Talk:When Saturday Comes/Archive 1

Archive 1

There is, of course, a perfectly respectable viewpoint that WSC has become dull and predictable and it is hard to see why it should be so precious as to remove that suggestion from a Wikipedia page (when it would have been quite possible, for instance, to observe that other points of view are also held). Part of the function of an encyclopaedia is surely to discuss the merits of an item as well as to trace its history and describe its purpose. It should be asked whether the (easily recognisable) individual who is apparently charged with vacuuming this entry would favour the deletion critical questions from all encyclopaedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.149.6 (talk • contribs)

The statement was POV, and thus largely irrelevent to Wikipedia. A lot of articles have a criticism section, but they're usually a lot more extensive (and sourced) than the last edit. Also, in what way am I recognisable? If you think I'm involved with WSC in any way, you're mistaken. ArtVandelay13 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some time spent reading Wikipedia's policies would help you understand why such content is not appropriate for the encyclopaedia. I suggest you start at WP:NPOV, and follow it up with WP:Verifiability. It is irrelevant whether or not said viewpoint actually exists in people's minds - unless you can find properly-sourced reference to it, it has no place in the encyclopaedia. Think about it - if this weren't the case, then anyone could just add any opinion they wanted to any article (I'd wager that for almost any topic in here, there is a full spectrum of opinions to be had by someone, somewhere). Please try and understand the purpose and policies of the encyclopaedia before offering your opinion on what is and isn't appropriate content for it. Seb Patrick 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What would be the "properly-sourced reference" for the commentary "it has maintained a consistent editorial stance"?

I'm well aware of the difference between a sourced reference and a comment, but I'm also aware of the difference between Wikipedia and an academic encyclopaedia. I am also aware of the difference between reasonable and unreasonable commentary. The writers of articles about, say, writers or composers, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, would be expected to make some comment about the merits or otherwise of their works and in doing so to take account of critical opinion - rather than either (a) just saying what they pleased or (b) pretending everything was good. This would be normal practice.

In this instance ArtVandelay (Liverpool and Exeter, Art, I'm sure we both know one another's precise identities) will know very well that WSC is considered by some of its readers and ex-readers not to be the magazine it once was, for the reasons given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.149.6 (talk • contribs)

Well, look, no-one is "pretending everything is good", a similar positive comment would also have been reverted. And a note about the magazine's editorial stance is hardly POV, it's simply descriptive. As for your identity, well, it's pretty obvious you're from One Touch Football, but you could still be any of a few hundred people. I still don't know why you would think I have any sort of ulterior motive, I'm also surprised that even here I'm being bothered by people from that site. ArtVandelay13 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"A note about the magazine's editorial stance is hardly POV, it's simply descriptive". No it isn't. It is comment rather than fact. If you think it is fact, how would you verify it?

"It's pretty obvious you're from One Touch Football". Well, very much not as it happens. It's not ulterior motive, I just think that you're deleting commentary that is valid for reasons that are inadequate and which are not consistent with the existing content of the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.149.6 (talk • contribs)

If it is indeed comment, the best approach might have been to remove that line (or add a {{cn}} tag), rather than adding further POV. The nature of Wikipedia is such that it's virtually impossible to use inconsistency as an argument; almost any crap will be on here at some point, it doesn't change the fact that such a comment as the one added, or a similarly positive one, is not appropriate.

"From One Touch Football" in the sense of how we are aware of each other (EJH?). Your opening message contained a couple of suggestions that my motive for the revert was more than just simple housekeeping: "the (easily recognisable) individual who is apparently charged with vacuuming this entry" ArtVandelay13 18:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably (well, obviously in fact) the magazine is aware that you started the page and largely maintain it, and they are happy with that: from the edit history the responsibility for the page is essentially left to you.

I don't think it was simple housekeeping, no, though obviously I accept that you consider it so. I think it was over-sensitive and fundamentally misplaced the boundary between critical discussion and hostile editing. The piece itself says that the magazine has changed in some respects over the years: but it is keen to stress the continuities, and although I don't necessarily agree, it does not do so in any way that I'd consider inappropriate. Fine: but at the same time there are other points of view which, as I say, both of us are well aware exist. To remove reference to those points of view, while retaining essentially positive commentary, to my mind does indeed pretend that everything is good. You see, it blands out in a way that I think the magazine also did. Hence my irritation at the over-editing: it's a little too actively ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.149.6 (talk • contribs)

I didn't start the article, and I have only contributed four words to it ("usually known as WSC"). The reason my name appears first is because I moved the page; swapping the default "When Saturday Comes" page from the film to the magazine. I hadn't edited it since then, until today. The Magazine aren't in the least bit aware of this; I'd be surprised if they were aware of my existence at all. ArtVandelay13 18:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)