Talk:The Dartmouth Review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This article was listed on Votes for deletion, the decision was to keep it. You can see VfD the discussion here.
Contents |
[edit] Current Review Positions on Homosexuality
The article states that 'The Review routinely refers to gays as "sodomites".' Over the past two years that I've read the Review, I haven't seen any such reference. Searching their website for "sodomite" or "sodomy" reveals no hits in the back issues going back to 1999.
[edit] Considered by whom?
Recently added: "However, it is still considered superior in quality to its main competitors, The Dartmouth and the college-funded Dartmouth Free-Press, a left-wing answer to the Review." This sentence lacks agency. Considered by whom? I'd be glad to have a cited statement on this, but as it stands it is pure POV, and if no one can cite a source to this effect, it should be removed on that grounds. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
This article serious lacks citations for the Review's alleged exploits. ND Conservative 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Read the Dartmouth Free Press article about the Review. It confirms all of the bulleted points and a whole lot more. Dylan 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the Free Press can be considered NPOV on this issue. Dartmouthstudent July 17, 2006
- Sources are not held to NPOV rules, only the writing in the content of Wikipedia articles is: "that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda." The criterion for inclusion is whether or not a statement has been published in a verifiable, reliable source. Whether or not a college paper is a legitimately "reliable" source is perhaps another item for discussion; I don't know specifically if college publications have set precedent as an acceptable source, but it seems to me that they are (and have been used as such in other articles). Dylan 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that both the Free Press and the Review would be considered prima facie citable; on the other hand, if there are published sources disagreeing with them, on many matters I wouldn't consider either a particularly good source, and would rather see something more solid. Yes, there is precedent for citing college newspapers and even campus independent papers like the Review. - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alcohol policy
What stand has the Review taken on the college alcohol policy? I'm not sure that a liberal or conservative position is easily identified.Dynzmoar 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Partial revert
I reverted two of the many changes by User:ChulaOne. They aren't major or very contentious, but explaining them will take more space than is available in an edit summary, and I didn't want to revert those two things without explaining why.
- I replaced the removed "and has been at the center of several lawsuits" clause. This is not only true but a very defining characteristic about the Review. It seems based on the title of their book (The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent: Twenty-Five Years of Being Threatened, Impugned, Vandalized, Sued, Suspended, and Bitten at the Ivy League's Most Controversial Conservative Newspaper) that it is acknowledged as an important part of their history. It doesn't seem to me that it reflects negatively on the newspaper (i.e. in an NPOV way) to mention something like that.
- I removed the inserted "alleged" preceding the list of controversial actions by the Review. All of the things there are recorded in the cited sources as having actually occurred; none seem contentious, at least not to the point that anyone denies that they happened. "Alleged" makes it seems like these are stories made up to discredit the Review.
Some of the other changes (e.g. "right-wing" to "politically conservative") seem a bit odd to me (at least in the context of being an attempt to de-POV the article), but they don't need reverting.
Let me know if anyone has any problems with this partial revert. Dylan 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Book
Re: The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent: Normally, we don't link to Amazon (or any other retailer) for a book. Is there a site on the web for the book itself? If not, we should probably get it out of "External links" and into "Further reading", and just give publication information and ISBN, which will bring up our usual ISBN-based page that doesn't favor one retailer. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
