Talk:National Post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] National Post and "Color coding minorities in Iran"

The news is notable as produced huge amount of reactions. After just one day you can find numerous links in google [1]. There is also no controversy as such law never passed or even discussed in Iran. It was simply a lie made by Amir Taheri and distributed by National Post. This is a very unprofessional act in the history of this canadian media. --Mitso Bel18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and personally I think that The National Post will have to answer for the damage they have done. However, misspelled, non-neutral claims do not belong in Wikipedia. I guarantee that someone will edit this straight out again. I would rather not get in an edit war about this; can we leave it as a link to the main article about the 2006 sumptuary law?

-- Neil K

Agreed, but words like "fake" and "unprofessional" are NPOV. Best to describe situation in as simple and non-inflammatory language as possible and to link to main article for details.JFD 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also not really in tune with the rest of the article. Up until that point, things make sense. If there was at least a header or something like "Notable Events", it might fit. As it stands, it's just been dropped in. Obviously, it has it's own article and a link should suffice. TrooperScoop 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be beneficial for wikipedia readers to know that "Asper was above anything else an unabashed Zionist and a proud Jew" (according to CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20031007.html)? This information might help to better understand the probable origin of this error. Is such reference to a government owned Canadian media corporation acceptable at Wikipedia? Jhnppv 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest that makes it impossible for me to edit the main article, and that should be borne in mind by readers of my comments. But I would like to suggest that the "Controversies" section as it stands is extremely anomalous. Just for starters, whatever your private opinion of the Post, you'd have to be as thick as a plank to imagine that the sumptuary-law controversy was the only major one in the history of the newspaper. Furthermore, the entries for other Canadian newspapers of similar importance lack lists of their own controversies and embarrassments--though, rest assured, they have taken place. At the very most the issue should be handled with a short sentence directing the reader to the obsessively detailed separate entry on the Taheri problem. My personal view is that even this would be rather hard on the Post when like entries on the Globe and the Star are compared--and doubly so given the attention paid elsewhere in the entry to those who view the paper as a "mouthpiece for Israel", which itself borders on an NPOV issue. I suppose it would be asking too much to expect some concrete evidence that "Much of the newspaper's small advertising revenue appears to be contributed by synagogues and Jewish family announcements." On the whole, as it stands, this entry does very little credit to Wikipedia. --Cosh 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to remove most of the weasel NPOV that appeared since the last revert (i.e. late August 2006). Kelvinc 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording?

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this passage: "which pointed out errors of fact, evidence of entrenched left-wing bias, and in particular bias against Israel at the public broadcaster." Sounds POVish. I'd like to replace it with "which pointed out errors of fact and perceived evidence of entrenched left-wing and anti-Israeli bias at the public broadcaster." Thoughts? Blotto adrift 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)