Language desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 7

BBC oddity

This BBC.com article[1] includes the statement "a rump of about 30 hardliners" opposing the proposed new Obamacare replacement. That's a funny one. Is it a commonly used expression in British politics? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny? Are you referring to the word "rump"? It seems to be a normal use of one of the definitions of "rump". Mirriam-Webster has "a small or inferior remnant or offshoot; especially : a group (such as a parliament) carrying on in the name of the original body after the departure or expulsion of a large number of its members". [2] MacMillan has "a small part of a company, a group of people, or a country that remains when the rest of it has left or has been removed" [3] Did the dictionary that you consulted not have such a definition? CodeTalker (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did, but I've never heard it used that way in American English, where it would sound insulting. So I wondered if that usage in British English is also considered insulting, with the writer making an editorial comment about that small group; or if it's merely a neutral expression to Brits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Rump Parliament; the expression comes from British history. --Xuxl (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Still hard to tell if the writer's usage was innocent or editorial. Thanks for the explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not hard to tell. If it were derogatory, the dictionaries would mention that. They don't. It isn't. Henry ^Flower 20:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The average American politician wouldn't appreciate being compared to an arse. It must be strictly a British thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines one sense of rump as "A small, unimportant, or contemptible remnant or remainder of a (official) body of people, esp. a parliament." from 1649: "This fagge end, this Rump of a Parliament with corrupt Maggots in it." which sounds just a little derogatory. Dbfirs 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

post-resolved ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We actually have articles Rump organization, Rump party, Rump legislature, Rump state, List of rump states etc. As a political science term, I strongly doubt that it's confined to the UK... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That looks like about 3 or 4 too many articles for the same concept. I'll propose a merge. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the suggested merge and additionally The Rumproller article. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that link again, they have replaced "rump" with "group", which would be normal American usage and totally neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Group" does not have the same meaning as "rump" at all. While "group" is indeed neutral, it is a much broader term and lacks the specific meaning of a remnant group after the rest has been removed. It's like claiming that "food" means the same thing as "left overs". CodeTalker (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the term "faction" would be better. They're certainly not a "remnant group" - they have the possibility of derailing the legislation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rump is a perfectly normal term in English. The BBC writes in English, not American. (Even though it's a perfectly normal term in American as well). There is no lack of 'neutrality' or insult, apart from in your mind. This 'question' can be closed now. Fgf10 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition posted by Dbfirs proves your personal attack to be incorrect. And it could have been closed after I posted "Resolved". If you're dying (or dieing) to close it, go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, usage from the 17th century is still current, is it? It supersedes actual Brits here saying it's not derogatory? You're wrong, just admit it, and don't fabricate accusations of 'personal attacks', as you always do when proven wrong. Fgf10 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry you've made in March so far has been to attack or ridicule other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit I've made has been to correct someone making an incorrect statement. If you're so thin skinned you can't stand being proven wrong, go and cry in the corner, but don't troll us with it. Your presence on the Refdesk is extremely disruptive, and it would be in everyone's interest if you stopped editing ASAP. Fgf10 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You attacked several editors while providing no references yourself. It is you who are the disrupter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a British usage. That's probably why BBC.com changed the wording on its international edition, realizing that calling politicians a "rump" is hysterically funny to an American audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is. BBC stand for British Broadcasting Corporation. I'd be very worried if they suddenly started writing in American. Fgf10 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International edition. And they rightly replaced that "rump" thing with something neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rump" is generally well-understood on this side of the Pond. I have in the past not particularly cared for Fgf10's rather aggressive attitude towards Americans (among others) but in this case he seems to have a point. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if it were the British edition. Being the international edition, it's better to avoid British-centric slang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that by "this side", I mean the left side, right? --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the USA, where have you seen that use of "rump" in the media? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily keep careful track of exactly where I've seen things. It's an expression I would ordinarily expect well-educated Americans to recognize. I don't mean that as a reflection on you; we all have occasional surprising linguistic gaps. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge's links below include explanations for the audience. That's a dead giveaway that the term is not widely used in America. And either way, it's intended to be dismissive and insulting of the faction it refers to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us should well remember the news stories of the 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia, where the term 'rump Yugoslavia was used so frequently. —Stephen (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found Trump's Rump Party, but I take the OP's point as the blogger has to include a link to the "rump party" Wikipedia page for the benefit of US readers. See also Not One-Off Britishisms - U.K. expressions that have got popular in the U.S. which quotes Joshua Keating (an American journalist and blogger): “…the president’s efforts to govern domestically have been stymied in the legislature by an extremist rump faction of the main opposition party”, along with several other citations of its use by US politicians and journalists. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that there is some recent usage of "rump" in US political blogs - de-collapse the discussion above to see my link. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted. Note that there seems to be a need to explain the term, since it's not widespread in the US. And note how it's used in a demeaning way, toward the right-wing faction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. I don't think anybody would refer to themselves as being part of a rump, except in self-deprecation (a British speciality). The Tea Party movement seems to be the main target of American usage, but it seems to be understood by US journalists and political bloggers, if not by the wider population. Watch this space... Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. I don't read blogs nor many political commentators, and I've never heard or read it in the mainstream news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shall finish on that note of happy agreement. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– again.