Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash

Merge

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)

@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)

I agree that the content should be merged into Winter Fuel Payment. PamD 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Compare Poll tax (Great Britain), where controversy and abolition are included within the one rounded article. PamD 08:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Title

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)

@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)

The title is inaccurate, as it hasn't been abolished, only restricted. PamD 06:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps "Winter fuel payment controversy"? PamD 06:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The former universal winter fuel payment has been abolished, and replaced with a means-tested payment. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

Merge proposal

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)

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)

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)

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)

FWIW, I don't think we need a separate article for this topic at present, and the information could be included in the main article. I think there is potential scope for the Scottish legal case to have an article, depending on what happens there, but the series of negative opinions documented here could be summarised in Winter Fuel Payment. This is Paul (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this should be merged. The WFP article isn't long enough to justify having a separate article for the "backlash", and the title and contents do seem to be approaching WP:POVFORK territory. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge but rename to 2024 Winter Fuel Payment reform. There is sufficient coverage of the abolition to merit a separate article, and merging would overwhelm the Winter Fuel Payment article, raising due weight issues. However, Winter fuel payment abolition backlash should be renamed to 2024 Winter Fuel Payment reform per WP:POVFORK, WP:POVTITLE, and WP:NPOV. We should never have an article on just one side of a controversial policy decision. This article should be edited to include more on the reasons for the change and support for it to balance its existing content on opposition to match this new title. Daask (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that merging would create WEIGHT issues in the main article - if it so happens that the majority of coverage about the WFP is about the reforms, then the article should reflect that. The question is not whether there are sufficient sources to merit a separate article, but whether there is too much content to cover in one article, which at present there is not. What we are almost all agreed on though is that the current title and scope is not appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Merge Per my comment above and my previous suggestions to merge. There is not so much content that it cannot be handled in one article. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• I have requested an uninvolved editor to come and close this discussion, at Wikipedia:Closure requests. PamD 09:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per Daask as I agree (as I said above) that there is sufficient coverage of the backlash to merit a separate article. I am currently ambivalent as to whether we move it to another name as "backlash" is how this subject is overwhelmingly characterised (see WP:COMMONNAME) in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge. A merge puts the content of both pages in the proper context, and doesn't make it excessively long. This isn't about the topic's notability, just about how to present the information most effectively (WP:PAGEDECIDE). Adumbrativus (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misleading title

The title of this article is misleading. The benefit hasn't been abolished, but instead the criteria have changed to make it means tested. Abolition suggests it is no longer available, which isn't the case. This is Paul (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@This is Paul, the payments to those not on means-tested benefits, most pensioners in fact - around 10 million of them, have been abolished, and that is why there is such a backlash. Can you suggest a more precise, but still reasonably concise, title? "Backlash against the abolition of winter fuel payments to pensioners not on means-tested benefits" is a bit of a mouthful. Common names do tend to omit the "to pensioners not on means-tested benefits" detail. What about "Universal winter fuel payment abolition backlash"?-- DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Winter Fuel Payments 2024 changes backlash" perhaps? (note use of caps in the main article) PamD 22:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps just "Winter Fuel Payments changes backlash" as I don't think we have any similarly named articles to disambiguate from with the year. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. This is Paul (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see this until after my comments in § Merge proposal, where I proposed 2024 Winter Fuel Payment reform. Daask (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)