Talk:Arthur (newspaper)/Archive 1

Archives

I'm unsure why the Arthur and Science subsection is being constantly deleted, but it should remain up. Wikipedia is not a place to glorify your publication, it is a place for all sorts of knowledge, both good and bad. What I have created is an objective, fully documented and properly referenced look at how the Arthur often handles science related topics. If there are any concerns for why this is in anyway unfair, please let me know and we'll find a revision that is acceptable to both parties. Keep in mind, that removing it is not such an edit, as the information contained in it is 100% factual. Maddman 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

How is the section on 'science' any relevant? If you're going to talk about Arthur, I do not see why you would include this personal rant. What you call 'objective' is only your personal view, and does not hold any relevance to the rest of the public.

Not holding relevance to you does not mean it is not all true. It is hardly a personal thing, since there is nothing personal about a few scientific gaffes here and there. Arthur has a bad reputation for being inconsitent, inconcise, and incorrect about science and science related topics. This is merely being pointed out in properly referenced, completely factual look. If you'd like, add something else to this list or create a new one. As it stands, you're deleting it either because you work for the Arther and can't admit to being wrong, or you're one of the people who believe everything the incredibly leftist paper publishes, and believe it is infallible.

And no, what I am calling objective is not my personal view. I have pointed out facts that are at the core completely inarguable. The definition of objectivity completely omits "personal view" as a valid synonym. Get over yourself, the section stays until you can find a valid reason to edit it. Maddman 23:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section refers to three articles published during the academic year 2006-2007. Arthur, in that year, published 25 issues, ranging from 16 to 28 pages. Each page, in average, contains 2 articles. So, if you do the math (in your scientific mind), that will give you around 1000 articles. Then, how does a section about three articles hold any relevance? You say that Arthur has a bad reputation on these topics. But, with whom? Maybe you need to say that some sciences students at Trent think this way. And, oops, this means that the content in the section is, in fact, arguable. Scientific dogmatism will give you nothing, what you call objectivity is an impossible dream. But, of course, philosophy is too much for these sciences students that you seem to represent.

Its pure ignorance to say scientific fact is arguable. Its even more ignorant to call us "sciences" students. We don't call you Arts's students. There are Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science...there are no Bachelor of Sciences or Arts's. Out of however many issues Arthur publishes, EVERY single science topic that has been tackled has been handled poorly, and more over most of them contain general lack of understanding of extremely basic scientific fact. What I have compiled is factual, completely objective information. That is exactly what Wikipedia is, a source of information. I am not spreading anything other than cold hard facts. If you can't dispute them, then your deletion of the section is at best a thinly veiled attempt to save face. At worst, and I do believe this is the case, your ego won't allow you to admit you're wrong, since your "arts" have lead you to believe that everything is a matter of opinion. In real life, it ain't. Sorry to burst your bubble, kid. Maddman 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section on science problems is irrelevant, poorly written, and has a non-neutral point of view. I acknowledge the sometimes problematic nature of the paper, but that section is an extraordinarily poor attempt to highlight those problems. It just comes off as petty - if you are to create a section like that, you need to point out all the factual errors that have taken place in all fields. Instead, it is just an arbitrary refutation of some mistakes. In any case, I think a much better section would just (using NEUTRAL language) explain that Arthur sometimes publishes factual errors or has inconsistencies. In their defense (something that should also appear in that section - if it were to be written), Arthur's staff are a bunch of underpaid students who are often balancing a full courseload while trying to pump out weekly articles dealing with topics and fields of knowledge that they have no experience in. Yes, the paper has a leaning to the Arts and Humanities because - guess what - science and business students aren't often interested in writing for it! If you are that worried about communicating an understanding of "basic scientific facts," then jump on board and offer your editorial services to the paper! With all sincerity, I'm sure they would be thrilled to have a science student who could proofread and edit science-related articles - it would raise the bar and ensure a better-represented paper. Volunteer, go to the weekly story meetings, and you'd be amazed to see what you might accomplish by engaging with the group. Even major papers have frequent errors - you don't see a point-by-point refutation of every mistake they've ever made. It's just silly to do that. Cheers, cmccarten May 1/07

(Not sure why we're posting to the talk page in this format, but I'm going with the flow for now.) This "science" section looks like trollery. For example, it says, "Microwave radiation is in no way related to radio frequencies, nor does it originate from wireless hot spots." In fact, WiFi operates at around 2.4 GHz, which is within the realm of microwaves Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths longer than those of terahertz (THz) frequencies, but relatively short for radio waves. ... The term microwave generally refers to "alternating current signals with frequencies between 300 MHz ... and 300 GHz ... ." In case you're wondering, that covers the UHF, SHF, and EHF parts of the radio spectrum, so there's no supporting the claim that microwaves are somehow not radio. And then there's the problem that this whole section is full of unsourced opinion and original research, whatever of its degree of factuality. It should go. -Eric S. Smith 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths longer than those of terahertz (THz) frequencies, but relatively short for radio waves. ... The term microwave generally refers to "alternating current signals with frequencies between 300 MHz ... and 300 GHz ... ." Not sure where you got this idea Eric. First off, wavelength is just that, LENGTH. What you just said "terahertz" is a measure of frequency, and is in no way wavelength. Microwave is a term used to describe wavelength, not frequency. So whatever your source is for that 'quote', it is either wrong, and either they have made a typo, you have misinterepreted something, or you just plain made it up.

Microwaves are electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths of "micro"meters...surprising I know, that microwaves have micrometer wavelengths.
UHF, SHF and EHF are also not characteristics of the "spectrum" of electromagnetic radiation. They are characteristics of waves, but not wavelength.
Wavelength, frequency, and what are known as period, amplitude and phase shift are properties of a wave. Microwave is used to describe the first on that list, and NOTHING else.

Again, this is a prime example of an Arthur-ette completely misunderstanding BASIC scientific fact, and pretending like their 20 second Google search counts as "research". Also, its only trollery if there is no point being made. I have made a point, and have done it the grounds of pure objectivity. I know you WANT to be able to understand this subject, but this isn't the kind of stuff you just learn in a period of 5 minutes. This is an entire focal point of first year physics. The onus is on the Arthur to come up with a valid reason for not pointing out their mistakes. You may not like it, and the Arthurs readership might not like it, but thats life, and if you're not willing subscribe to the fact that you aren't perfect, and that real-life will always point out your flaws, then you're going nowhere FAST. Maddman 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Basic scientific facts? Sciences are based on theories. Theories are born out of observation of phenomena (the so-called Cartesian method). Theories, in other words, are, as matter of fact, opinions on the inner workings of the world. By the way, I do not really understand why you have to do such a scandal out of one letter (s). But I guess that you need something to hold on to make your point.

Maddman: Dude! Relax! What's with the personal attacks?! (calling the people who are engaging in this discussion with you "Arthur-ettes" - if that isn't a mildly sexist slight, I don't know what is; telling the other fellow "you're going nowhere FAST"). That stuff has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. As I said several messages above, if this is an issue that really bothers you, the onus is on YOU to do something about it! Arthur is a student publication - one that relies as much on volunteers as it does paid staff. The paper does not have some hidden agenda to make mistakes when writing scientific articles - they're simply errors made by people with little to no education in the subject doing the best that they can to fairly represent all fields of knowledge that exist at Trent! Come on! (Not to mention that this focus on "objectivity" would logically imply that the only way to satisfactorily address the issue of highlighting occasional factual errors should extend to every error in every topic covered in the paper's history. This, of course, is absurd, implausible, and meaningless!) Wikipedia not a place to air what can only be understood here as an intense personal vendetta (made clear by the way you are attacking individuals here instead of engaging in a useful discourse). From Wikipedia's own guidlines: "an article might have "POV" problems if it spends significantly more time discussing one view than another view of equivalent significance, even if each view is presented neutrally." (exactly what is happening here with Maddman's edits). Also, "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called 'References'. If any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked...Citations help our readers verify what you've written". Furthermore, "members of the community are expected to behave in a generally civil manner [ie., no personal attacks!]...The most important thing to keep in mind is that you should always assume good faith on the part of other editors" ie., reverting the article back to its original form is not a malevolent attack directed at you that is aimed at hiding the conspiracy that is Arthur! You said earlier that those who are reverting your edits are binarily situated between two positions: "either you work for the Arther and can't admit to being wrong, or you're one of the people who believe everything the incredibly leftist paper publishes, and believe it is infallible." This is not remotely true in my case, and is certainly not true for all other people who are concerned about your contributions to the article. This unfair characterization has the effect of creating a polemic argument in the place of a positive or useful discussion. Please don't presume that those who disagree with you are blinded by their radical affiliation to some evil leftist hegemony. That kind of invective destroys discourse and makes it easier for you to immediately discard any contributions or arguments that your disagreers make. cmccarten 11:27 May 2/07

"Basic scientific facts? Sciences are based on theories. Theories are born out of observation of phenomena (the so-called Cartesian method). Theories, in other words, are, as matter of fact, opinions on the inner workings of the world." This is the definition of ignorance. Scientific facts are not opinions. Opinions can be argued one way or another, this is no such instance. You can pretend that your errors are "opinions", but they are mistakes, and are being pointed out. You don't like it? Don't write about that which you do not know. Philosophy only applies when there is no distinct correct answer or solution. Also, if you think I'm spending more time on one POV than another, pick another POV and ADD to the page. Deleting information is censorship; censorship of your own ignorance, which is blatantly childish. You are wrong on all accounts so far. If you want to be right, pick a topic that Arthur covers well and elaborate on it. Limiting what can be said about the Arthur is EXACTLY what is wrong with the world today, and yes, I am saying YOU people are part of the problem. You fight so fervently to push your own agenda, you fail to realize you will stop at nothing to silence those that dictate slightly differently than yours. I have provided references, I have followed the Wikipedia guidlines to a T. If you can't live with your own human mistakes, then you are, at the core, ignorant (and pointing out a quality that you factually exhibit isn't a personal attack, its stating the obvious).

Its also interesting to note that in your attempts to call this trollery and vandalism, you fail to realize it was I who edited the Arthur page into distinct, digestible sections. I care about the circulation of information, and I care just as much about the presentation of that information. By sectioning it off into chunks, you allow for easier purusal of the article, and ultimately allow the reader to pick and choose which information they want. It isn't debatable: my section is objective, and factual. You call it a POV issue, but it isn't. It isn't a point of view, its stating cold hard facts with appropriate referencing. This is not debatable. I've merely offered a means by which those who want this information can have, and if they don't want or need it, then it can be skipped over thanks to the selective editing I have made to the page format. Grow up and get over your egos, Arthur-ettes and Arthur-inos.

Maddman 19:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's very unfortunate that this conversation cannot move beyond your angry polemic. At the heart of the issue is this: in spite of the obvious factual errors that the paper made (I have no problem acknowledging that there are mistakes!), pointing out these three mistakes in one year of its 40+ years of Arthur's publication is utterly absurd and irrelevant. The editorial and writing staff change every year - I am stunned into disbelief to think that you believe their errors to be an ongoing conspiracy against science! I can assure you that they wouldn't have made the mistakes they did if they had known they were mistakes! In any case, this is not an act of silencing or "censorship of [my] own ignorance" (whatever that means). It, instead, comes out of a concern that this Wikipedia article maintains a relevant, neutral, and concise section of information about Arthur the newspaper. Your concerns here are more suited to a letter to the editor (which, providing it was coherent, the new editors would be obliged to print) rather than an encyclopedic fact. Look at it this way: would you or anyone remotely care if Arthur had made a typo (MNR > NMR) thirty-five years ago in a 250 word article? Absolutely not! It's simply a mistake! Frankly, I'm really bothered by and frustrated with the way you are treating this issue. I think the insinuations you are making about the characters of myself and other editors are extremely unfair, mean-spirited, and baselessly resentful. You are clearly very angry about the issue at hand as well as the people who are disagreeing with you. I implore you to at least calmly consider some of the things I've said. This is no way to have a helpful discussion about something that can come to a solution. Respectfully, Cliff

I doubt that there will be any calm consideration on Maddman's part. I have a couple of reasons for my doubt. First, consider his contribution history. 90% of his contributions are to this article, and 0% of them are friendly. Second, look at the content of his contribution. He's deliberately wrong about microwaves: in the section that he keeps trying to add to the Arthur article, he links directly to material that contradicts his own statements both in the article and in his response to me on this talk page. He even knows that first-year physics students learn about the relationship between wavelength and frequency, but he oh-so-infuriatingly denies that such a relationship exists (for the record, I learned about it in OAC physics...). It's too perfectly wrong to be sincere. It's trollery, flame-baiting, and a revert war. Eric S. Smith 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"This is the definition of ignorance. Scientific facts are not opinions. Opinions can be argued one way or another, this is no such instance. You can pretend that your errors are "opinions", but they are mistakes, and are being pointed out. You don't like it? Don't write about that which you do not know. Philosophy only applies when there is no distinct correct answer or solution." mmm... I don't know if you realize this, but you're starting to sound a bit like a fascist. I tend to believe in people, so I don't want to think this about you. Just ask yourself this: Is science conclusive? You'll see that even though we've been talking about scientific progress for centuries, there is still a lot to be done. A theory formulated by someone nowadays might even contradict what another respected scientist said, let us say, sixty years ago. So, what do you think this means?

"He's deliberately wrong about microwaves: in the section that he keeps trying to add to the Arthur article, he links directly to material that contradicts his own statements both in the article and in his response to me on this talk page. He even knows that first-year physics students learn about the relationship between wavelength and frequency, but he oh-so-infuriatingly denies that such a relationship exists (for the record, I learned about it in OAC physics...)." No, I'm sorry, I am not deliberately wrong about microwaves. Microwave is a classification of wavelength...there is no such thing as microwave radio waves. You may be confusing yourself with what are commonly called "radio frequency" waves, but that a misnomer, since radio is also a classification of wavelength, not frequency. They are called such because our radiostations operate at those high frequencies, and it tends to get caught up in jargon when being tossed around by PR, advertising, etc. YOU are explicitally wrong. It a FACT, not an opinion, and a not something I am misinformed on, that MICROWAVE describes wavelength, NOT frequency. You don't believe me, I get that. Afterall, to you people, Wikipedia is probably your only source of information these days, since you lack any skill to do any legitimate research. Its hilarious when an arts student tries to tell ME what is and what isn't scientific fact. Get off your high horse, you are wrong. Deal with it. What you linked to even explicitally states about the unfortunate naming convention given to your "microwaves", or did you skip over that part in the hopes that no one would catch it? What you are referring to is an antiquated convention, that is avoided at all costs by REAL physicists and chemists. I don't write my textbooks, but I obviously read them...something I can't say for those who argue against me at this point. Also, I never denied a relationship between frequency and wavelength, but they are explicitally different things. Its unfortunate you don't have the proper education to argue this point, as this often comes up in astronomy. However, you are out of your league people. There are frequencies associated with certain wavelengths, but they are hardly exclusive to that range, and they certainly aren't described by the wavelength nomenclatures. I'm not going to continue to keep replacing the section, I realize now you Arthur-ettes are about as dense as Mercury and thick as lead, and are completely unwilling to admit when you are wrong. A trend I find applies to the majority of the Arthur staff and her committed readership.

I think that argument pretty much sums up why we disagree with you and look to protect this article. In spite of some clear intelligence and knowledge of some science, you insist on being a sexist dickhead. Go away.

Sexist? Dickhead, sure, call me whatever names you want, the onus is on you for catoring to the insult and not the argument. But Sexist? Now you're just grasping for straws. Pathetic. Maddman 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have been the one insulting and attacking everyone else at all times. Now you claim to be reasonable and ask for discussion on the content of your argument. You're amazing. Have a good time learning how to destroy the world. Proud to have been the first person to delete your 'section', Jaime R. Brenes Reyes

"You have been the one insulting and attacking everyone else at all times. Now you claim to be reasonable and ask for discussion on the content of your argument."

No sorry. Go back and check my very first comment on this page. I had ALWAYS started and intended to discuss the content of the section (via my argument). You are the ignorant one now. Are all arts students as ignorant and downright stupid as you, or does it take a special breed to come on to the internets and humilate themselves for all to see?

Maddman 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're unbelievable. Cliff

Add topic