Talk:Gorgie Farm

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gorgie City Farm. 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/20140911160433/http://www.kiddingaroundedinburgh.co.uk/index.php/parties/187-gorgie-city-farm to http://www.kiddingaroundedinburgh.co.uk/index.php/parties/187-gorgie-city-farm
 * Added tag to http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/find-it/places/DCWN708-gorgie-city-farm-association/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kids at the Play Park of LOVE Gorgie Farm.jpg

Abuse dispute
I encountered this article from a Discord discussion of Huggle use and found a pre-existing dispute/not quite edit war about the relevance of some information on the page, specifically an abuse claim that an editor with a conflict of interest states is false and that is sourced to potentially unreliable sources.

I've removed the claim for now as a middleman, which is not an endorsement or disendorsement either of the content or of the reality behind it. The claim is sourced to a local news site with no author bylines and a tabloid-like presentation style. While there are contexts where such sources are usable, I'm hesitant to accept them for statements as severe as animal abuse allegations. I couldn't find any better sources discussing the allegations (on a first-few-pages Google search), so I'm leaning toward supporting their omittal from the article for the time being on a "do no harm" basis.

This is not an endorsement of the IP's conflict of interest editing, which is poor practice. That said, many new editors are unfamiliar with our hardline stance on COI and make good-faith edits they probably shouldn't. With any luck, this new section will be able to hash out a solution amenable to all parties. Pinging and about to drop a talkback on the IP's talk (the ping system being what it is). Vaticidalprophet 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I came upon this through reviewing recent changes by new and unregistered editors. It immediately smacked of whitewashing by a COI editor—a problem that shows up at far too many articles where editors abusively remove negative material. I still stand by my objections to the editor's behaviour. However, having had a chance to look at the source, I agree that I have concerns about the source. It presents the allegations in a purely anecdotal format. I have no objections to your removal of the text. (To be clear: I still object to the COI editor's behaviour, although I do agree with the substance of the edit; had they requested it at the talk page, I would make the edit based on what I know now.) Were an editor to locate any better sources, the material could be re-added. However, without upgraded sources, I agree that the material should stay out of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)