Talk:Scotophobia

User:Graham87 removed this article (which is referenced) as well as some links to this in templates and so on stating it is a "bogus article". I object to this (particularly from an administrator) - it's referenced and verifiable.

That said, one could just do a Google search (as done here) and get well over a 1000 results for this pertaining to the fear of Scots. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1,000 Google hits is a pitiful number for a relatively recently invented meaning - I couldn't find any uses of "Scotophobia" that weren't about very recent events. The sources you provide only talk about it being used in relation to Gordon Brown. A Google search for scotophobia+darkness returns 5,650 hits which is somewhat better. In fact my actions are the only reason that your version is still archived - see the deletion log and Mikkalai's response when I asked him about the deletion of several phobia articles. You are welcome to ask him directly if you like. Graham 87 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how "recentism" makes this term any less verifiable or notable. Benazir Bhutto was recently assinated but that's certainly notable! Anti-recentism is not a principle I've ever come across on Wikipedia's guideline or MOS pages. Simillarly we have articles on Anglophobia and other anti-national sentiments and I'd be reluctant to start cherry picking which can stay and which can go.


 * That "1,000 Google hits is a pitiful number for a relatively recently invented meaning" is a rather subjective statement; and one that also recognises the term does has meaning. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find other articles that have low google hits. Certainly there are issues here of how this was dealt with - "bogus article" (implying bad faith?) and a lack of communication about making changes to verifiable topic seems poor. Granted Scotophobia has a dual meaning (an odd one when the prefix Scoto pertains to Scotland, like Scoto-Norman), but an outright redirect seems at odds with several core Wikipedia values, and a dablink is provided. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term seem pretty non notable and just because Anglophobia exists does not mean we should create articles at will, try a google search without dark and darkness and have to include the words scotland only 554 results I am going to redirect the article per WP:NEO -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Fair enough. :::There is a Wikipedia essay, on recentism that gives arguments for and against the practice. I wouldn't object to an article on Anti-Scottish sentiment which could conceivably make a good article - it could talk about the Anti-Scottish sentiment during and after the Jacobite rising without needing to refer to what is apparently a neologism. I think this article should redirect to "fear of the dark" because "scotophobia" is a more common term than "Scotophobia", and there should be a redirect template from "fear of the dark", pointing to Anti-Scottish sentiment like Template:Redirect. If you wanted to use this article as a base, use the "move" tab to move the history for copyright reasons. Graham 87 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you raise valid points. I think a move to Anti-Scottish sentiment might be more appropriate yes. This is a topic that certainly has scope to be a rather good article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool - I'm happy with scotophobia being a disambig page. Graham 87 15:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)