Talk:Better Off Out

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] BNP Speculation

I have reinstated an edited version of the the BNP fact.

The list is available on the second page of the list with the BNP member still listed: http://www.betteroffout.co.uk/sup02.htm

The quote attributed to Mark Wallace came in an email to me. Here is a copy:

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:05:40 +0100

From: "Mark Wallace" <mrmewallace@gmail.com> Add to Address Book

Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by gmail.com. Learn more

To: "Graham Copp"

Subject: Re: better off out list

Dear Graham, As Better Off Out is a non-partisan campaign, we are not intended to promote or discriminate against any legal political party.

The campaign web site (www.betteroffout.co.uk) features the clear, personally expressed views on the European Union of a whole range of people from a range of different political and party standpoints. The fact that people are on our supporters list together demonstrates simply that they each independently hold the view that the UK would be Better Off Out of the EU, not that they have common cause in any other area of politics.

We would like to see, as Geoff Hoon recently requested, a full and open debate about whether the EU is the correct way forward, and that is what we will continue to work towards.

Mark Wallace, Campaign Manager, Better Off Out

I have removed the speculation that MPs have resiged, and left it pointing out that there are now four members publicly listed.

Grahamcopp 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNP Speculation

I've removed the BNP speculation. The removed text is here:

However, the campaign [http://thedaily.wordpress.com/2006/08/09/tory-mps-join-bnp-member-on-better-off-out-support-list/ courted controversy] when it added a member of the British National Party to its supporters' list. The move [http://thedaily.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/freedom-association-stands-by-bnp-supporter/ was defended] by the organisation's Campaign Manager, Mark Wallace, who said: "We are not intended to promote or discriminate against any legal political party." However, it appears that several previously supportive MPs have resigned{{fact}} as, on August 14 2006, their supporters' list detailed only four MPs:

* [[Ann Winterton]]

* [[Austin Mitchell]]

* [[Philip Hollobone]]

* [[Douglas Carswell]]

We really need better citations than two entries from a personal blog that do not actually cite their sources. For example:

• At the moment the list doesn't have anyone on it called Giussepe Di Santis or anyone identified as being from the BNP
• There doesn't seem to be any controversy outside the world of this blog
• The letter cited only appears on this blog.

And the resignations should be cited "it would appear that" is simply speculation. Most Eurosceptic organisations are embarrased by the one sided nature of the support they receive and so downplay their Tory support (and play up Labour support).

I would have been more leniant with a signed in editor, but an anonymous IP does make one suspicious that it could be trying to drive traffic. By all means come back with better sources, or we could do an RFC if necesary.

JASpencer 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for signing in, and welcome to Wikipedia. The same problems apply as before although I'll leave it for a day before taking it out.

Essentially The Daily seems to be a blog without any fact checking and maintained by some amateur enthusiast. This would seem to contravene WP:RS:

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources. (My emphasis).

I've also removed the membership link that was pointing to an invalid page.

JASpencer 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Having now found that Giuseppe De Santis is indeed on the list, I've readded in the reference. So here will be the reasons I'll be taking this down tomorrow if there are no valid changes:

• There seems to be no record of controversy outside a few Labour supporting blogs
• There's no record of a BNP member Giussipe de Santis outside those blogs, BOO's supporters archive and a few comments on right wing sites were someone signing as "Giuseppe De Santis"
• We have to be very careful with WP:BLP to make sure that we don't say anything untrue about the MP's associating themselves with the BNP (although the current text doesn't seem to do that).
• I'm not sure that the letter quote meets WP:RS and WP:NOR

I also note that you are the author of the blog that you're quoting. Under the guideline WP:VAIN as a vanity link.

JASpencer 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your welcome. I have several concerns with your reasons given for the edit tomorrow.

• Firstly, there was no quantification of the controversy caused in the post. It is factually true that there has been controversy caused.
• I don't agree with your second point either. There is a person called Guiseppe di Santis whose posts can be found, often with his email, which is always the same here, here, here, and here
• I'm not sure what else can be done than taking the organisation's site itself, and publishing an email from Wallace.
• Finally, I don't see where in the definition of WP:VAIN can one find a description of my edit. The edit did not promote the blog, they added to the information available on BOO. I could have chosen an anonymous log in, but I stand by my edit and am happy to do it under my name.

Grahamcopp 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Controversy among a few blogs (and only among those blogs) probably does not count as controversy. I'm prepared to refer this for comment if you wish.
• None of the four posts would satisfy WP:V. Political sites are particularly prone to having people pretending to be who they are not. (In fact the head of the Conservative Democrats was responsible for internet libel, so we need to be particularly careful if Giussipe is on good terms with them.
• The letter still does not seem to meet WP:RS as it is published on a (no offence) unreliable source. Again I'd be prepared to do an RFC, but I don't fancy your chances.
• Well actually you shouldn't be editing the main article at all. You should be putting the text from your own blog on to the talk page and letting other editor's judge this. This applies double when pointing to your own web site.

JASpencer 21:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm a newby to editing and am happy to take the point about blogs and reliability (None taken, by the way) I'm happy to come back and bring it to other editors once it's on a source considered reliable. Is it the case that I should not be editing direction in general, or is it just that, once deleted, the edit should have been subject to discussion among editors before reinstatement? Grahamcopp 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Although, of course, the listing of just four MPs on their supporters' list is verifiable

Grahamcopp 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What is verifiable is (1) that there is a self described BNP member on the official BOO supporters list and (2) that there are four MPs on the site (less than the original). I'm not sure whether the BNP fact is notable, although it's likely that there would be a way of noting this (not in its present form). On the second point it sounds like yet another Eurosceptic organisation trying to portray itself as less Tory rather than Tories backing away from the organisation. I don't see how notable this is.

Generally it's OK to re-enter the text if there's been an honest effort to make it more acceptable (either by rewording or citing the source).

And don't feel that you can't edit any articles. It's just references to your own work are expected to be entered on to talk pages first.

Unless there's some serious changes made to this I'll take this out.

JASpencer 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I take all your points except for the one on the members list. There is no source at all for the existing list of ten members of Parliament made by the original author. There is a source for my list of four MPs. I don't see any evidence that a) The ten MPs in question support the campaign, and b) that they are not featured on the website to make the organisation look less Tory. Grahamcopp 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've done a quick search and found the Freedom Association's list for everyone but Austin Mitchell. JASpencer 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Austin Mitchell added. I'm now going to take off the BNP and four members edits. JASpencer 08:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. JASpencer 08:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)