Talk:Philadelphia (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
[edit] May issue of Philly mag
The controversy of the May 2007 issue is true, has references. Do not remove because of marketing issues, guys. Alfred Legrand 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rebuttal
- I was the first person to revert the edits, so let me state my case. First, I do not think this is vandalism. I do think, though, that it was poor editing, the kind I would normally ascribe to newbies, except that the user has already been warned multiple times about his edits. More importantly, though, I do not think that the section on the May issue is notable enough to warrant inclusion.
- The user is correct that he has "references." The CBS 3 article that the user mentions doesn't talk about any controversy, scandal, or even minor kerfuffle over the portrait. Yes, the magazine received some letters about it, but any magazine with a readership of at least 2 will receive at least 1 angry letter. If letters to the editor are the standard, than we might have "Controversy over criticism of the Inquirer" (due to letters in the May issue), "Controversy over global warming denialism" (letters from the March and April issues), and "Controversy over the portrayal of Michael Nutter" (a letter in the February issue).
- In short, the edits smelled like the work of someone with an axe to grind, and a fairly unrefined axe at that. That's why I reverted the edits. I can't speak to other users' thoughts, but I deliberately refrained from re-removing the content (not wanting to risk an edit war). It seems that other users agree with my evaluation, but that one party refuses to hear us out -- not no way, not no how.
- --RunnerupNJ 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not a recipient
I think it's not encyclopedic to mention that something or someone has not won some award or other.--BillFlis 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- from the User:Alfred Legrand userpage: "Since I am a newby, I will need much help". Bill i have to toaly agree with you on the reverts, i have yet to really find much credibility to his edits, and basicaly they come down to being nothing more then backhanded comments. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
