Talk:Better Together (campaign)

Elaborated on first sentence

I changed the first sentence and provided more information, my change as follows:

"Better Together is a cross-party campaign group launched in June 2012 that supports Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom and expresses that Scotland is a better and stronger country as part of the United Kingdom. The campaign advocates that the Scottish electorate should vote “no” in the upcoming Scottish independence referendum and retain the political union that has existed between England and Scotland for more than 300 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith125417 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Bettertogether2014

I have advised User talk:Bettertogether2014 regarding their user name and potential CoI. nonetheless, part of their recent edit seems reasonable, as it removed uncited and dubious assertions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown condemns Ian Taylor donation

Ashdown is the most senior Unionist so far to question the acceptance of the tainted donation:

• http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/paddy-ashdown-condemns-better-together-cash-from-tycoon.1367309464

--Mais oui! (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd truly recommend that this part be incorporated into the article, not here amongst editorial talkings. By the way, sir, ehh, seems like your comrades or counterparts somewhere here or there buzzing around, DO NOT USE ANY OPPORTUNITY TRY POLITICAL PROPAGANDA, WE CARE NOT A BIT ABOUT THE RESULT, FOR THE MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT BRITISH, THEREFORE NOT LEAST SCOTTISH. This is surely not your first time advocating scottish independence, attacking better together or defend SNP! If these kind of things continue as present(regardless of pro-independence or pro-union), we can't but contact the website directly for anti-propoganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags

I have restored the maintenance templates I had added before. They were removed by the IP, most likely because he didn't like them. Unfortunately, the article still looks like an advertisement and is not neutral. Main problem is that the article is a call to vote NO, instead of a neutral report of the campaign. The Banner talk 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You have entirely failed to note which passages you object to, so how can that assertion possibly be debated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As a regular visitor from somewhere considerably distant from UK, I find the article relatively ok. I cannot understand why the article 'lookks like an advertisement' or 'is not neutral'. It clearly states the composition of the campaign, supports and oppositions, donations and the dispute where two sides exchange attack or defence. I do believe that, honestly, if this article were anything near advertisement, then propaganda would be the easiest job to do in politics. By the way:), check 'Yes Scotland' page, which is in my eye equally neutral, maybe you'd find it far too attractive to vote a 'yes' consider its intriguing 'Declaration' section? (Of course not, neither it nor this can be anything near 'advertisement') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.109.113.53 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. How long should we allow for the tags to be justified here before removing them again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps till the problems are solved? I understand that you, as main writer, don't want any negative comment that might lead to a thorough scrutiny. The Banner talk 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to solve problems when you refuse to specify what they are. "It sounds biased" is not an argument. WHY does it sound biased? Which parts? (And I'm very far from being the "main writer". Most of my contributions have been removing things, not adding them.) 92.27.237.203 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, can we consider remove the issues part NOW? I think, as an outsider-observer that this article is already, to a certain extent, already well-balanced (if not a little bit or more pro-independence)? Just look st the present article, you may well recognise that this comes from the counter-campaign's website! Piles of 'scaremongering', re-loading of that virtually unequal usage of 'project fear', and there's still some one arguing 'not neutral!' As a common sense of an international visitor-editor, I'm now to remove that 'issue' part at the beginning. BTW, if this were like an advertisement, it would have to be pro-independence. And as for that gentlemen asking our 'corrections' until he gets what he believes is 'neutral', by continuously re-adding that issue-part, it appears it could only be stopped by raising this 'dispute' to administrator level, or even higher. PLEASE NO PROPAGANDA FROM EITHER SIDE. Thx a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, monsieur, last time I saw (and sorry but I removed it) the usage of ″Project Fear″, it was presented like this:

″Better Together, also called ′Project Fear′, (...)″

Which was at the very begninning of this article.

Considering Unionists like that 'Bettertogether2014'(can't remember my apologies) or Nationalists alike, all contributors will have A LONG WAY to go, unfortunately, to protect all scottish-independence-related articles safe and secure from PROPAGANDA.

Sorry for potential grammatical or spelling mistakes, for my first language is, umm, CHINESE. That said, please forgive any inappropriation regarding English linguistic mastery. Or perhaps my revealed nationality can tell all of you the reason of my anti-propaganda nature and style?

Thanks again for all your patience. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Project Fear" reference you removed was entirely valid and properly sourced, and should of course be restored. The introductory paragraph is supposed to reflect the content of the article, and a large part of the article is concerned with discussing the campaign's alleged fearmongering. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it shall be restored!Why not??Don't get me wrong there, (perhaps it shall be credited to my lack of clarity) I did check the quotations and found it appropriate to add somewhere in the article; but apparently not at the very beginning, which is somehow uhh, somehow unequal for a campaign, just as it not appropriate calling it 'Bitter Together' or its counterpart 'Neverendum Campaign'or 'Nats Campaign' in their respective definitive line above the whole of the articles. (By the way, how to sign here??I'm dumb at computering:() — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pro-independence and I see absolutely no reason to restore the "Project Fear" nickname to the very start of the article. It was a passing remark in the Sunday Herald; it is not a widely-accepted nickname for the campaign, nor has it been attributed to any wider group than "some within the campaign". As it is properly cited, aye, it belongs in the article -- which is why I moved it into the History section. It does not belong right at the start. Zcbeaton (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

According to WP-LEDE it does. The introduction should reflect the content of the entry, and a very large part of the entry at present is concerned with alleged fearmongering. The beginning is therefore a wholly appropriate place for the subject to be mentioned. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

By now, the article is much better and does not look like an advertisement. So I removed the advertisement tag (but left the other two: COI and POV). The Banner talk 14:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Several days have now passed without anyone providing any specific reasons for the presence of the COI and POV tags, and a majority of editors on this page appear to agree that they are unjustified. So I've taken them out. Anyone seeking to reinstate them please provide specific quotes from objectionable parts of the entry in support of your case. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no objections to the tags other than from you and two IPs that caused this article to be semi-protected. Your edits on this talkpage show the same POV. The Banner talk 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit warring. Previous posts addressed this dispute correctly (ie in Talk) and requested examples of the objectionable content. None were forthcoming after several days, and therefore removal is appropriate pending their appearance. If you wish to reinstate the tags, please justify them with something better than empty assertion. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of editwarring, you could also do something about the concerns about the Conflict of Interest en de clearly non-neutral tone of the article. Don't start removing tags without solving the issues stated. The Banner talk 13:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for the Tags, and there certainly hasn't been any evidence provided in support of their continued use. The article seems like a very fair assessment of the history of the Better Together campaign thus far, and the criticisms it has received from pretty much all corners (even the deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives this weekend said recent stories were just getting "silly".) Unless someone can provide justification for their continued presence, it would make sense to remove the tags. 80.254.146.68 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to fix "problems" when you continually refuse to say what they are. "This is POV/COI" is not adequate. You need to actually say WHAT is allegedly POV and why, so that people can deal with it. Or you could deal with it yourself. I can't do anything about the COI/POV issues because I don't agree that there are any - you've had several days to explain, but have refused to. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When you refuse to read what I am writing, it is indeed difficult to understand the problem. So I try it again: The tone of the article is not neutral. The Banner talk 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Says you. What parts of the article lead you to that assertion, and why is it so hard to get you to say what they are? You've been asked about ten times now by various people, and are yet to provide a single example. "Tone" does not exist by itself, it is created by words and sentences. You've been given more than adequate time to respond. Stop reverting the page to an unsupported assertion and engage in discussion, as everyone else is attempting to do. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha, another POV-warrior with an WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. Clear. The Banner talk 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attacks are unhelpful. Please justify the inclusion of the tags with evidence. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing your edits of the last two days, you know quite well what the problem was. You just did not like the tags... The Banner talk 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• So it seems that 92.27.237.203, 119.109.113.53, CaptainCorrecto, and 80.254.146.68 have expressed the view that the article appears fine.

Banner, you still haven't provided any examples of non-NPOV or COI, etc. The templates are gone as it stands, and I would advise taking the matter to the appropriate noticeboard before restoring them. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the tone of the article that makes it not neutral. The Banner talk 15:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AAAAARGHHH!!!!! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I restored them agian, I didnt read here first. But the tone is basically better than it was but is still to for or against and not running the line of neutral down the middle. PS Hillbilly, CaptainCorrecto and 92.27.237.203 share a remarkable and not overlapping time wise history, and the IP admitted previous to being CC in a previous block evasion. So remember to log in everyone!

It's "to [sic] for AND against"? Sounds quite a good definition of "neutral". CaptainCorrecto (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No its an article for and against, promoting the two sides, neutral is to promote niether. Murry1975 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been working on the neutrality and factuality of this article in past couple of days and IMHO its still not there, but if concensus actually is that this somehow is a balanced article and the tags need removing I would be obliged to concur, against my own judgement. Murry1975 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing a touch of common sense to proceedings, Murry. I personally haven't checked the article thoroughly enough to offer an opinion on this issue just yet, I was just attempting to summarize the discussion.

Fwiw, I spent some time formatting the references (ie. adding dates, authors, publications.. etc); this really helps when comparing sources. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers HBH, apologies again for re-adding without coming here first. The formating will help (its not something I am good at, so a big thank you there).I have a busy few days ahead so I will be hopping on and off here. An idea of the tight rope which this article is would be if you could read my discussion below with the IP, about adding when a statement was made. I will print your tumbler link off and have it ready. Again thanks for your help, and intervention. Murry1975 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Campaign "supporters"

You cannot simply list people who oppose independence, like J.K. Rowling, and describe them as "publicly supporting" the Better Together campaign. You need to have a specific citation showing their support for the campaign, not just for remaining within the UK. For instance, I can't take a pro-Union statement from David Cameron and use it on United with Labour to say "he supports United with Labour". This should be obvious. Zcbeaton (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More Materials for the last section

Does any one think that more citations, detailed description (from neutral media), accusation (from pro-independence campaign) and counter-accusation/explanation (from pro-union campaign) are deeply needed for the 'Accusation of scaremongering' section? At least now it's highly unbalanced and unsupported, consider its lack of uinonists' response, public media's comment or shortage of citation? Or the (almost deliberately) distortion of original text's meaning?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for having the independence debate, but for facts. The section accurately reports comments on a much-discussed aspect of the "Better Together" campaign, none of which are from pro-independence sources, and all of which are sourced (your allegation that they're "unsupported" is mystifying and inaccurate). The "Better Together" response to allegations of fearmongering is "We're not fearmongering", which is not noteworthy because of course they'd say that. If you can present some neutral (or even pro-independence) sources saying "The campaign is not scaremongering", then fine, that's a valid part of a Wikipedia entry, go for it. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh -- the Better Together campaign's response to accusations of scaremongering, regardless of what it may be, is definitely noteworthy. If they've made a response, it should be within the article and it should be cited. Clearly, you believe that it is notable when parts of the Better Together campaign say it is scaremongering. Surely, then, it is also notable when parts of the Better Together campaign say it is not. No double standards when it comes to notability, please. (For what it's worth, I removed one of the "accusations" the other day because it was literally a blog post. That certainly isn't close to notable.) Zcbeaton (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the thing you removed wasn't "literally a blog post". It was a complete, unedited reproduction of an editorial from the biggest-selling newspaper in Scotland, QUOTED in a blog post because the newspaper does not maintain an online archive of its leader columns and no other source was available. Find a better one and I'll happily agree with you that it should replace the current one. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're talking about something completely different. You're talking about a citation I removed, which, for the record, I still believe should be removed, because Wings Over Scotland is in no way a reliable citation. But that's not what I'm talking about -- I removed outright (not just the citation) a post by David Torrance on a non-noteworthy Conservative blog, because that doesn't deserve to be here. Zcbeaton (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How is a post by a highly-experienced professional political journalist "non-noteworthy"? David Torrance is a regular contributor to national newspapers, a biographer of both Margaret Thatcher and Alex Salmond, and appears frequently as an expert pundit on political TV shows. The blog in question is populated by writers of similar calibres, all (but one, I think) frequent national newspaper contributors. The notion that the opinions of those people suddenly become less notable when published on a blog than in a newspaper is bizarre. It's the person who is or isn't notable, not the masthead. David Torrance is still David Torrance wherever he's writing. If his views aren't "noteworthy" in the context of Scottish political journalism, who on Earth do you think is? CaptainCorrecto (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot agree more. This topic itself, elusive by nature, is difficult to maintain any balance upon; and it now seems that we cannot quote response at least from Better Together's officials just due to it's 'not noteworthy' because 'of course they'd say that'. Yet following the same logic, we cannot, conversely, quote any resource from its opposition because, equally, 'of course they'd say that'.119.112.172.95 (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is utterly fatuous to say that it's notable if "Better Together" denies scaremongering. Of course it does. It's roughly as notable as a Tory MP claiming not to be a Marxist. It is equally not notable if "Yes Scotland" accuses it of scaremongering - that is what IT is bound to do. What IS notable is if NEUTRAL AND PRO-UNION commentators consistently attack "Better Together" for negativity when it constantly professes to be conducting a positive campaign. There is certainly a case for adding quotes from *neutral* (or pro-independence) commentators praising its positivity, should there be any. The *campaign itself* doing so is the polar opposite of notable. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. You cannot include accusations but exclude the official response and claim in any way that you're delivering a balanced view. It is unadulterated editorialism. Zcbeaton (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't. The official response doesn't need saying, because no campaign ever admits to scaremongering. The allegations aren't presented as fact, but as accusations from the opposing camp. However, I'm sure nobody, and certainly not I, would object if you added a line saying "Better Together denies scaremongering" and included an appropriate source to one of its press releases. So why not get on and do it instead of just moaning on here? (I'm not going to, because like others I don't believe it's necessary.) CaptainCorrecto (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

：：Another problem also prevails here. A careful and thorough looking through of the quoted resources, one will start to realise that most of them (especially those pro-uion or nominally 'neutral') simply criticized the campaign's disadvantages, not least its emphasis of uncovering and exploiting Yes Scotland's policy-emptiness,according to one author quoted there, 'Q&A' war. Very few of the resources even mentioned the word 'scaremongering' (apart from their quotation of Yes Scotland or pro-independence parties and individuals)at all, thus making it not proper as firm evidence of the campaign's alleged 'scaremongering' (We should not equal 'not positive/attractive enough'/'somehow negative' to 'scaremongering') Actually a comprehensive reading of materials and debates from all sides lead to such an intriguing conclusion, if any: Pro-independence campaign continuously attack its pro-union counterpart for 'scaremongering', including SNP members highly-frequent usage of it in parliamentary debates. Pro-union campaign just continuously (if not plainly) say they're 'a positive campaign'. Neutral comments tend to focus on both Better Together's lack of political attraction and Yes Scotland's lack of factual evidence. But the term 'scaremongering' almost strengthened a solidarity among them that Yes Scotland is more political than factual, being too 'assertive' or 'aggressive'. We may need some edition/correction/expansion to this section.119.112.172.95 (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have something to contribute regarding media coverage of the "Yes Scotland" campaign, the appropriate place for that is in its own entry. Your comments above are "whataboutery", as well as of highly dubious neutrality, and of no relevance here. The notion that quotes such as "The Better Together campaign [...] is tedious, piecemeal, relentlessly negative, and a factory for an endless supply of scare stores" or "[I] find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp" are somehow NOT in fact criticisms of it for scaremongering is demonstrably imbecilic. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection

What is the supposed "poorly sourced" content that justifies this unwarranted lockdown? Who are these people appointing themselves arbiters of things without discussing them in the proper place? For three days there has been apparent consensus about the removal of the tags at the start of the page, with nobody offering any specific reason for their existence, yet people keep restoring them without justifying their actions here. I smell agendas. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. The majority of contributors, I believe, do not have any plot or political purpose. Can I offer any help? I really wish to improve the quality and credibility of the page. And thank you so much for your responses to my stupid, poorly-composed sentences. Second-language-syndrome. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

God why is that tag thing re-loaded?! What's wrong with the article?! With people like me and my classmates already thinking this more than neutral... Even the scaremongering part wasso detailed. Just explain what is wrong, please. Discuss issues here. Don't form a pattern of 'appear-remove-appear-remove...' please. Multi-lateral respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.226.241.253 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look through the page history, I think you'll see many valid reasons for protecting the page. People of all political persuasions seem inclined to further their agenda through Wikipedia pages, and some of the edits made to this page over the past couple of weeks have been very suspect. Zcbeaton (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet more assertions without examples. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Scaremongering

A, well, scarey term, and one not used in the majority of references within the section, so I have edited it to reflect what the qoutes and references say, also removed a few weasel words, dated a line and general tidied up. Anything I have missed? Murry1975 (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity - if a statement is made in April 2013 saying it's "far too early" to make a decision and that any position will be decided nearer to September 2014, when in your view does it "expire" or become doubtful? It seems eminently reasonable - on any subject, not just this one - to say that the April statement would still be in effect two months later, unless contradicted by a subsequent one. It seems this article is to suffer death by a thousand cuts. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, we cant see the future, or make an open statment about it. Yes it could be in effect two months later, but this article could still be here in ten years, and if no one has corrected it, it would remain a dated view, so it is better to give a clear report of what the source says and when rather than an open statement. And not just on this, on any subject. Murry1975 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

PS, they said nearer, and June is nearer than April. Murry1975 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Sun will let us know, in gigantic front-page 72-point type, when they change their mind, and eagle-eyed editors like yourself will of course correct the entry within minutes. If someone makes a clear statement it logically stands until contradicted. The word "currently" does not imply fortune-telling. (Oh, and "Better Together" won't be here in 10 years' time either way.) 92.27.237.203 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not getting the point, currently implies present tense which changes. Information may or not be updated, this is why it should be done. Murry1975 (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

When information changes, Wikipedia entries can and do change with them. That is, one might hazard, the advantage and indeed the entire purpose of Wikipedia. The information IS current now. When it is no longer current, change the entry. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

April is no longer current, wouldnt you agree? Murry1975 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment wasn't "It is April", however. Nor even "This is our position on independence for April". It was "This is our position on independence until further notice". 92.27.237.203 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And when did they announce it? When was it? Murry1975 (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The point you're attempting to make with the link escapes me. It has no relevance to anything that's happening here. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Captain Correcto/IP92, that is the funnist thing! Seriously, stop adding fluff, its not an essay its an article. If you want somewhere to push your view open a blog. Murry1975 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be an explanation of your point. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

quotes taken out of context

I have removed a series of quotes out of context. There is no need for an exhaustive list of quotes. representative and relevant quotes are good enough.

Friendly request to IP 92-something: please stop edit warring over this. The Banner talk 17:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Kindly elaborate on "out of context". You appear to be confused as to why you've removed the quotes in question - is it because they're out of context, or because there are too many of them? Either explanation requires some justification, something I'm not too hopeful about given your past history on this page. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. And personal remarks are not necessary. The Banner talk 17:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE makes no stipulation about number of references, only to things being given "undue weight". It has nothing to do with what you're complaining about, but is about reflecting the majority opinion. To that end, a greater number of examples is in fact desirable - even necessary - to reflect the breadth of the opinion in question. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And up to now you fail the give evidence why your quotes are beneficial for the article while coming close to edit warring to keep them in. The Banner talk 17:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I can be bothered trying to deal with your hypocrisy again. It takes two to edit-war, and as previously, other people are attempting to reach consensus by discussing on the Talk page, while you just stomp in deleting things you don't like without justification. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Section blanking

Does anyone understand how this site is supposed to work? If a section has been blanked without explanation, then restored with a request to discuss said blanking on the Talk page, you don't just blank it again without explanation. That's how edit wars happen. You discuss it on the Talk page. 92.27.237.203 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been smouldering away for a while now. I've looked over the removed text and while I understand Banner's concerns, I feel that the wholesale blanking of large sections of text is uncalled for. Personally, I found the details most informative and educational, and in this case it is useful to have a wide variety of examples of the views espoused by major Scottish media outlets, etc.

I believe we can condense the criticism without losing too much information, by merging some parts and adding the quotes to the footnotes. As a rough example, these two parts:

• On 7 March 2013, an editorial column in the Scottish Sun, whose position as of April 2013 was of being undecided on independence, said "Here's a radical idea for the Better Together campaign. Just once, just for a change, let's hear something positive about why Scotland would be better staying part of the United Kingdom. Because frankly, the scare stories are wearing a bit thin."

• On 28 April 2013, an editorial column in the Sunday Herald read: "The Better Together campaign has many faults. It is tedious, piecemeal, relentlessly negative, and a factory for an endless supply of scare stores."

Could be merged to something like:

• Both the Scottish Sun and Sunday Herald have accused the Better Together camp of negativity and using "scare stories"..

References

I'm going to add that example, perhaps someone else would like to try the other paragraphs? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see relevant content restored, and fine with the way you've done it, but that wasn't actually the section I was talking about being blanked :D 92.27.237.203 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of Negativity

I think there's a real problem with bias in this section, which will probably require someone who isn't Scottish or involved in the campaign to step in and address. At present this section just presents one side of the debate: i.e. "some people have accused Better Together of scaremongering, here are some examples". We also have to present the other side of the debate - i.e. the notion that Better Together aren't scaremongering, or even the argument that positive/negative campaigning isn't particularly important in the first place (e.g. what matters is the accuracy of an argument, not its tone).

This is a real problem because it's an explicit tactic of the Yes campaign to argue that the other side are "negative". The fact that there are numerous sources putting this argument forward doesn't make it factually accurate. We need at least equal weight to both sides. At present there are by my count 12 references in this section taking the standpoint that Better Together are scaremongering, and only one reference taking the opposite viewpoint - which is clearly completely unacceptable in terms of NPOV. Bandanamerchant (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added one source from an Alistair Darling speech in which he addresses this, but more would be required to make this genuinely neutral. Bandanamerchant (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I have had too much Guinness this week, but I am seeing referneces in that section, at every part. And I read the heading as accusations of, which is not the same as negative campaign. And I am not Scottish, or involved in this campaign. So where is the not neutral unsourced points of entry? Murry1975 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by that comment, to be honest. I didn't say there aren't any references, I said that of the 13 references in the section, 12 of them are from sources criticising Better Together for scaremongering, while only one of the 13 references was a response from Better Together to the accusation. If it's to be a balanced account then it should present both sides of the argument. I've added one source from an Alistair Darling speech so it's now slightly more balanced, but by no means balanced overall in my opinion. Bandanamerchant (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I see someone has since added another great wad of text offering up more criticisms of Better Together without any rebuttals, so it's even less balanced now. Bandanamerchant (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The balance of this section is now absolutely appalling - it's completely skewed to one side of the debate and amounts to a massive list of articles bashing Better Together. There either needs to be a concerted effort to balance this argument by including statements from the No side, or some of the material should be removed. 158.143.82.199 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This article is quite lopsided in its coverage in some sections. There needs to be a much better attempt to present both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is NOT a venue for political campaigning and both sides of an argument need to be given proper weight. There are bits of this article which are clearly written by Yes campaigners and have little justification other than attacking the No side. 85.133.27.34 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added criticism section warning. It's not legitimate to just write a long list of criticism of a political campaign by its opponents without any alternative counter-argument provided to the points raised. The accusations of negativity section needs to be completely rewritten in my view. Lewdswap (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also made some attempt to change the last paragraph, which was by far the worst section, into something that is fit for purpose. There were two unsourced claims, a claim that used Wings Over Scotland as the only source, a sentence that broke NPOV and some other minor issues with non-encyclopedic language. This section still needs major edits. Lewdswap (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing content

George Galloway is not mentioned in the article despite being part of the Better Together campaign.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Better Together (campaign). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723020048/http://www.snp.org:80/media-centre/news/2012/sep/scaremongering-leaves-bad-taste-mouth to http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/sep/scaremongering-leaves-bad-taste-mouth
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014221352/http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/6217-better-together-alistair-darling-delivers-the-john-p-mackintosh-lecture to http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/6217-better-together-alistair-darling-delivers-the-john-p-mackintosh-lecture
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217161043/http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/10973-johann_lamont_defends_nationalism_virus_comments to http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/10973-johann_lamont_defends_nationalism_virus_comments

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)