Contents

Talk:Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

	Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 14, 2017 Good article nominee Listed June 6, 2018 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 19, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a term given to people, traditionally ascribed as being from Royal Tunbridge Wells, who write letters of incensed conservative moral outrage?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kent Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of KentinSouth East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Kent tasks: edit history watch purge Here are some Kent related tasks you can do: Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category. Edit the Top and High importance articles. Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council NPOV: K College Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

There was an original letter - and the term is a generic phrase for "slightly reactionary comment on modern mores"

("No particular objection" to moving definition to Wiktionary.)

Further to above - thanks whoever developed it. I have an impression that one of the letters involved swimwear/bikinis. Jackiespeel 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples section appears to consist entirely of original research. If no sources can be given discussing them as an example, then I will remove them. Objections? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than three months and no one has been able to supply sources or has raised objections, so I've gone and deleted it. However, I think this article would be improved by the addition of the original letter, if that's available somewhere. howcheng {chat} 04:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim great familiarity with A Room with a View but the character who speaks of Tunbridge Wells is Charlotte Bartlett, not Lucy. Lucy's surname is Honeychurch and she is Charlotte's younger cousin. AconUK (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Take It From Here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, it did originate with Frank Muir and Denis Norden so you may be correct. IIARC, they also wrote 'Balham, Gateway to the South' as done by Peter Sellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a more serious note, the article has been on the main page so all the various wrinkles should have been ironed out. My concern is that 5.5k of prose, it is a little on the short size and may not meet the "broad in coverage" criteria. However, I can dig through my newspaper subscription archives and see what else I can ferret out.

General[edit]

• Shouldn't there be some way of tying in the Daily Mail and Daily Express into this? This is not a great source, but it does tie the "disgusted" and Mail stereotype together

Okay, we've done that but "People writing them have been claimed by commentators to be readers of the Daily Mail" seems a rather ham-fisted way of getting the point across. Let me have a coffee and biscuits and see if I can think of something more suitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why has File:Royal Tunbridge Wells Sign on B2169 Bayham Road - geograph.org.uk - 1410284.jpg been chosen as the lead image for the article? File:Marcelo Antonio .jpg looks like a stereotypical "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" and matches an image search on this phrase. Just need of a suitable caption. Or we could have File:Writing a letter.jpg

I had a go at putting in File:Writing a letter.jpg. This probably makes the infobox completely wrong, so I've removed it; I personally think the article looks better without one but I realise these things generate strong views so I won't complain if you format another around it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if it would be worth having an "Introduction" section, that basically describes the stereotypical "disgusted" and their typical habits. This source and this source could be used as a suitable starting point for that. This would be particularly useful for non-Brits and people who don't know much about Tunbridge Wells

Lead[edit]

• The lead says the phrase is "humorous", but in some of the cases I have dug out, particularly looking through the Times archives, suggests it's used in serious conversation as a handy generic term for white middle-class southern Britain.

• usually with strongly conservative political views - this claim in the lead doesn't appear to be backed up anywhere in the body

• I think the lead could do with expanding a little bit, to cover the "Later use" section

• The date formats on all the citations should be consistent. I don't mind what you go for; my personal preference is nn Month yyyy

Origins[edit]

• The BBC radio show Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, first broadcast in 1944, is sometimes said - by whom?
• However, some reports have popularly rumoured - this claim has a "clarification needed" tag on it
• Is the 1929 quotation from the Tunbridge Wells Advertiser out of copyright? (I can never remember with these specifics) And precisely what relevance does it have to the article?
• The type of letters written with a tone of incensed moral outrage have become commonly described as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters, even though the writer may not be from Royal Tunbridge Wells - the source given doesn't appear to verify this statement
• Per the talk page, there should be something about Take It From Here. For example, this archived episode features "Disgusted of Tunbridge wells".

Later use[edit]

• In politics, the people behind "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters are commonly viewed to support the Conservative Party. - I think you need another source alongside the St Louis Post Dispatch to verify this. This Independent source, referring to a surprise Lib Dem council gain in Tunbridge Wells, might be suitable.

• Critical review of the book has stated that the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style displayed an art of letter writing that remained the same despite other things in the world changing - precisely how does the source given support this statement?

• Can we work in this Michael Caine quotation? [1] (hopefully with a better source)

• Local merchants at the town's information centre... - this sentence has a "clarification needed" tag on it

• I think there is still a bit too much recentism in this section; referring mostly to events in the last ten years. Any chance we can dig through news archives and pull out something earlier?

Summary[edit]

I can't think of anything else, so I'll put the review on hold pending improvements Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get some work done on this tomorrow. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have made the improvements you suggested. With regard to the copyright question, UK copyright law says that if the creator is unknown, then copyright expires 70 years after first publication. Given the quote was first published in 1929 it is out of copyright now. Furthermore I wish to express my own Disgust at having to include a source from the heinous liberal publication known as The Guardian to cite Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' support for the Tory party! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely disgraceful that an anti-Monarchist newspaper like The Guardian should be sold in a shop near to where I live. I shall write to my MP about it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You write to your MP? Get out of the 1950s, everybody uses Twitter these days :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is outrageous using that manner of communication, that one cannot express one's disgust in more than 140 characters. The finest words in the English language cannot be adequately conveyed sufficiently by such limitations! @Ritchie333:, in all seriousness beside the image, what is your view on the article now in relation to GA? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need to check all the points are resolved (as opposed to you merely saying they are), and I'd also quite like that "Introduction" section that describes a stereotypical "disgusted" (not great analogies but WP:UNBLOCKABLE#Characteristics and WP:HITANDRUN#Characteristics are what I have in the forefront of my mind right now). I see you've put something in the "Origins" section; that might be enough. Hopefully we should be done and dusted by close of play this evening unless get distracted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, only thing is I'm still confused as exactly how the source verifies the statement : "Critical review of the book has stated that the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style displayed an art of letter writing that remained the same despite other things in the world changing" - but other than that, everything checks out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: It's right at the bottom where it says "Readers will hopefully appreciate the labour of the letter writers – an art still very much alive, while so much else has changed". But I have altered the sentence slightly to make it clearer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a wrap!

Unfortunately, Disgusted of Boughton Aluph is not happy....

Well, that's enough of him then.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What 'appropriate derivative of antidisestablishmentarianism' can be used here that breaks Twitter? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: I'm sorry, I just don't see what you're saying. What's specific to one place? The name? It may utilize a specific place name, but the entire point of that sentence is to say that it isn't specific to one place and can be used for letters from anywhere. My version conveys exactly the same information without sounding so dull and precise. Esszet (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing, the stereotype is that they are from Royal Tunbridge Wells whereas the fact is they aren't always. I think it is important to be specific to the name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It already is, it says that they are commonly referred to as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters, being that precise is taking it a little too far. Esszet (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]