon has obvious peaks at Christmas as people cooked it for dinner each year, but the first occasion on which the *background* interest in the term appears to rise is the start of 2011. I guess one has to assume people aren't just more interested in eating it. Bmcollier (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Bmcollier, I think a to-do list is a good idea. Some suggestions on what I think should be covered in addition:

1. Modern usage and target demographic of term - This should be relatively easy to define given most (if not all) citations mention "middle aged white men". In its use, it does appear to be used in reference to any person of white skin when passionately expressing their views. Initially adopted by the political left to use against the right, it is also seeing increased usage by the political right against those on the left.
2. Historical usage - There is already information here but I think dividing the usage into modern and historical usage is helpful.
3. Global usage - The term being described here is generally used within the United Kingdom. However, it is also recorded as being used in Australia to mean "fake" or "bogus".
4. Controversy - I think this is needed. This term has a number of controversial aspects to it which should be explored and referenced. This will need to be thoroughly considered as to avoid edit warring.

What are your thoughts? FancyDonut (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Other Historical Uses

The article is currently locked, so can't edit. I'm not a wiki editor, so don't know if I'm doing things wrong, but:

'G. Parr rose to reply, amid lou dcheering. He said: Looking at the field to-day, we all thought we had been in our own country. WE saw cricket [cheers]. There was no gammon about it [loud laughter]. We were very much surprised at the cricket we met with to-day. We have gone to many parts of England and not met with such cricket [cheers].'

Cricketer's Register, Bell's Life in London (Londond), Sunday October 16, 1859. p. 3.

Although there is perhaps a hint of cultural supremacy as it is used today, I think it's closer to the Aboriginal definition of "joking/lying" e.g. "That's the truth, no gammon". I think most of the talk on this page about the Victorian era references are doing too much projecting contemporary thoughts on to historical characters. Victorian racial supremacy is different than contemporary racial supremacy, and it's dangerous to give Victorians 21st century motivations.

This is all OR, so doesn't belong on wiki of course, but arguably the same goes for the entire article. Journalists aren't linguists, political scientists, or historians, and click bait news is a poor source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.10.35 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is right. The "gammon" in victorian slang was a reference to nonsense, or stuff and nonsense - so this quote "no gammon about it" is using the word in that sense, as you say - no rubbish about it, no lying about it. --PaulHammond (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Backgammon" or "Black gammon"?

Can this insult refer equally to black people as to white? Sure the faces of all people can flush, whatever their skin colour, but gammon is usually pink. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It sounds very unlikely that this usage is in circulation. If it were to enter circulation I suspect it would be used to indicate a black person who has made common cause with those on the right and far right who usually get called gammon. As such, it would be somewhat similar to the phrase Oreo cookie when applied to black person. Of course, just because I can suggest what it might mean that doesn't mean that anybody actually is using it in this way. We would need proof of its use before it could be added to the article.

I had a quick look. Wiktionary has nothing on either spelling. Here are some more links to make searching easier.

Blackgammon: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Black gammon: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

So what do we find? There is a book called "Blackgammon" by Heather Neff but that does not seem notable enough to be more than a list entry in her article. "Boned Black gammon is cured using molasses sugar and black treacle"[1]. This seems to be a British thing but I had not heard of it before and I'm British. This is not mentioned in Gammon (meat) so that is not a good redirect target. There is a Europop record called "Black Gammon" by a band without an article so that's no good. "Blackgammon's Inc" is or was a company. "Blackgammon" is the name of a fictional heavy metal band in the movie Sound of Metal. There are the Black Gammon Islets in Nova Scotia. There is a type of ceramic tile and... OK. I think that's enough! I see nothing that supports the use use of gammon in the sense it is used here.

I suggest that Blackgammon remain a redirect to the game of Backgammon as it is a very plausible spelling mistake. In fact, I found a few such spelling mistakes in books when I used the Google Books links above as well as one example of the phrase "black gammon's" to mean the player using the black pieces. As backgammon has black games pieces, it is quite plausible that a person encountering it for the first time might mishear/misunderstand its name. If they come to Wikipedia hoping to learn more about it then we want to send them to the most appropriate article, which is certainly not this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see you adjusted my heading, which was meant to be a pun. Never mind. An excellent and thorough analysis of a different question, thanks. To get back to my original point though, is an edit such as this a valid one (even if other/more sources could be found)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realise that that was the question. I was confused by the link to Backgammon in your heading (which I changed). No, that edit is clearly not an improvement. It assumes that a person is white by default and anything else by exception. This is the way of thinking that, not always deliberately, holds an idea of a default person and defines all others relative to that. In this way of thinking there are black people and people (implied white), women and people (implied male), trans women and women (implied cis), left handed people and people (implied right handed), homeless people and people (to steal Philosophy Tube's latest example) and so on. As I say, this is not indicative of deliberate bad faith as it is normally subconscious ideology but we should still avoid it as it is not neutral. When we mean white people we should say "white people". --DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The Collins English Dictionary source, recently added in the thread above, is quite clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It says (emphasis added): "a person, typically male, middle-aged, and White, with reactionary views, especially one who supports the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Charles Dickens references

I'm not sure about the Charles Dickens quote. Back in Dickens' day the word "gammon" was used to mean "talking nonsense" like "poppycock" rather than a physical description of the person. The corrupt MP Dickens is describing does seem to be using the word to describe his own physical appearance, but as I recall that scene, he was reacting to a heckler who had shouted "Gammon!" at his speech, so he was trying to convince his audience that he wasn't a liar, and that the heckler was talking about what he looked like not what he had just said. --PaulHammond (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The history of 'gammon'

Please note it started off as a pejorative used by a Corbyn spokesman. I think that is definitely worth a mention in this article. Unfortunately I don't follow British politics; if I added it, I would probably make errors. See https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gammon-political-insult_uk_5af956e0e4b00d7e4c1c3459.--Phil of rel (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I get a 404 on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The article already cites examples that predate this claim so it clearly didn't "start off" with any Corbyn spokesperson. I don't think there is anything actionable for us here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

OED characterization

It is characterised in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as occurring "in various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions".

I'd be interested in knowing what these parasynthetic adjectives are (I'm guessing gammon-cheeked? as per the quote further down). I would gladly add a few examples but I don't have access to the source yet). Castor Gravy (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)