Talk:Greased piglet

Notability?

I know we've had a bit of fun with this article, but to survive the 'notability' test, we need to show evidence of "significant coverage" in reliable sources.

Per WP:GNG, these reliable sources have to "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". That means finding a number of reliable, preferably academic, sources that describe the subject of "greased piglet" in detail (its etymology, its use, etc., and probably containing what the authors of those sources see as notable examples of its use). It doesn't mean us just finding loads of sources that use the nickname as, err, a nickname to take the piss out of Johnson. And it doesn't mean citing cherry-picked sources, that do nothing but use the the term, and calling them examples - that would be original research.

GNG also says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material".

Without this, it could be a prime candidate for deletion. Do we think we can find these? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You might have raised this question just after I did this, about three hours ago? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I was eagerly anticipating the arrival of suitable sources, but they didn't seem to to arriving. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Always good to be positive. What's the deadline? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Before someone adds an AfD tag? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's possible at any time? I think we're assuming you won't actually do that yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not planning to, I'm hoping the sources will turn up before someone else does though. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We have several quality references that focus on the term, including an Economist article that I just added. More to come. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

But apparently it's not sufficient to have (very) many sources using the term, we also need an WP:RS that explicitly says that "it's widely used". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The Economist one has a paywall, so I can't read it. Does it discuss the nickname itself (the subject of this article), or use it to discuss Johnson? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It does, if right-click the link you can read the "cached" version. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any "cached" option with Chrome. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm on chrome, if you right-click the "three vertical dots" that appear on the rightmost end of the search, you will be offered a dialoge box, on the botto of which says "Cached", which you can read. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the "rightmost end of" of what search? I'm reading the Wikipedia page and clicking the little reference number in square brackets, then clicking the article title in the references entry. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think IP78 means just in Google search, not inside Wiki. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we can probably forget about "preferably academic" for the time being. But it depends on what you mean by "academic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Published by someone other than the biased and/or anti-Johnson news media really I suppose. Like peer-reviewed politics journals, for example. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would imagine such journals would have a review cycle of several months, perhaps more. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

But we don't even have a less prestigious source yet, one that discusses it, rather than simply uses it. Do we? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Economist article meet that test? (plus The Times editorial titled "Greased Piglet" discusses it - they only need to say the term once and then why it exists, which is the bulk of the article). 78.18.245.153 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think DeFacto is seeking "piglet prestige". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have an Associate Professor Steven McCabe writing a chapter in his book titled Al promised you a miracle – Life under 'Greased Piglet' – although I am not sure what to do with it as I can't read the chapter.78.18.245.153 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you get an Associate Professor? Can I get one? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it's notable. It's a derogatory nickname, and those using it are really writing about Boris Johnson.PrisonerB (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  You're saying the term itself is not notable, because no other notable person has ever been described in this way? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking over the List of nicknames of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and List of nicknames of presidents of the United States for context, it seems that "Tonibler" is the only such political nickname to have ever merited a full article - perhaps justified because it became something else, a Kosovan forename. Even legendary, long-lived nicknames like Tricky Dick and Milk Snatcher just redirect to a single sentence in the subject's biography. Even if it were laid out with perfect clarity, this one does feel like a bit of a recentism deep dive. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but as per Beergate (and probably also Partygate), is due to the large amounts of RS available on these topics. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Upper case P?

Does the balance of sources support an upper case P? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes - it is an awarded title — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Just like "commentator of the year award" for "piccaninnies", "watermelon smiles" and "tank-topped bumboys". Spiffing! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

When the term is used within a sentance/headline, it seems to be uncapitalized, so probably "p" preferred? 78.18.245.153 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed

So the supporting sources for "The term "greased piglet" was regularly used by the British and international media during some of the scandals that occurred during Johnson's tenure as prime minister", were all removed here and replaced with a {cn} tag. What was wrong with them exactly? Were they not better than nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's OR to pick a a few examples and draw that conclusion, a conclusion that tis not drawn in any of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so you know how many there are out there and that those are just "a few"? They were used during the "some of the scandals", weren't they? That's just obvious from the date they were published. Or do you have a problem with the tern "regularly"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We need sources to support how many there are, not our own opinion based on how many we've been able to find. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Could somebody undo DeFacto's edits, as clearly the references do support the comment (several of them mention that the term is "famously associated" etc.), however, DeFacto's unilateral deletion is not helpful in the discussion. 78.18.242.246 (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The edits were explained. The subject of this article is the nickname, and we must differentiate between sources that are actually about the nickname itself and sources that merely happen to use it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you accept it, even if I cited 1,000 reliable sources talking about Johnson which did not use the term, if I added the assertion "The use of the term 'greased piglet' was vanishingly rare in the British and international media during Johnson's tenure as prime minister"?

I hope not, because we would need reliable sources to support that too. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, the claim here is "The term "greased piglet" was regularly used by the British and international media during some of the scandals that occurred." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What does "regularly" mean? Every month? Every day? Every article? That's why it needs sourcing, not just dreamt up. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I did ask you about that above. So the word "regularly" could be removed? Might be better than dumping out all the sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:BRD mean that the material should be restored while it's big discussed? There is no consensus here that it must be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It was boldly added and then reverted. The status quo (before it was added) should remain pending a consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it was boldly added. Perhaps an intractable difference of opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have also reverted DeFacto's changes as being against consensus and asked them to stop edit warring until we have discussed them. What they are currently proposing makes no sense to me, and they have no consensus for it. 78.18.242.246 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I get the feeling this is becoming DeFacto versus everyone else. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I've created an RfC below to try to get some help with this question of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH with respect to this. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on examples

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include examples of news media articles using the term "greased piglet" as examples of the media using the term. The primary arguments against are that it would be synthesis, which is a clear minority opinion, and gained little traction in the discussion. It's a bit of a sticky wicket as well, because we could clearly use those sources in another article to state "Attributed media source has referred to Article Subject as a greased piglet" and arguments that it would not apply to this article were unable to sway editors with different beliefs about the dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should this article about a pejorative nickname for a politician include examples of news media articles using the nickname in content about the politician it refers to, sourced only to the news media articles where those uses were made? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Several of these news articles you deleted are editorials: e.g. from The Times The Times view on Boris Johnson’s survival: Greased Piglet. 78.18.242.246 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

or associate editorials: e.g. from The Daily Telegraph The 'greased piglet' wriggles free again, but this PM's mutinous party still smells blood. 78.18.242.246 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Examples of newspaper articles using the term are examples of how the term is used. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't matter that they're editorials. They demonstrate usage; we aren't citing them for factual claims like what the surface temperature of Venus is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Very hot, apparently. Hello! did a special back in March... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• DeFacto, is the nickname pejorative or not? You said here: "or maybe a compliment, or tongue-in-cheek?" The article now just has "epithet". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Stuff stated as fact in Wiki's voice in the article requires a source to support it. Opinions given in talkpage discussions do not. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the two coincide. So we can assume that the "pejorative" element of your argument can be ignored. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ignore it if you like as it makes no difference to the substance of the question. Do you have an opinion on the actual question? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'll ignore it. I think we all can. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, this article can include examples of news media articles using the nickname in content about the politician it refers to, sourced only to the news media articles where those uses were made. No good reason to exclude them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, I don't know if IPs get a !vote, but per Martinevans123 and SMcCandlish above. 78.18.242.246 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just like the British electorate, no-one gets a !vote. By fortunately, here, everyone gets a say! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  One of the great things about Wikipedia is that someone can literally hop on to an article about a subject they are knowledgeable in, want to make a change, come to the talk page, engage in discussion, make improvements, and then dip, and never touch Wiki again. You absolutely get to engage in the discussion. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. As explained by DeFacto this is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, which is a way of doing original research - I know, it's great fun, but we shouldn't be doing it here. The point is that there's no reliable source about the subject of the article ("Greased piglet" as a nickname for Boris Johnson) but rather there's a bunch of primary sources applying that expression to BJ. Now we're combining all those instances of naming BJ "greased piglet" in order to say something new, something that no reliable source ever said, starting from the core assumption that The term became associated with Johnson by the wider domestic, and international media (the nasty citation overkill there is already a clear sign of a problem). We are not supposed to do this, and as including examples of news media articles using the nickname is the way of doing original research in this article, my comment is a "No". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  That incudes the book chapter "Life under the 'Greased piglet' Johnson" by associate professor Steven McCabe, in the 2021 book Populism, the Pandemic and the Media? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

actually, that looks like a primary source to me. The relevant opposition is not between academic vs journalistic sources but rather between primary vs secondary sources, and the only secondary source I see is this piece from Wales Online. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's a secondary source. But I think some of the others may be too. So WalesOnline is not good enough? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think WalesOnline id not good enough? I agree with @Gitz6666 that it is a secondary source, and it was one of the three sources I left in place when I "tidied" the article soon after it was created. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh good. That's something three of us, probably all, can agree on. That's enough to save the article, then. You just want to dump all the others (apart from two)? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

p.s. perhaps we ought to try and write an article about Prime Ministers' famous last words? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I left the WalesOnline one and the one from the Independent, both of which I think are being used as secondary sources. I also left the Economist one as I could not access it to check it (you may recall our exchange about that above in the #Notability? section). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah excellent. So have two, possibly three. We just someone who subscribes to Economist (or who can read the cached version via Goggle search. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh hang on... anyone can. Here's the paragraph:

"A second image is that of a greased piglet. This comes courtesy of David Cameron, Mr Johnson’s junior at Eton by two years and senior in Downing Street by nine, who recently told an audience in Yorkshire that “the thing about the greased piglet is that he manages to slip through other people’s hands where mere mortals fail.” Mr Johnson has broken an ever-lengthening list of pledges. He pledged to deliver Brexit “do or die” by October 31st, only to discover that he couldn’t. He promised to be “dead in a ditch” rather than send a letter asking for an extension, only to send exactly such a letter. He so alienated his colleagues that he reduced his majority from plus one to minus 45. But the grease works. Mr Johnson either wriggles through loopholes (for example, by refusing to sign said letter) or else shifts the blame expertly to anyone but himself. “It’s Parliament’s fault, it’s the opposition’s fault, it’s the Benn act, it’s Germany, it’s Ireland,” proclaimed an exasperated Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s Brexit spokesman, trying to define the prime minister’s slippery style." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The nickname is used in the title of that chapter, but is only mentioned once inside it, in a quote from a newspaper in a paragraph about Keir Starmer's inability to get answers from Johnson in relation to Covid. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that McCabe was a subject matter expert whose chapter title imbued the epithet with some authority and/or indication of general use. Exactly what type of publication are you imagining that would need to be written, to allow this article to pass WP:V? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

McCabe's chapter in that book is a primary source of him using the term, so for us to draw conclusions about its usage from that is SYNTH.

What we need to be able to mention that chapter as an example are secondary sources in which the subject of this article has substantial cover, and which use McCabe's chapter as an example of its usage. Then we can used those secondary sources to support the assertion that the title of McCabe's chapter is an example of the usage of the nickname. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A primary source? I thought he used "a quote from a newspaper in a paragraph about Keir Starmer's inability to get answers from Johnson in relation to Covid"? You're asking for another academic, e.g. peer-reviewed journal, source that discusses McCabe solely in the context of the use of the nickname? Wow. Your original RfC question here is: "Should this article ... include examples of news media articles using the nickname..." My answer to that is still yes. Just like news media articles support claims of name use in tens of thousands of other articles. e.g. see Honorific nicknames in popular music. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a primary source yes, as it's being used to support that its own name uses the nickname, and it never discusses the term. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, "it's own name uses the nickname"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The McCabe chapter in that book is being used to support the assertion: "In the February 2022 book, Populism, the Pandemic and the Media: Journalism in the age of Covid, Trump, Brexit and Johnson, associate professor Steven McCabe at the Centre for Brexit Studies, University of Birmingham, contributed a chapter titled "Al promised you a miracle – Life under the 'Greased piglet' Johnson"" - that its own name ("Al promised you a miracle – Life under the 'Greased piglet' Johnson") uses the nickname ("Greased piglet"). -- DeFacto (talk). 14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, it should really be used only as a secondary source for the claim that it was used in a newspaper in a paragraph about Keir Starmer's inability to get answers from Johnson in relation to Covid? Perhaps we have to wait for an international university conference on the use of the term to describe Johnson and then, when the Proceedings are published, we'd have a good enough source? We have articles on Partygate and Beergate, but I don't see that they depend on academic sources discussing the meaning of the term. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Partygate and Beergate are named per WP:COMMONNAME, being commonly used names for them in the sources documenting those debacles. The details of the debacles are supported by secondary sources, not by the personal accounts of those directly involved. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So "greased piglet" has not yet become a name commonly used for Johnson? What's the criterion? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts now. The Partygate and Beergate articles are not discussing the use of those terms in the media, they are discussing the debacles that they refer to. Here we are discussing the use of the term in the media. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that this article is discussing the use of the term in the media. But those two articles do also, to a certain extent, report the personal accounts of those directly involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The difference though is that in those two articles, the accounts of those directly involved are filtered through secondary sources, which gives them due weight. We don't use their own first-hand publications as sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If someone has tweeted that Johnson is a "greased piglet", I'd see that as a primary source. If a newspaper then reports that tweet, I'd see that as a secondary source. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Johnson isn't the subject of this article though, the term 'Greased piglet' is. And we need secondary sources to provide examples of its use for us, not the examples themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you give us a specific example of what you mean in Honorific nicknames in popular music? -- DeFacto(talk). 14:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What about Forces sweetheart? That seems to be supported only by media reports of individuals being called that?Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The the first source there is a piece about "Forces Sweethearts", and it gives some singers as examples of its application, so is a secondary source to support those singers being given as examples in that Wiki article.

If we were to emulate that here, we'd need a source about the term "Greased piglet", giving examples of its use in the media. We could then use it as a secondary source to support the use of the examples it gives. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You are referring to this Daily Express piece? Something similar for "greased piglet" might depend on it having been used to describe several people? Otherwise why would the article not be just about Johnson. This seems to be at the heart of your objection: that apart from for Johnson, the term has not been widely used and thus there are no general media articles or discussions about it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the heart of my objection is that we are indulging in SYNTH when we include those media uses as examples without secondary sources to support that.

I can imagine an article about the term, and it including some of the examples we see, and indeed searched for one without success. I even implored others to search for one in my opening post in the '#Notability?' discussion above. But as yet none have turned up. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope one does then. But that article need be just a newspaper article summarising the use of the term by other newspapers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we need reliable sources discussing the term and giving examples.

Are you going to change your response to 'no' now, or present a case for why WP:SYNTH does not apply here? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No, because I still think the existing sources serve a useful purpose. I think your original RfC question should have asked if the article depends on reliable sources (you have not said how many, but seem to have assumed at least just one) "discussing the term and giving examples". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to the question posed in the RfC. There's no reason to differentiate between news articles and editorials, since both fall under the umbrella of "media". Also, the brunt of the conversation here seems to discuss a different matter than the one in the RfC so I won't comment on that. PraiseVivec (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PraiseVivec, I think you must have misread or misunderstood the question. It isn't about differentiating between news and editorials.

It's basically asking if we should allow the use of primary sources and thus rely on personal synthesis to draw conclusions, to select usage examples; or whether we should insist on the use of secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You can insist on that WalesOnline source. I fully agree with you there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a secondary source, which is why I left it in place when I removed all the OR/SYNTH in these 2 edits soon after the article was created. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so we had our essential secondary source all along. What a relief. Well done, whoever added that one, I say. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. Searching for a source which contains the term, and then asserting, in this Wiki article, that the found source is a notable use of that phrase, and citing itself in support of that assertion, is clear WP:SYNTH. The found source is, if cited for this purpose, a primary source. What is needed is a secondary source which talks about the found source as an example of the use of the phrase to avoid it being original research. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• No - What on earth makes one think that belongs in an encyclopedia??? The article should not indulge in WP:OR hunting non-notable uses by the press, especially not opinion pieces or editorials that are really WP:OFFTOPIC not about the term. That would be just editors doing snark and making this a WP:ATTACK instead of writing a reputable article. For WP:V it does need to cite 2019 reporting about David Cameron’s use of the term. But it should not stray from being informative about the existence and origin of that into finding some personally-liked pieces. Unless there is secondary coverage of *other* media mentioning that piece, it would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE to have it in the article. And if the piece is mostly about some incident and not the phrase, then it’s a bit of WP:OFFTOPIC anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So you see reporting of Cameron's use of the term as "legitimate", but mention of any uses, by other parties, since then, as just "editors doing snark" and WP:ATTACK? I really don't see how later uses and discussion of the term are "WP:OFFTOPIC". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 - No, Cameron's remark was widely noted by secondary sources so is WP:DUE - and it created the association so is needed in defining the origin. That says nothing about whether his use of the term was "legitimate". Yes, if WP editors are Googling out insignificant pieces just to post snark, that is WP editors doing snark and WP:ATTACK and just not reputable coverage. Any party using it that has little or no secondary coverage is just WP:UNDUE to include. Famous snark deserves a mention; obscure snark... is not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. To the question asked. The sources are being used to demonstrate usage, and it is clear the term is in common use (as described in the lede and body, and by good sources). Several of the sources also specifically quote that Johnson is "famously known" (or other) as the "greased piglet" (e.g. New Zealand Herald), clarifying further that this is not a point of SYNTH, or OR. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, a search for "Boris Johnson" and "Greased Piglet" gives literally hundreds of sources from some of the best newspapers in the English-speaking world (I did not try to search in another language). I notice that DeFacto has been reverted from deleting these sources, even during this RfC, quoting "obvious synth. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We can possibly agree that the term is in common use, but that is different to agreeing the criteria for choosing a suitable selection of examples to include in the article. For that we surely need secondary sources to provide due weight for the selection of any particular example, and not do the synth, based on what primary sources we've found by Googling the web and doing that synth, ourselves. The WP:COMMONSENSE essay doesn't trump the WP:OR (WP:SYNTH) policy, and clearly does not condone the personal cherry-picking of examples to include as worthy and notable examples, without a secondary source to support that selection. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But for there to SYNTH (or OR), there would need to be a statement that is not supported by references. This article is saying that it is in use, and the references support that, and in addition, several of these refs specifically state that he is "famously known" etc. That is not OR or SYNTH. We literally have thousands of articles in WP with such usage sections. It is useful for a reader to know that major newspapers and even some political academics now use or invoke the term, and it is a WP:V fact. Again, per WP:COMMONSENSE, when you search for "Boris Johnson" and "Greased Piglet", an extraordinary amount of high-grade WP:RS use the term. It is quite incredible actually, I would not have guessed. To delete a statement, and all accompanying references and sections, that the term is in use by newspapers, political opponents, and political academics, is not serving the interests of readers. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, if "news media articles using the nickname" includes news coverage of opposition statements (which they seem to be, if DeFacto is removing a Vince Cable quote as being covered by this RfC) and general press analysis of press coverage. Important to clarify to the reader whether the term is a niche Westminster/Eton thing or much wider than that, whether it's employed pejoratively as well as admiringly, whether it's still in use post-resignation, etc, and examples from press sources can do that. This shouldn't end up like the dead cat strategy article, where a push from DeFacto to remove anti-Johnson quotes ends up making a vague and example-free soup where the reader is left to do their own research about who might use the term, and about who, and why. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Lord Belbury, this (as was the discussion at talk:dead cat strategy#RfC on examples, an RfC which went against your view anyway) is about the application of Wiki policies related to OR, synth, and due weight, and nothing at all to do with personal politics. And as I totally refute your allegations, which seem to say more about your personal agenda than mine, and suggest you strike that unfounded personal attack, which has no place on this article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I only present the dead cat article as a cautionary tale of how cryptic a political metaphor article can become if we rule out quoting any later, sourced usage. The rest of my point stands by itself. No personal attack intended, that's just how I saw that page go: it was an article about how Johnson had spoken about and then been accused of using a political strategy, and your edits and suggestions were to remove the accusations or replace them with ones about other people. I appreciate that you were citing policy. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I don’t think there is a western political news source that has not used this term at some stage, so it is hardly OR or SYNTH. There are lots of WP pages with referenced examples for readers. 31.187.0.241 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't answer the question asked though. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is that because it is the answer you don’t want to hear? I don’t think badgering people or trying to degrade their comment is appropriate. You made a poor proposal imho which may not have been good faith given the subject matter. 31.187.0.241 (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please AGF. No, the question is whether we should personally choose examples and support them with only the primary source that we found them in. If you think the answer to that is 'yes', then you need to give the policy rationale behind that answer and explain how that is not SYNTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pig wrestling

We have pig wrestling as "For other uses" at the top of the article. Should it also/ instead appear in "See also"? Is there any evidence that the term arose from pig wrestling? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have seen speculation by Wales Online that the phrase started with such, though that’s just their short piece and not an explanation from Cameron. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Would we expect Cameron to have explained that the term had originated from pig wrestling? Or do we just need a more thorough/ academic source? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I see on the pig wrestling article that it is also known as "greased piglet wrestling", or something of that effect. It is possible that a reader looking for pig wrestling would come across this article, and therefore should be redirected. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)