Talk:Southern Partisan: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
goose/gander |
Rangerdude (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::Last I checked, Sebesta wasn't a self-evident newspaper and nobody was calling him a gossip columnist. Per your own additions to untold dozens of articles, it seems pretty standard that when an individual is quoted by name a brief neutral identifier of who that individual is and/or his or her affiliation should be included. Seeing as Sebesta isn't really a member of any group aside from his own, calling him what he calls himself is about the most accurate and neutral way to do this. Of course the real question here is why you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself...[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 00:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
::Last I checked, Sebesta wasn't a self-evident newspaper and nobody was calling him a gossip columnist. Per your own additions to untold dozens of articles, it seems pretty standard that when an individual is quoted by name a brief neutral identifier of who that individual is and/or his or her affiliation should be included. Seeing as Sebesta isn't really a member of any group aside from his own, calling him what he calls himself is about the most accurate and neutral way to do this. Of course the real question here is why you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself...[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 00:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::So you won't mind if I add those back to [[Sheila Jackson Lee]]? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 08:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC) |
:::So you won't mind if I add those back to [[Sheila Jackson Lee]]? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 08:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC) |
||
::::Sheila Jackson Lee has nothing to do with this article (though your habitually disruptive behavior on wikipedia does per [[WP:POINT]]). That said, the question still remains: why do you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself? [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:44, 24 July 2005
Defunct?
I can't see any sign that this magazine is still published. All of the internet links I can find go to dead ends.-Willmcw 21:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Not all magazines have a website. Absent any direct evidence that they've gone out of business, you have no grounds to declare them defunct. Rangerdude 22:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- They used to have a website, now it's gone. If they'd never had one to begin with that would be different. I'm having trouble finding any mention of them anywhere in the last couple of years. -Willmcw 23:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Whether you can find them or not in recent years, the lack of a website alone is not sufficient to support your conclusion. Find a valid source stating conclusively that they're no longer in business, or else no basis or source exists to make the change. Regarding Sebesta, "anti-neo-confederate watchdog" are the words he uses to describe himself. Quoting his own self description is not an ad hominem in any reasonable sense of the term. Rangerdude 23:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I found one entry in a Usenet group that refers in 2005 to a "recent" issue. [1] I guess they're just small. Funny that even their address isn't on the web.
- Regarding Sebesta, his full description is on his page. I don't see what giving his city of residence adds to this article. Why are you adding it? I've noted that in other articles, like Sheila Jackson Lee you objected to any characterization of critics. -Willmcw 00:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Describing the Houston Press as a "free paper" and its author as a "gossip" column is simply not germane to the citation. The latter term in itself and the former term in its use appear to have been added for no other reason than to convey a pejorative upon the Houston Press as a source - which constitutes a POV ad hominem, since neither piece of information has any bearing on whether or not the story occurred. Please remove these POV edits. Rangerdude 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Last I checked, Sebesta wasn't a self-evident newspaper and nobody was calling him a gossip columnist. Per your own additions to untold dozens of articles, it seems pretty standard that when an individual is quoted by name a brief neutral identifier of who that individual is and/or his or her affiliation should be included. Seeing as Sebesta isn't really a member of any group aside from his own, calling him what he calls himself is about the most accurate and neutral way to do this. Of course the real question here is why you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself...Rangerdude 00:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- So you won't mind if I add those back to Sheila Jackson Lee? -Willmcw 08:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Last I checked, Sebesta wasn't a self-evident newspaper and nobody was calling him a gossip columnist. Per your own additions to untold dozens of articles, it seems pretty standard that when an individual is quoted by name a brief neutral identifier of who that individual is and/or his or her affiliation should be included. Seeing as Sebesta isn't really a member of any group aside from his own, calling him what he calls himself is about the most accurate and neutral way to do this. Of course the real question here is why you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself...Rangerdude 00:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sheila Jackson Lee has nothing to do with this article (though your habitually disruptive behavior on wikipedia does per WP:POINT). That said, the question still remains: why do you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself? Rangerdude 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)