Talk:Stuart Campbell (blogger)

Wired

Not sure which Wired the quote comes from. I would guess the UK version. Perhaps CaptainCorrecto knows? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Or even Wired (website)? But I think he may have said "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat", alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sensible Golf?

... is mentioned here Is this reliable/ notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I think the Reverend himself would remove it if he saw that there. It has been a bone of contention since he was credited prominently on the game, which he wasn't too keen on. I'm not too sure on the author of this quote, and its not too reliable itself given the jokey context, but it is either Stu or one of the other AP2 writers:

• "His first (and, as it turned out, despite, for example, what the credits to Sensible Golf insist in gigantic letters, last; his rapid disillusionment with the lovable eccentrics of Sensi perhaps best illustrated by the adoption of a company fruit machine as the effigy of a particularly unprofessional programmer and the battering of it into tiny non-working bits with a lump hammer)" [1] Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (I know a few wiki editors with quite a similar style...) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I really think this article, while it concerns a subject who I agree is notable, is too much sourced to dubious self-references. Can anyone improve the sourcing? --John (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• An interview (published on his own blog though)
• A brief mention in the Guardian (but links to own blog again)
• More promising. An interview hosted on a different blog

Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• • The Guadian one is the best. I note they don't call him "Rev"; does anyone? --John (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Longshanker calls the blog "Wangs Over Skintland" but uses Rev.. The Scotsman article already linked to in the article does too: Wings’ founder, the Rev Stuart Campbell, has the ambition to create a Daily Record for the Yes campaign. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Finally a good (enough) source.[2] A BBC interview that covers his work as for spokesman for the Fairplay Campaign.
• Another FairPlay related article from "The world's leading games industry website" Games Industry International.[3] This one quotes: "..the organisers of the campaign, which is the brainchild of freelance games journalist Stuart Campbell.."
• Ha! A book! Obviously wasn't looking hard enough. Quote: According to Stuart Campbell...Lara's popularity is due to her 'jugs'
• Another book, same subject, actual Campbell quote this time[4] "Lara's popularity comes down to two words. And the second one is 'jugs'."
• Rock, Paper, Shotgun[5] quote: Ask a writer like the esteemed Stuart Campbell and he’ll angrily (and swearily) point out to you that a game is exactly that: something you play with. Not something that tells you a story.

Poppy controversy

In 1993 Amiga Power planned to use a poppy on the cover, as a reference to the featured game Cannon Fodder. After protests (orchestrated?) by Daily Star and others, the intended cover was not used. But comments in that issue from Stuart Campbell reignited the debate. The following is preserved on the AP2 site:[6]

• The Daily Star POPPY GAME INSULT TO OUR WAR DEAD Exclusive by Jonathan Guy 26/10/93

War veterans have slammed as "monstrous" a decision to use a Remembrance Day poppy to illustrate a new computer game... called Cannon Fodder. The game, tipped to be the year's biggest seller, will make its debut at a show in London's Olympia from November 11 to 14 - Remembrance Sunday. Manufacturers Sensible Software say: "War has never been so much fun." The distinctive poppy symbol is featured on the game and on the front page of leading computer magazine AMIGA POWER, out on Armistice Day. British Legion chiefs and MPs have branded the use of the poppy as appalling. Royal British Legion spokesman Dennis York said: "This will offend millions at a time when they remember loved ones who gave their lives in war." Liberal Democrat MP Menzies Campbell stormed: "It is monstrous that the poppy should be used in such a way." Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, son of Britain's great field marshall said: "It is very unfortunate that anyone should see fit to detract from the poppy's place as a symbol of remembrance." But a spokesman for Virgin Interactive Entertainment, which is marketing the game, said: "The poppy is there to remind consumers war is no joke."

• The Daily Star THE STAR SAYS Editorial 26/10/93

SHAMEFUL The poppy is a sacred reminder of the men and women who gave their lives in two world wars. How sickening to see it being abused to sell a savage computer game. The distributors say the poppy is there "to remind the customer that war is no joke." That's just publicity writer's hypocrisy. Computer game designers compete to glorify war and viciousness. How dare they use the poppy to turn truth on its head. Make sure you don't buy this shameful game.

• AP32's Stuart Would Just Like To Say: "Old soldiers? I wish them all dead." [—Stuart Campbell]

• The Daily Star POPPY ROW MAG INSULTS OLD SOLDIERS Exclusive by Chris McCashin 23/11/93

Britain's ex-servicemen are up in arms after a magazine boss declared he would like to see all old soldiers dead. Fury erupted when the Daily Star revealed that, just days before Remembrance Sunday, AMIGA POWER used a red poppy on the front page to illustrate a computer game called Cannon Fodder. The magazine changed its sick cover after a storm of protest. But acting editor Stuart Campbell said in an editorial: "Stuart would just like to say, 'Old soldiers? I wish them all dead.'" Confronted by the Daily Star at his office in Bath, spotty, Scots-born Campbell, 26, said: "It may have been insensitive, but aren't I entitled to an opinion any more?" The revamped December issue of AMIGA POWER - circulation 54,000 copies a month - also insults the Royal British Legion by labelling them "conscientious objectors" because of their outspoken anger at the abuse of the red poppy. Enraged Royal British Legion spokesman Dennis York stormed: "Good God. It leaves you speechless. If it was not for the old soldiers who stood up during the wars he might not be alive." AMIGA POWER publishing director Greg Ingham admitted that including Campbell's comment in the magazine was "a regrettable mistake". He said: "I would like to apologise to the Royal British Legion and anyone else who was offended."

Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• • WP:BLPSOURCES rules out using these sources on an article on a living person. --John (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    • But now we know that he was aged 26 in 1993 and thus about 46 now..? and that we was spotty!! Despicable. (And only an idiot would have an office in the bath.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't expect any of these are quite good enough, (damn these modern net-heads, someone needs to write a BOOK) but I'll keep hunting..

• Stu's 'flaming' comment in AP — Click on the image at the bottom left of the screen, (the image labelled 004), and Campbell's comment can just be seen at the bottom left of the page. [7] (Just spotted above the quote, "someone" has given a credit to Adolf Hitler for 'book burning':-)
• The 'poppy business' has a sourced section here on WP already here but I suppose the Star quotes are okay there as its just a game, but not in a BLP?
• A PC Magazine mentions the fuss here..
• Amiga History Guide (a huge site) mentions it as well: Court injunctions were taken out against the magazine by the Mary Whitehouse Committee who attempted to force the publishers' (Future Publishing & Sensible Software) to withdraw Amiga Power issue 32 and Cannon Fodder from sale. The story gained outside coverage, appearing in an edition of the UK-based 'Daily Star' newspaper. The 'newspaper' used the story to reiterate their coverage of video game violence and made several unflattering comments about Stuart Campbell.[8]

Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

AP2 as a source

I think AP2 is a reliable enough publication to be used here. Anyone have an opinion on this? They were famous in the games business for not kowtowing to the usual industry pressures, and a good example of their adhering to some self-imposed rules on accuracy can be seen here (and elsewhere throughout the site) Basically, they went back after the magazine had folded (and the Amiga was all but dead) to examine and try to explain every instance where they made a mistake in the review process. They found three bad ones and put themselves on show-trial(!) concluding: Can be no apologies deep enough to excuse these three acts of criminal deception. Jonathan must have been mad, and we were stupid not to stop him. We are all culpable. In fact, it's a good job we were all brutally slain in AP65. It's no more than we deserved. I mean, have you heard of a magazine act anything like that? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found the 'poppy' AP issue in question. And a quite a few others.

• AP32 (shows a scan of the first Star piece and editorial): We had originally intended to use a...poppy on the cover of this issue of the magazine, but in the light of these developments, we've decided to go for a screenshot of the game itself. (p. 11 Dave Green / Linda Barker)
• AP32: STUART WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY: 'Old soldiers? I wish them all dead.' (p.4 Stuart Campbell)

• AP35 (A reader comments, not relevant but quite funny): Nuts to the Daily Star! It will be a sad day indeed when we're all reduced to playing politically correct New-age flower arranging games. (p.83 Steven Bosanko)

Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Creative and inventive prose

I mentioned in the lede, famed for his controversial writing and inventive use of prose in his often scathing reviews. I might have to shift inventive part. I have plenty examples of the scathing though! He also used concept reviews occasionally (e.g. the review Kick Off '96, written in the style of a courtroom drama in which the magazine is charged with murdering the Amiga by the four cyclists of the apocalypse ([9] AP65 pp. 18-21)

Another thing he was known for was his use of capitals (e.g NO! BURN IT! BURN IT AND SMASH IT! DESTROY IT! NOW! p.42 AP35), words like natch and 'amusing' characters, including "Uncle Joe Stalin" — who made occasional editorial comments in an attempt to erase Stuart Campbell from history — and "Morrissey-on-a-stick" (from the AP lexicon). Whether he was famed for creativity and/or inventiveness is open to debate though. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Some examples from AP

• Since I've started working for Amiga Power, I've had lots of abuse from various quarters. Readers, rival journalists, complete strangers in the street, my own parents, they've all had a pop. It's all water off a duck's back of course – I'm from Scotland.
• [Campbell also compares the game to..] Having electrodes attached to your genitals and being flogged senseless with a knotted rope.

International Rugby Challenge review (AP26 pp.30, 32)

• If you're a boy and you don't like football then there's something wrong with you, so nyah boo sucks.

Soccer Kid review (AP29 p.28)

• Bloody software houses, I bloody hate 'em, You know when this preview copy…arrived in our office? I’ll tell you – one bloody day before deadline, that’s when.

Micro Machines preview {AP29 p.25)

• Fish! Stirling Albion! 32-piece dinner service! Double decker bus! Centipedes! (Snip! I don’t think the 'wacky surrealist' approach is going to get you out of it this time, either. Have another go. – Ed)

Rampart (AP21 p.43)

• AND THE SCOTS HAVE REALLY GOT THE PSEUDO-RUSSIAN LOSERS ON THE RACK NOW! A CROSS, A GOAL!

Sensible Soccer 92/93 Season preview (AP21 p.78, with excited use of CAPS throughout review)

• Honestly, what a lump of crap. It looks absolutely awful, it plays like a dead horse, and it smells rather worse.

Joe & Mac Caveman Ninja review (AP22 p.69)

• ..some groovy touches to take your mind off the chunktabulous graphics.

Action Fighter review (AP22 p.80)

• Let's face it, it's a crap idea, it's a crap coin-op, and it's a crap 'weedyitis' conversion too. Yeuch, basically.

Cyberball review (AP22 p.81)

• I'm getting bored of saying average now. This game is completely, um, candlestick.

Last Duel review (AP22 p.83)

• An open-and-shut case of tealeafery, but the court acquits the game on the grounds that it turns a really rather tedious orc-slashing affair into a bit of a tongue-in-cheek rock'n'roll larf, guv'nor.

Motorhead review (AP22 p.96)

• I'd rather spend the rest of my life locked in a room with Andi Peters and all the presenters of the Disney Club than play it again.

Edd the Duck 2 review (AP26 p.73)

• Some of the levels are real ("Melon farmers" — Ed), with some real ("Bus stops" — Ed) of enemy fortifications making your life incredibly hard. Many was the time I yelled ("Flaming heck" — Ed) and ("Pinched" — Ed) the wall beside my desk...I hate the sons of ("Ladies" — Ed).

Apocalypse review (AP37 p.38)

AP on Stuart Campbell

• We were considering giving away free packets of paper hankies this month, such is the sense of tragedy hanging over us. You see, Stuart's left. (We'll even miss his music. Although, actually…)

"AP True stories: Stuart Campbell 1991 – 1994" (AP40 p.11)

• Some Scottish bloke called Stuart Campbell is using a lifetime of extensive games knowledge to make sure that the...levels are funky, playable and extremely hard. He apparently used to work for ("McDonalds" – Uncle Joe Stalin) before he started at Sensible Software.

"Rita, Sue and Cannon Fodder 2" (AP40 p.22) – Cam Winstanley

Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

GibberGnat

To one not in the thick of things, what is 'cybernat' supposed to mean? Someone is being so clever they are simply unintelligible... Shenme (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Try reading the article. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanity article.

This article reads like a vanity article. Lots of statements like- he has influenced generations of writers,and also using the words he or him,instead of using the last name Campbell.--98.87.171.203 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Attack article

This article reads like an attack article. Lots of statements like -A lot of people hate him...Despicable [and] universally hated by the games industry...He has been variously described as "The most feared software hatchet man in the business", and as: "Videogames journalism's answer to Al-Qaeda." -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Reverend"

The article begins by referring to the subject as Rev. Stuart Campbell, but no where in the article is reason for this style of address given. Is he a member of the clergy, is it a nickname, or does he have an unusual first name? Either way I think the article would be improved by some explanation. I see him referred to as Reverend Stuart Campbell elsewhere for instance the Wings Over Scotland about page.

I just noticed that reference is made to the style of address, tucked away in the Wings Over Scotland section of the article:

Campbell claimed that while he is a Reverend, he does not talk about his religion as it has "nothing to do with politics"

Which to me at least just raises more questions about why he refers to himself as Reverend. But if he doesn't talk about it then I suspect finding a source for an explanation of the style of address will be difficult.

86.168.68.76 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

yep, I deleted the Rev title which was reverted sharpish by Hillbillyholiday81 on the dubious grounds that the subject himself identified as a Rev. Doesn't really matter what he self-identifies as without a reliable source. I suspect the title is a novelty one, such as can be ordered over the internet from the Universal Life Church, for example. There is no evidence of legitimate ordination. But whatever. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Campbell identifies as "Rev.", and does so in this podcast (the one cited in the text). Also check his twitter profile: [10] -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he self-identifies as: we need another reliable source for his alleged ordination. If he self-identified as 'Dr' or 'Sir' on the basis of nothing but what he said himself, it would not be acceptable either. Podcasts and twitter profiles are not acceptable as reliable sources for an exceptional claim of this kind. See WP:SPS WP:ABOUTSELF WP:TWITTER . What we would need is a citation from a church or another organisation or source that verified his claim. In the absence of this, the endorsement of the subject's claim about his own title means the page is low-quality. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[11] Perhaps we should ask Dr Dre for his medical qualifications as well? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

very droll. In the absence of any serious engagement with what a reliable source is, and without any desire for a revert war, I'm out of here. Page is all yours: enjoy. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wings’ founder, the Rev Stuart Campbell, has the ambition to create a Daily Record for the Yes campaign.

Luke, the newspaper source provided above (again, in the text) is surely good enough, no? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the newspaper source given is simply repeating the self-identification rather than providing a source for it. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I should add that "Rev Stu" is well aware of this article's existence (the previous version got deleted at his own request. See the previous AfD discussion), and as far as I know, he hasn't raised any objections. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure why people insist on reinserting "Rev" before Campbell's name, when there is no compelling evidence he is any form of clergyman. The fact he refers to himself as "The Reverend" is not sufficient. If such a claim is true then there should be ample evidence available, from appropriate sources. Besides, even if he is a Reverend, no other clergymen appear to have the prefix "Rev" in their lead, including, for example, The Archbishop of Canterbury. Atshal (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Anna Lertreader will be able to say whether he is a real reverend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeygrimlock (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wings over Scotland visitor stats

Is this really necessary? There are a few problems with it that I can see. First, it's entirely self-reported and therefore not particularly reliable. Saying "the site reported that they had x amount of hits" adds a degree of legitimacy to it that shouldn't really apply. Second, this doesn't seem to be common practice for other articles and largely seems to be aimed at determining significance (even though 50,000 visitors isn't actually that much for a semi-popular blog). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.82.199 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed some of that self-reported drivel. Please let me know if I missed any. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Game jornalist"?

Is Campbell really principally known as a "game journalist"? Isn't he better known these days as a cybernat? Big Ginger Afro (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously malicious Hillsborough edit

The subject's entry already includes this statement regarding his views on Hillsborough:

"I stand absolutely by the stuff that I've written about Hillsborough"

It is therefore not news and not noteworthy that, when directly questioned by some people on Twitter, he continues to stand by those views. His views are already fully covered by the entry as it stands. Wikipedia is not a journal of ongoing Twitter arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Lertreader (talk • contribs) 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

2017 Harrassment Arrest

WP:BLP is clear that for relatively unknown people accused of a crime, it should be considered not to include details of arrest. It is also very clear that Stuart Campbell by no means is 'relatively unknown' given his career as a journalist, author, registered campaigner for Scottish independence, and all round social media <insert word of choice>. Given it has been covered in all the UK mainstream media, I cant see there is a BLP issue to answer here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stuart Campbell (game journalist). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/game-GMG/share-price
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150817224629/http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Reverend-Stuart-Campbell-raises-11k-woman-fined/story-27613189-detail/story.html to http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Reverend-Stuart-Campbell-raises-11k-woman-fined/story-27613189-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017081339/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Mars-Bar/story-27609549-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Mars-Bar/story-27609549-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

World of Stuart

This article includes quite many references to World of Stuart at http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com. However, the page no longer works. Should the references be removed or marked with "dead link"? JIP | Talk 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this no longer applies, the page is back online. JIP | Talk 14:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The new section

I've tagged the new "Anti-transgender activism" section as POV. First is the section heading, which is from one perspective and thus not neutral. Second, the sources given don't really support "opposition to transgender rights", and even if we found sources stating that directly, we could probably also find sources stating something different about his views on the matter, so we shouldn't present it in Wikipedia's voice. The long facebook entry makes no sense without stating what the bill was about, and including it here looks WP:UNDUE if all we have is his own facebook posting as a source. EddieHugh (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. He has stated many many times that he backs transgender people having the same rights as everyone else, which they already do. Anna Lertreader (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the section heading to the more neutral "Views on transgender rights". Mr Minderbinder (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I see the malicious vandalism continues with the section now renamed again and edited to include highly incomplete reporting of the court case against Kezia Dugdale, designed to create an obvious intended implication that I'm homophobic, something both the original judge and the three appeal judges made repeatedly and explicitly plain was not the case. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Various matters

As has happened many times in the past, I note that the page has been recently edited numerous times with plainly malicious misinformation. I have created an account in order to correct/remove these falsehoods, some of which border on defamatory, and as verification that it's really me, I have posted this tweet to that effect on my Twitter/X account: https://x.com/wingsscotland/status/1850448865838645753?s=61&t=ySmVDe_MfxyX-26kcylYtQ

I do not "oppose transgender rights" - I believe, as I always have, that transgender people should have all the same rights as everyone else and have never said anything to the contrary - I have never voted Conservative, I still support Scottish independence and I had no involvement of any kind with Disney's Infinity.

I have however worked on a considerable number of other videogames which are not listed here, of which I may add details and appropriate sources at some point if I can be bothered, and in the meantime would appreciate people not telling me what I've done and what I do and don't believe.

i joined the National Union of Journalists in approximately 1992 and have written extensively on a wide range of subjects for a large number of highly respected publications as well as my own very successful website. I am as such, by any conceivable measure and regardless of anyone's opinion of my work, a journalist, not a "blogger". Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really use court documents as sources in the way you are attempting to use them. Wikipedia instead follows secondary sources. Your version does not do this - it substitutes quotes from a primary source selected by yourself. And, to repeat what everyone has been telling you over at WP:COIN#Stuart_Campbell_(blogger), you should not be making changes of this sort yourself, let alone edit warring with others about them. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add that I see no reason to remove citations to the BBC or to the Scotsman as you have been doing. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly quote where the BBC or Scotsman articles state that I "oppose transgender rights". Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Scotsman writes: He accused Twitter of censorship and “deliberate interference in political affairs”, and claimed the suspension of his accounts was motivated by the social media site’s support for “controversial and massively unpopular trangender ideology.” MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so you're unable to read? That explains it. "Transgender ideology" and "transgender rights" are not the same thing. (If you're unsure, try it with other terms - is "Communist ideology" the same thing as "Communist rights"? Is "fascist ideology" the same thing as "fascist rights"?)

I oppose the ideological and non-factual position that human beings can change sex at will. I nevertheless believe and have repeatedly stated that people identifying as transgender should have the same human rights as everyone else. I therefore in no sense "oppose transgender rights". Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. But I would be amenable to changing the article to read "Campbell has been outspoken about his opposition to transgender ideology", would that satisfy your concerns? MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an extremely substantial difference. That change would however satisfy my concerns with that line, yes. That then leaves the matter of the deliberately misleading preceding paragraph.

As it stands, the entry gives any reasonable reader the impression that the court found me to be homophobic. "This person sued for defamation over being called a homophobe, and lost" indisputably directs the reader to that conclusion, and that conclusion is vastly and critically incomplete and inaccurate, as the court judgement makes repeatedly explicit. What legitimate reason is there to mislead the reader by the omission of that fact, while snidely deflecting the responsibility for an inaccurate entry onto the BBC?

The BBC's reporting is partisan and incomplete, and Wikipedia compounds that slur. Alternative sources are available, such as The Law Society Of Scotland, which also directs readers to the full court judgement https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/campbell-loses-defamation-appeal-in-dugdale-case/ , The National, which does note the pertinent fact of the sheriff's ruling that "Dugdale was incorrect to imply Campbell was a homophobe" https://www.thenational.scot/news/18477870.wings-scotland-loses-appeal-kezia-dugdale-case-ruling/ , and The Scotsman, which notes the court's finding that Dugdale's comments WERE inaccurate and defamatory, quoting from the judgement that "it is not now disputed that the article was, in its reference to the pursuer as homophobic, defamatory" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/pro-independence-blogger-wings-over-scotland-loses-court-appeal-against-dugdale-2865911

These are manifestly key facts where the subject heading refers to my "LGBTQ+ views". The courts were extremely explicit that I did not hold homophobic views, indeed quite the reverse, and there is no legitimate justification for selectively omitting those facts and the sources which reported them. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if that will not address all your concerns, I won't make the edit for the time being. Wikipedia considers the BBC a very high quality source overall, you're not going to get anywhere by trying to dismiss it out of hand. MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, when I wrote that passage I was doing my best to stick closely to what the BBC said. I won't claim to have done a perfect job and I'm sure there are better ways to phrase it but I think what I wrote is a fair summary of the way the BBC framed it. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Though if the concern is that the heading refers to "views on LGBTQ+ issues" when the court's ruling was merely that the tweet was homophobic and not that it represents any homophobic beliefs, I am fine with altering the heading in some way to reflect that distinction between word and view. Maybe just drop the "views on". AntiDionysius (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"the court's ruling was merely that the tweet was homophobic"

And there you go again. The court found the precise OPPOSITE of that. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I figured that was a reasonable summary of "The pursuer's tweet was a derogatory remark containing a gratuitous reference to Oliver Mundell's father's homosexuality." AntiDionysius (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No you didn't. The judgement said "The tweet had not been motivated by homophobic views [...] it did not express homophobic views." Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why above I mentioned the distinction between a homophobic tweet and a tweet that was motivated by homophobic beliefs.

This is all by-the-by, though, because the article as is does not say either of these things declaratively. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The mental gymnastics required to interpret "the tweet did not express homophobic views" as meaning "the tweet was homophobic" are truly Olympic-level. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have stated already, I interpreted "The pursuer's tweet was a derogatory remark containing a gratuitous reference to Oliver Mundell's father's homosexuality." to mean the tweet was homophobic.

You simply said "no you didn't" and insisted I was actually interpreting something else. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The mental gymnastics required to interpret "the tweet did not express homophobic views" as meaning "the tweet was homophobic" are truly Olympic-level. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hahahaha. What a spectacular display of obvious bad faith. You KNOW that you're leaving the entry in a misleadingly incomplete state, but because you have the avenue of blaming someone else for it - the BBC - you are happy for the entry to create a false impression. I provided you with numerous high-quality sources which provided more balanced coverage - which you KNOW to be more balanced and more fairly representative because you've seen what the court really said - yet you choose one you know to be inaccurate by omission. Good to know where you stand. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

All Wikipedia does is reflect what the reliable, secondary sources state. If you expect us to second guess the sources or substitute our own judgement for theirs, you are going to be disappointed, that is not how this site's policies are designed. I looked at the sources you provided, and I found that the quotes you gave here did not really reflect the overall articles. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hilarious. The articles present both aspects of the court's findings in a way the BBC's report does not. But that suits your bias, so you choose to exclude the balanced reports and selectively include the unbalanced one. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would have concerns with that change. I'm not against any rephrasing, but the references that are there refer to "bigotry", "screeds of bizarre posts about trans people" and "transphobia". That would seem to be describing something stronger than "opposition to transgender ideology".

I have, however, added a separate additional bit now talking about "transgender ideology" with a link to the relevant article. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"the references to "bigotry", "screeds of bizarre posts about trans people" and "transphobia"" are manifestly POV, not sourced and not based in fact, nor written by anyone of notability. But you know that. Your goal is smearing, not accuracy. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're so convinced that my goal is "smearing" we really are going to have trouble reaching a consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we are, because it is plainly so. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out at COIN, you are in error if you believe this is a "debate" made up of "arguments" where someone is the victor. It's a discussion where the aim is agreement. If you think I am acting in total bad faith I don't know what you hope to accomplish by continuing the discussion, and perhaps you should seek other recourse. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Campbell has been outspoken about his opposition to transgender rights" is sourced to an article which makes no such claim and uses no such words, as noted elsewhere by another editor. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of bad faith. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

And I have said that I am fine using the specific words from in the article, but then you said that your problem is actually with using the article as a source at all.

But, again, you are convinced that everyone in this discussion except you is acting in bad faith - where is this discussion going? AntiDionysius (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crowsus - I appreciate your attempts to solve the dispute, but flagging the above. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See below Crowsus (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No, ideally I would not. But since other editors are failing in their responsibility to ensure accuracy, I have been left with little choice other than to either do so, or submit to malicious defamation. (Ironically.) Wiki's rules do permit the subject of an entry to correct inaccuracies. I have not broken those rules. I find it quite staggeringly remarkable that you profess Wikipedia's preference for partisan media spins on facts to the actual primary sources. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That other people are not doing what you would like them to do is not a reason for you to edit war. You can be staggered if you must, but a preference for secondary sourcing is basic Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki also requires that sources be reliable and notable, not just some random person's opinion. Kindly provide a reliable and notable source for the claim that I "oppose transgender rights". Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

They're already cited in the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they are not. Quote them for me, please. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I decline to repeat myself. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably for the best, since it would further expose your misunderstanding of simple English. But let me seek consensus - I have no objection to the entry stating my opposition to transgender IDEOLOGY. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The line about opposing transgender rights is backed up by sources. I see no reason to remove it. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Random people's baseless opinions are not valid sources according to Wiki rules. Please specify which "transgender rights" I am "opposed to", with sources for things *I* have said to that effect, not other people's misrepresentations of them. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

And ideally try to make the quotes from me, rather than Graham Linehan. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Random people's baseless opinions are not valid sources, no, but articles published in reputable publications are, which these sources are.

As for "things *I* have said, not other people's misrepresentations of them" - I wouldn't want to run afoul of WP:OR, which states that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". Direct references to your work are useful when direct quotes are needed, but whether or not your collective work constitutes an opposition to transgender rights is an act of interpretation, which I'm not inclined to do myself per policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You are doing so by adding those words to the entry, incredibly obviously, when they are not present in the sources. YOU have rewritten opposition to an ideology into opposition to rights. The sources did not do so. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If that is your concern, I am amenable to using the exact words the sources use - "bigotry" and "transphobia". AntiDionysius (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Unsupported personal opinions by non-notable writers fail the NPOV test. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You do keep saying that, but these aren't non-notable writers, they're reputable publications. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If Scott Hames and Dominic Hinde are notable writers, perhaps you can direct me to their respective Wikipedia entries. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A person is required to be notable to have a Wikipedia entry; having a Wikipedia entry is not the measure of notability (not least because that would result in a circle of logic which would make it impossible to write any new biographical Wikipedia entries). AntiDionysius (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Either way, the question of the author's notability is irrelevant to the usability of a published source, and has nothing at all to do with WP:NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to find a good way to phrase that - thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never objected to the New Statesman link, but the Bella Caledonia one is clearly both NPOV and WP:SPS and has no merit or justification, being merely a personal tirade from a random blogger. I have added The National and The Scotsman links to reporting of the Dugdale case for proper balance, while leaving the BBC link in place. I cannot see any legitimate grounds for you to remove those. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe Bella Calledonia meets the definition of SPS, if its website is to be believed. It is described as a subscription-funded publication with an editorial process (they invite "submissions and pitches" but do not allow anyone to publish directly). AntiDionysius (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article in question was written by the site's owner, as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. But now that I am aware of it, I still don't think that meets the definition of SPS; if Jeff Bezos wrote a column in the Washington Post we wouldn't call the Washington Post a self-published source. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have since learned that Jeff Bezos did precisely this earlier today. I actually didn't know that, he is just the only person I know of who personally owns a notable news outlet. What are the chances, huh AntiDionysius (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources, none of which use the phrase 'trans rights'. The Bella Caledonia article (a WP:SPS anyway I believe) uses 'women's rights', probably incorrectly in the circumstances. The Scotsman only quotes Campbell directly using the phrase 'trans ideology'. Therefore i see no issue with amending the term on the article as requested, and have done so. Crowsus (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources also don't reference "trans ideology", though. They reference "transphobia", "bigotry", and "screeds of bizarre posts about trans people". Like I said above I'm fine with some kind of rephrase, but I don't think this one is an improvement. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Open to ideas, if anyone has them, on what some kind of third option (the first two being "opposition to trans rights" and "opposition to trans ideology") would be - none are immediately springing to mind for me. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The only person objecting to "opposition to trans ideology" here is you. Everyone else is in consensus. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that of the four people who have participated in this discussion, I am the one voicing an objection here, yes. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

And I am interested in finding something that we can all agree on. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No you're not. You're interested in finding a way to make the entry a misleading and malicious smear while remaining within Wikipedia rules, even when nobody else agrees with you. This fact is manifestly proven by your insistence that "the tweet did not express homophobic views" somehow translates as "the tweet was homophobic". It is plainly ludicrous to reach such a tortured conclusion in good faith. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't insist that. I have explained some three times now how that is an inaccurate characterisation of what I said. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It is precisely, literally, exactly what you said. It is an insane misinterpretation of words you know perfectly well say the exact opposite. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crowsus, @MrOllie let me know if you have thoughts on this. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My other issue with the present wording is also that it uses "transgender ideology" outside of quotation marks - which is a problem, given we have an article about how the very existence of such a concept is a matter of serious controversy.

Perhaps some kind of compromise including both perspectives. Something along the lines of (and I am more sketching out a structure than wedded to specific words here): "Campbell has expressed views on the topic of transgender people which he describes as opposition to 'transgender ideology' and which have been described [by critics?] as 'transphobia'". AntiDionysius (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that doing a 'bothsides' with unnamed critics is going to be WP:FALSEBALANCE.

The New Statesman says Today, the site is awash in transphobic vitriol and conspiracy theories

I've been thinking about it, and my best effort for an encyclopedic paraphrase would be something like Wings over Scotland contains a significant amount of transphobic content and conspiracy theories. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :D Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with something along those lines, sure. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It amuses me greatly to see how comically biased the linked entry is. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)