Talk:Scallywag (magazine)

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Magazines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Does it still exist? Does it have a website? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) it acculy is a talk show in england!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.23.39 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news coverage[edit]

Scallywag has returned to the news recently in relation to now retracted smears against a living individual which surfaced online following a Newsnight report, and which originated in an issue of Scallywag. Under normal circumstances this would warrant a section, as coverage was considerable, which is remarkable in the case of a short-lived magazine which ceased publication nearly two decades ago. There is in this case one obvious concern:

Any section dedicated to Scallywag's recent return to the news would, realistically, necessitate a link to a highly defamatory article carried in that organ. Would such a link leave the WP contributor open to prosecution, as would be the case were defamatory material linked from a WP article about the living subject of the defamation?

I do not intend to revise the article. I am simply asking the above question. Alrewas (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrewas (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that "Scallywag's recent return to the news" must be discussed, if at all, without mentioning names or indirectly identifying anybody. The magazine itself is not on line and in my view we should certainly not link to what purports to be a digital scan of an article from it which is housed on a third-party website which is itself scurrilous and not remotely a "reliable source" in WP terms. In all the circumstances of this particular case, I would strongly urge that we let sleeping dogs lie. -- Alarics (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting the "recent return to the news" lie (and I have made one edit to my preceding comment in accordance with your no-names suggestion), I think it fair to say that the existing article does not do justice to a magazine which enjoyed a national, albeit modest, circulation, and whose contributors appear to have included Jo Brand, Austin Mitchell MP, the Marquis of Bath and John McVicar (according, it would seem, to the cover of Issue 19 and a seller's description of Issue 18, both of which can be found online). Scallywag clearly suffers a dearth of information online, disproportionate to its historical place, and this WP article might be expanded in future by somebody with the time to conduct further research offline. Alrewas (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong (?) redirection.[edit]

Looking for the article, I put 'Scallywag' in Wikipedia's search window and was taken to Scalawag. Then on to Scalawag_(disambiguation) on which page I found the link I was looking for. If 'Scallywag' (just that) doesn't identify the magazine then surely there should be a Scallywag_(disambiguation) page? 109.149.209.136 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]