Talk:Boycott Scotland

Links

Why do we need two links to the site? Wouldn't one be enough? --John (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. I believe it's also in a style guideline somewhere, unless there's a good reason to point to the same page twice, we shouldn't. I don't see that in this case. Amalthea 06:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, one would not be enough. The article is about the campaign so a direct link to the page listing all the articles pertaining to the campaign is useful and pertinent. There is no policy or guideline saying that multiple links from the same website can't be included and I don't see why its such a problem. There's two links, one to the home page and the other to a page listing articles from media sources about the campaign. This shouldn't even be an issue. Equal Progress (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELPOINTS: "In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.".
I see no reason why the list of news coverage on the site would be of particular importance. The main page is enough. Amalthea 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice it has been added back, so I've invited the editor to explain his reasons here. Amalthea 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That should be "her reasons". Try not to make assumptions, please. To reply to John and Amalthea, it is an issue because the notability of the article itself has already been discussed and the links to the long list of articles about the "Boycott Scotland" campaign are further verification that this campaign, and the effects of the campaign are, first of all, newsworthy and notable; second, widely reported on in credible news sources; and third, are part of ongoing and continuous media coverage, even now as I write this. Further, this campaign is an important part of an event which has already been deemed to be one of the more significant events in politics affecting the UK and elsewhere in this century, according to The Telegraph ([1]). As such, coverage of these events are important, in and of themselves. This link provides an excellent resource for editors wishing to expand on and improve the article. This is one of the purposes of links, to afford editors a resource for further research and this link provides easy and instantaneous access to a large amount of media documents collected in one place.The Ghost Army (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The link calls the affair "the biggest UK political scandal of this century so far". It doesn't mention the website which is the subject of the article. Explain please why this article should diverge from our policy on external links. You haven't done this so far. --John (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifteen reasons: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]The Ghost Army (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for using the wrong pronoun.
  If any one of those page provides useful information that isn't in the article, but should be, then that particular one should be added to the external links section. Listing a whole link collection is only marginally more useful than listing http://news.google.com/news?q=BoycottScotland.com, and a link collection that was preselected by the topic and has thus an inherent WP:COI, and has to be suspected to use a non-neutral selection process, is actually harmful per WP:NPOV. It can't stay. Amalthea 08:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed it, in absence of a response. Amalthea 12:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm still not sure what you're saying. It's just one additional link to a series of articles about the boycott. There's nothing harmful in including that one link to that page. Equal Progress (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Causing no harm is not a criterion for inclusion though. There has to be a net benefit to the article, which I am not seeing. --John (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I thought I made the potential harm clear above: Violating WP:NPOV, one of our most important policies, by directly linking to news reports preselected by the topic, with the intent and link title to provide further information about the topic.
        I really don't see why this is such a big deal. Which one of those news articles is so important, and has information that is missing from the article?
        If you're not convinced, we can seek further opinions at the WP:External links/Noticeboard. Amalthea 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not a big deal, but I found it very curious that you and John were so insistent on not having the link without a proper explanation. There's commentary on that page in relation to some of the links listed there so I thought it would be helpful and informative to have that on the article. I disagree that its against policy since the title of the link can reflect that the articles are pre-selected by the website, like "Articles about the Campaign from Boycott Scotland" or something like that. Equal Progress (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research

BTW John, see WP:OR - original research is not allowed. And that whois showed Canada, not California. LOL Equal Progress (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have made you laugh. I've corrected the whois info. --John (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I raised this here and the consensus was that this is a reliable source for the registration of the domain. --John (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't looked at it, but I wouldn't see why not: a whois record essentially is essentially a primary source, and it's neither WP:OR nor WP:SYN to include basic facts from there. We can't draw conclusions from it though, and personally, I wouldn't include where the Admin C lives if it isn't also discussed in secondary sources – I'm not quite seeing why it's noteworthy information, and anything beyond that is probably a conclusion, or leads readers to draw the "It was initiated in Canada!" conclusion. Amalthea 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has no relevance because it doesn't add to the article and the intent is obviously to lead readers to draw a conclusion as you've stated and potentially a false one. The way its used now to back up a date is fine. Is there also a reason why SamSpade.org is used instead of say DomainTools.com? Equal Progress (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally have always used SamSpade, and it's used in some interface messages on Wikipedia as well, but one's as good as the other I guess. A link to the actual registrar's whois page would probably be best. Amalthea 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet meme

I think it's obvious that the website was spread around in a "memetic" way. What is the criteria for including that category? I see a bunch of articles in that category that don't have any clear refs that they are memes, like the Anonymous protests, but are still there. Equal Progress (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --John (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• As always, the criterion is WP:VERIFIABILITY. If there's a reliable source calling it a meme, we can put it in the category.
  Personally, I think it lacks the virality needed for an Internet meme, and since http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=boycottscotland.com+meme&cf=all didn't give any results either I thought it failed WP:V, and removed it. Amalthea 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you needed sources even for categories. I mean it seems kind of obvious that it was a meme since it was reported widely in the media and Facebook groups popped up around it and blogs were written about it and so on. That's the definition of a meme. If thats not "virality" I don't know what is. I can guarantee you that most of the articles listed in the meme category have no reliable sources to indicate they are memes. And since you are both so intent on keeping the category out of this article I trust you will be as vigilant to remove the category from those articles as well. Equal Progress (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CATEGORY#Categorizing pages. And Internet meme is different from meme. And I myself don't have the foggiest how it got widely known, but in the end, it all comes down to reliable sources. If there aren't any to back it up, we can't categorize it as such.
Please understand that this all comes back to the pillars Wikipedia is built on, in particular the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy: If we'd just add information that seems true to some, we'd be bound to end up with lots of non-neutral articles that wouldn't be helpful to anyone. The way Wikipedia tries to keep that from happening is to demand that all information has to be verifiable in sources that have a reputation for fact checking, and that all contentions information has to be backed up by reliable sources: "verifiability, not truth".
I know that's not always the case with the articles here, but that's what we should aspire to, in particular with controversial topics like this one. It's really the only way, I believe.
And please trust that I have not the slightest personal interest in this article. I know squat about Al Megrahi, and I have *no* opinion on his release, or his guilt. It simply happens to have ended up on my watchlist, and I try my best to keep it up to Wikipedia's standards. If you think I'm being unfair, I've pointed you to one noticeboard above already, where you could ask for additional input. If that isn't enough, feel very free to go through dispute resolution, the admins noticeboard, or ask for intput at the WP:Help desk.
Amalthea 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're being unfair at all, and I agree completely that controversial articles should be held to the highest standards. We have no disagreement there. I just wasn't aware that for obvious categories sources were required (like adding an article about a website to the category "website" or something like that). But I'm not married to the idea. ;) Equal Progress (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was just worried since you've been both curious and suspicious of my motives recently.
And if it's really obvious to all but me that this can be classified as an Internet meme then I can be swayed, but the proper way would be to find a reliable source confirming it, since I don't really see it (but as mentioned don't know much about it).
Cheers, Amalthea 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Negative Publicity

Once again links to information and resources that show NEGATIVE publicity to Boycott Scotland such as Now Public have been deleted. The link is relevant, shows the reality of a Scottish Boycott and also contains independant sources. In thee interests of bias negative media has as much place as positive media. Now Public is a notable and well used internet resource. Nick Harding (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Equal Progress : Please stop deleting Now Public.com as a non-notable source given that it is recognised by TIME, The Gaurdian and Gartner it is extremely Notable! CloudSurferUK 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs)

Once again, Now Public is a notable and relevant source, shows information about the boycott and contains information of peoples viewpoints, As such it is rightfully included. CloudSurferUK (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Times, etc. are news outlets that are reporting from a neutral position, neither pro or con. There are no links leading to any reportage that is pro-Boycott Scotland. The links do not lead to publicity of any kind, either pro or negative. With such a volatile subject, I have avoided including any links that offer commentary at all, and stuck to reporting. To include a link to negative commentary then seems unbalanced, don't you think, unless you would like to also link to a site that has positive commentary for the sake of balance?The Ghost Army (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ghost Army : I agree with you in many respects, but the site does include links to CNN and other US media which in this issue, can't be trusted as totally neutral and the author lays great weight on the publicity (albeit limited over a few days) the web site/campaign recieved. I am just providing balance from a trusted source. I think one negative media link against the 5 existing ones is fair especially as Now Public is also effectively a neutral source for Crowd Media. CloudSurferUK (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cloud SurferUK : I believe, actually, that regardless of how individual editors feel, Wikipedia does trust CNN to be an unbiased source of news. I have carefully balanced two U.S. sources, The Wall Street Journal and CNN, with 2 UK sources, The Times and The Telegraph; as well as sources from Scotland and Ireland and Russia. None of the articles from any of these sources are pro-Boycott Scotland, they are all neutral. The link you are trying to add is clearly not neutral, it is negative, which you, yourself, admit when you say "I think one negative media against the 5 existing ones is fair". I am afraid I'm not quite seeing how one negative article that is commentary balances out 5 neutral links from various countries, which are all neutral reporting. Care to explain?The Ghost Army (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that WP trusts CNN as a neutral source, and I have not complained about any of the links you have on there. What the link shows more than anything else is whats would be involved in a boycott of scotland, even if it is a slightly negative way. It does contain fact and information about scottish products and inventions therefore adding relevance to the link. To be honest I am not overly fussed whether the link is there or not as the campaign is no longer media worthy anyway. I just thought it would add a little something extra to the article. You clearly disagree. CloudSurferUK (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you feel that way, then let's keep it The Ghost Army (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)