![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Ashdown is the most senior Unionist so far to question the acceptance of the tainted donation:
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
::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)
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)
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)
And when did they announce it? When was it? Murry1975 ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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."
Both the Scottish Sun and Sunday Herald have accused the Better Together camp of negativity and using "scare stories"..[1] [2]
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)
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)
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)
George Galloway is not mentioned in the article despite being part of the Better Together campaign.
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Ashdown is the most senior Unionist so far to question the acceptance of the tainted donation:
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
::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)
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)
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)
And when did they announce it? When was it? Murry1975 ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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."
Both the Scottish Sun and Sunday Herald have accused the Better Together camp of negativity and using "scare stories"..[1] [2]
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)
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)
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)
George Galloway is not mentioned in the article despite being part of the Better Together campaign.
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)