Talk:Arthur (newspaper)

Archives

2007 May

Absynthe, a right-wing paper? ahahahahahahahaha, that's a good one, I'm changing it to "left of centre." Lairor 16:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nobody seems to understand a very basic thing - first, the arthur is the organ of nothing except its preconceived notion of its self-importance and second, absynthe was neither right nor left. "i just don't think you get it. but we get you." (just ask Wes Mathieson) -

The science argument has been removed as per Wikipedia's Etiquette guidelines: "remove or summarize resolved disputes". It has been archived on the sub-page for May 2007.

I would ask that all intentionally inflammatory posts or personal-directed attacks and insults be more seriously considered before being posted, as per Wikipedia's Etiquette guidelines so as to keep this forum available for meaningful discussion about the article. Barring the inclusion of helpful discourse or positive contributions to the article, any further posts which target individuals with the intent of making a personal attack (i.e., "You're ignorant") will be removed from this space.

-Cliff --

I look forward to the Wiki-purist non-NPOV user Bearcat's ridiculous edit of my neutral, sourced statement that Arthur attacks student and university administration. If he or one of his chronies choose to remove it, they are showing that their idea of NPOV writing is actually censored and biased towards worship of the Arthur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoliberal Scum (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a POV assertion about Arthurs coverage, sourced only to an Arthur article that you're choosing to interpret in the way that you've described, is not neutral sourcing. Neutral sourcing means that you must provide a reliable source, independent of the Arthur, which specifically makes the exact statement you want to add to the article. You are not allowed to add anything that constitutes your own personal assessment or interpetation or opinion of the source you're citing for it — not because I said so, but because Wikipedia policy said so. The only acceptable source for the type of material you're trying to add to this article would be news coverage in a different publication that discusses and covers the specific details of a particular incident of criticism — not because I said so, but because Wikipedia policy said so. And by the by, you can also take your assessment of me as "non-NPOV" and "ridiculous" and stuff it in the random gopher hole of your choice — my obligation as an administrator is to enforce WP:NPOV as per Wikipedia policy, not to make you personally happy. Properly sourced criticism of the paper is certainly permitted to appear in this article, but the onus is on you as the person adding it to understand and follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There's no censorship or bias going on here — as I've pointed out to you before, I have absolutely no personal familiarity or affiliation with the topic other than being aware that it exists, and thus no interest in "censoring" anything. My only interest in this matter is in ensuring that Wikipedia's rules around neutrality and sourcing are followed properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]