Talk:Tory scum

Deletion of "Examples" section under charge of "original research"

Hello. Editor DeFacto deleted a section ("Examples") of this article giving the following comment: "removed section which was totally based on original research. Examples need to be by supported by secondary sources about the subject of the article describing them specifically as examples of its use." I have reverted the article and requested discussion here. I do not believe the charge of "original research" applied. The cited sources are reliable, and the paragraphs summarise what the sources say. For instance, the first paragraph in the section reads:

"During the miners' strike of Margaret Thatcher premiership, demonstrators supporting the miners interrupted a speech by Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke to University College of Swansea's Conservative Association, invading the platform shouting "Victory to the N.U.M. — Smash the Tory scum".[6]"

The reference is Blaxland, Sam (2020). Swansea University: Campus and Community in a Post-War World, 1945–2020. University of Wales Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-78-683607-6, which says:

"the event that became much more prolific at the college was the miners' strike of 1984–5, which pitted Thatcher's government and the might of the state against the NUM [...] A speech by the then Health Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to the college's Conservative Association had to be abandoned in November 1984 after demonstrators, mainly from the Socialist Workers Party, invaded his platform shouting 'Victory to the N.U.M. – Smash the Tory Scum'."

I do not believe this constitutes original research. Or another example: the article says, "The phrase was used at other anti-austerity demonstrations that year — in Birmingham, for instance, the rhyme "Tory scum out of Brum" was chanted outside the Conservative Party Conference.[8]"

The reference is "Cuts protest at Tory conference in Birmingham". BBC News. 3 October 2010., which says:

"Thousands of people have protested in Birmingham against reduced public spending as the Conservative conference got under way in the city. [...] They walked to chants of: "They say cut back, we say fight back"; "They say privatise, we say nationalise"; and "Tory scum out of Brum." When the crowds got as close to the conference venue as they were allowed, they stopped in the road to make as loud a noise as possible."

The article is not original research. Woofboy (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Woofboy, each example of the phrase being used needs to be supported by a high quality source which describes it as an example and which is clearly discussing the topic of this article. Otherwise it is just an indiscriminate and cherry-picked example that you have given undue weight to and which relies on your own original research/synthesis to classify it as a typical example. Otherwise anyone could just do a web search and find all hits on the phrase and add them in as examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Defacto. Thanks for bring this to the disucssion. I content that WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE are being misapplied here. Your last sentence seems to be discouraging research altogther: doing a web search to find sources is something that Wikipedia encourages (otherwise one might just make unsubstantiated claims). It's original research that's unacceptable and, again, I don't think that charge applies to the section you deleted (which provides examples of the phrase "Tory scum"). Let's approach the first part: reliable sources.

The OR guidance says, "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." Let's take the first five sources cited it the section. Currently, they are:

• Blaxland, Sam (2020). Swansea University: Campus and Community in a Post-War World, 1945–2020. University of Wales
• White, Michael (10 November 2010). "At the student protests, the ancient cry of 'Tory scum' once again echoed out". The Guardian.
• "Cuts protest at Tory conference in Birmingham". BBC News.
• Graffius, Catriona (21 January 2020). "Scottish Independence supporters march for second referendum in Glasgow". South West Londoner.
• Oakeshott, Isabel (25 November 2023). "Millions lose out as child benefit is cut". The Times.

I believe all of these fit the reliable source criteria - specifically in this instance, "Books published by university presses" and "Mainstream newspapers" - and we could work down the rest (which I'd be willing to do), or you could highlight which references aren't reliable and we could work on improving the sentences they are being used to support.

Next is SYNTH, where the guidance says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." If we take the examples I gave in my opening post above we can apply this and see if they are synthesising, using multiple sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source, or combining different part of one source to imply a conculsion not explicitly stated by the source.

The first paragraph in the section reads:

"During the miners' strike of Margaret Thatcher premiership, demonstrators supporting the miners interrupted a speech by Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke to University College of Swansea's Conservative Association, invading the platform shouting "Victory to the N.U.M. — Smash the Tory scum".[6]"

The reference is Blaxland, Sam (2020). Swansea University: Campus and Community in a Post-War World, 1945–2020. University of Wales Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-78-683607-6, which says:

"the event that became much more prolific at the college was the miners' strike of 1984–5, which pitted Thatcher's government and the might of the state against the NUM [...] A speech by the then Health Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to the college's Conservative Association had to be abandoned in November 1984 after demonstrators, mainly from the Socialist Workers Party, invaded his platform shouting 'Victory to the N.U.M. – Smash the Tory Scum'."

First of all, only one reference is used here, so we're not synthesising multiple sources (this is the same for the other example, too, below). But are different parts of the source being combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in the source? Again, I don't think that's the case. Below is the source followed by the text in the article:

• "the event that became much more prolific at the college was the miners' strike of 1984–5, which pitted Thatcher's government and the might of the state against the NUM" //// "During the miners' strike of Margaret Thatcher premiership"
• "A speech by the then Health Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to the college's Conservative Association had to be abandoned in November 1984 after demonstrators, mainly from the Socialist Workers Party, invaded his platform shouting 'Victory to the N.U.M. – Smash the Tory Scum'." //// "demonstrators supporting the miners interrupted a speech by Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke to University College of Swansea's Conservative Association, invading the platform shouting "Victory to the N.U.M. — Smash the Tory scum""

In line with the Wikipedia guidance, the article is summarising what the sources say. There is no synthesis, and I believe it is the same for the other example mentioned above: the article says, "The phrase was used at other anti-austerity demonstrations that year — in Birmingham, for instance, the rhyme "Tory scum out of Brum" was chanted outside the Conservative Party Conference.[8]"

The reference is "Cuts protest at Tory conference in Birmingham". BBC News. 3 October 2010., which says:

"Thousands of people have protested in Birmingham against reduced public spending as the Conservative conference got under way in the city. [...] They walked to chants of: "They say cut back, we say fight back"; "They say privatise, we say nationalise"; and "Tory scum out of Brum." When the crowds got as close to the conference venue as they were allowed, they stopped in the road to make as loud a noise as possible."

In case it's necessary, here's the two next to each other (the article text first):

• "The phrase" //// "Tory scum"
• "was used at other anti-austerity demonstrations that year" //// "people have protested ... against reduced public spending"
• "in Birmingham, for instance," //// "in Birmingham"
• "the rhyme "Tory scum out of Brum" was chanted outside the Conservative Party Conference" /// "the Conservative conference got under way in the city ... They [the protesters] walked to chants of: ... "Tory scum out of Brum." When the crowds got as close to the conference venue as they were allowed, they stopped in the road to make as loud a noise as possible."

It's not original research. The article summarises the source. If I'm incorrect with these, please demonstrate how.

Again, we could work down the text and the sources and I think we'd find similar. Maybe things need tweaking, for sure (I don't claim to have written the perfect article), but I feel I've demonstrated that deleting the whole section on the charge of original research is inappropriate. And rather than bring up other charges without supporting them, please, rather, bring up instances of original research that you find in the "Examples" section and let's work on them to make it better. Woofboy (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Woofboy, Firstly, I have not said that any of those cited sources are unreliable.

In the article section in question, to give due weight to your implication that each of those quoted uses of that phrase is a notable example of its use, each of them need to be supported by a reliable source which is primarily discussing the use of that phrase, and which quotes that specific use of the phrase as a notable example.

But we don't currently have that. What we have is you including uses that you have personally come across and personally decided are therefore notable examples. WP:OR says: "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". The sources you cite don't say that these are examples - so that is your original research/synthesis. WP:DUE says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". The sources you cite don't quote these as notable examples of the phrase - so you have given undue weight to your personal opinion that these are notable examples of uses of the phrase.

The questions we need answering for each example are:

1. Is the cited source clearly discussing the use and uses of the "Tory Scum" phrase?
2. Does the cited source give the example it is being cited for as an example of the use of the phrase in the context of how it has been used?

And if either answer is "no", then that is not a notable example and it should not be included in the section as such. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello DeFacto. I see that, after a few changes were made by another editor, you deleted most of the article again rather than reverting it, despite it being under discussion. Regardless, I'm about to make some changes myself, which hopefully you should be more content with. From the examples I had used before, I've so far limited the edit to the following:

• The graffitiing of the phrase onto a Conservative Party campaign poster.
• The graffitiing of the phrase onto the Monument to the Women of World War II and the trial involving Monroe and Hopkins.
• The cancelling from Glastonbury Festival of the band Killdren for their song 'Kill all Tory Scum (Before they Kill you)'.
• Protesters calling Duncan-Smith Tory scum and Duncan-Smith taking them to court.
• Conservative Party leadership candidates Sunak and Truss being called Tory scum at a hustings in Scotland.
• Rees-Mogg being called Tory scum outside the Conservative Party Conference and his subsequent comments on it.

I believe these meet your two criteria. Woofboy (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

None of the cited sources are clearly discussing the phrase and citing these as examples. The list was selected by you, so falls foul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and the weight you are giving to your personal section fails WP:DUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you look for a selection of good quality secondary sources that are specifically describing the history of the use of this phrase, and use them to help you construct something that is encyclopaedically fully attributed, fully sourced, and neutral. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello DeFacto. Thank you for the suggestions. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe you're holding the article to standards not applied to others in seemly insisting examples are contained in sources that say something like, "This instance is an example of when the phrase "Tory scum" was used", or to that effect (for instance, this doesn't seem to be necessary in the following articles (which are recognised as "good" articles - although perhaps poorly sources examples were added after the recognition): Ain't; The finger; Have a nice day; Plant epithet; along with many others, not just about phrases (although, admittedly these aren't ranked) (e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.)). Perhaps other articles would benefit from the deletion of the examples they contain, true; but, on the off chance this article is being limited unnecessarily, and as it's the two of us in disagreement here, I'll see if we can get other opinions into the discussion by asking in the related project pages. Woofboy (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of "Examples" section with reference to WP:BRD and WP:QUO

Hello. Following my revert metioned above, editor DeFacto deleted the section again, with the comment, "Undid revision 1187850822 by Woofboy (talk) - per WP:BRD and WP:QUO as the onus is on you to get a consensus for the inclusion of this new content". I believe WP:BRD and WP:QUO are not being used correctly. DeFacto's changes to the article do not come under the "Bold editing" description, and the revert isn't in the spirit of WP:BRD, either, as it's not a reverting of an edit but the deletion of a whole section - and it's not been a revert only when necessary, which is typically for "vandalism or other disruptive edits". And Defacto hasn't tried to engage in dicussion, which BRD includes, and which WP:QUO is also about. As for myself, I believe I've edited it boldly, adding and tweaking things, and corrected things I've seen that are wrong, and I've attempted to open the edits up for discussion here. As I said, I do not believe WP:BRD and WP:QUO are being used correctly, and neither that the "onus is on [me] to get a consensus for the inclusion of this new material" - editors are supposed to work together on the article and in discussion to get consensus. I will revert the article once more and hope that DeFacto will engage in discussion before deleting sections. Woofboy (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding discussion, I'd like to mention the importance placed on it on WP:ROWN especially in the "Avoiding or limiting your reverts" section. Woofboy (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Woofboy, the B-R-D of WP:BRD is: you added the section in a series of Bold edits, I then Reverted your edits because I believe the section you added contravened the WP:OR policy. The talkpage should now be used (and I see you've started a section for it above which is good) to Discuss that section. Then if a consensus to restore that content in some form is reached, then fair enough that can be done. But without a consensus to add that content, you should not have restored it (per WP:QUO).

PS. You should probably revert your last restore which may be seen as disruptive as discussions may need days, if not weeks, to develop, not the few minutes you left between opening the discusion and restoring the content as previous editor is not entering into discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I still contend BRD and QUO are not being used correctly (your initial deletion wasn't a revert of some bold editing I'd done but a deletion of a whole section - which I'd consider too bold an edit without discussion, hence me reverting to before your deletion; and my reference to you not discussing wasn't about the time between my two posts on this talk page but that you hadn't engaged in discussion at all before deleting large sections), but discussion on whether the section that was deleted is original research is now happening above, which seems to be the main issue, so I'll join the discussion there as soon as I'm able. Woofboy (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully support DeFacto's edit. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult in cases like this to distinguish where the WP:OR line lies, so I have sympathy with both the positions of DeFacto (do the sources say these are noteworthy uses of the phrase) and Woofboy (these are reliably sourced examples). On the whole, I think DeFacto's edits are more right than wrong. In assembling examples of the phrase being used, we can be guilty of WP:SYNTH. That said, noting, for example, that the slogan has been used in a variety of media (with cited examples) seems to me safer, so I think some of Woofboy's additions could be saved. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Killdren" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Killdren has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Killdren until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Boris Johnson Is A Cunt

how come, esteemed Wiki editors, Fuck The Tories is relevant in the See Also section, but Boris Johnson Is A Cunt is not relevant? You aren't being consistent, it seems to me. (Presumably there is WP-CONSISTENCY, or some such what-not.) 31.94.60.127 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)