Jump to content

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash

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


Merge

[edit]

I don't see the justification for having a separate article for this when it could be integrated into Winter Fuel Payment. This article is basically a POV fork. SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse, I disagree that it's a POV fork. None of this article content has been rejected for inclusion in any other article on a POV basis, the content here is all factual, not POV. The negative reactions all happened, that is a fact, not a POV, and they are all covered in abundance in the RSes, so are all quite notable. And there are, I'm sure, many more that could be or should be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the content should be merged into Winter Fuel Payment. PamD 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Poll tax (Great Britain), where controversy and abolition are included within the one rounded article. PamD 08:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

As I said, I looked at all the sources cited and "backlash" is barely mentioned in any of them. I see no justification there being an article about the backlash given the lack of coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse, strong negative reactions to a political development can neutrally, recognisably, naturally, precisely and concisely be described as a backlash.
Which of the reactions covered in the article do you think are not supported by the cited sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is inaccurate, as it hasn't been abolished, only restricted. PamD 06:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Winter fuel payment controversy"? PamD 06:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former universal winter fuel payment has been abolished, and replaced with a means-tested payment. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I object to the idea that the backlash itself is sufficiently notable to merit an article. The sources are about the abolition and criticisms of it, but not exclusively the backlash. This is particularly evident from the additions you've just made: [1] - those organisations are affected by the abolition, not by the backlash. SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse, I agree that those latter additions might not be on-topic, I couldn't decide if the stopping of donations was a backlash, or not. I even looked at the Winter Fuel Payment article (and tried to tidy it a bit whilst I was there) to see if they should go there. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is evidently a massive and nationwide backlash against the payment changes and it has become a separate topic in its own right. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had second thoughts, after reorganising the Winter Fuel Payment article a bit, I found a place for it there. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Winter fuel payment abolition backlash into Winter Fuel Payment. There seems no need for a separate article, and this content would be better included in the main article. Poll tax (Great Britain) is an example of how this has been done for another controversial UK tax.

Following the procedure set out at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merge as this is not an uncontroversial merge; placing discussion on this page, rather than destination page, because there has already been discussion here of a merge.

@DeFacto, Smartse, SameenS12, JPowellOBrien, Uhooep, El komodos drago, and Mauls: Pinging contributors to new article, and major recent contributors and creator of the main article. PamD 08:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started this as a separate article because I think the backlash has assumed a notability of its own which has eclipsed the mere mundane history and technicalities of the winter fuel payment itself. There is still plenty that could be added to it too, and I think it would swamp that article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I have contributed to this... my view is that I don't think a separate article is helpful in the long-run: there should probably be a subsection under History in the main article for "Introduction of means testing".
On the other hand, this is all still very fresh (and developing), and some would allow more perspective on the overall notability of this, so I'd lean slightly towards leaving things be for now. Mauls (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lengths of the articles suggest having them either merged or split would be appropriate. I understand concerns about it "swamping" the winter fuel payment article, but I think that is more an argument for the rest of that article to be lengthened, I think it is - like many articles on UK fiscal policy - overly short (but, hey, I am an economics buff, so don't take my view as typical). However, I would lean towards a merge given that the current situation risks being in breach of the WP:POVFORK guidance.
All the best, ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_fuel_payment_abolition_backlash&oldid=1254305767"