Talk:The Cornell Progressive

Deleted paragraph

I removed the paragraph for non-notability. This has nothing to do with the seriousness of the incident, but if such occurrences belong in the article, they should also be included on the Cornell page as well as the racial/sexual attacks that had happened before this one. In any case, I do not believe they are notable or encyclopedic according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Xiner 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

On February 18, 2006, Turn Left staff member Nathan Poffenbarger turned himself into Ithaca police and charged with second degree assault, after he allegedly stabbed a black Union College student and shouted racial epithets at him during an altercation at a fraternity party [1].

Notability is not determined by the editor, but by others. Does o1020 hits on google make something notable, perhaps, perhaps not, but considering what a bunch of touchy feely lefty wankers Turn Left has on its staff, this incident by one of their own does have some notability. But what do you think? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will reply to your concerns when you have calmed down. Xiner 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, the comments were most certainly not directed at you, just a passing comment on yet another "were so non-conformist that we conform" college paper. I will leave the ball in your court on this one, and if you don’t think that the information is noteworthy, then I will trust your judgment on what to do with it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not assume that you directed your comments at me. I was only concerned with the feelings of the "touchy feely lefty wankers". Xiner 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a joke, like Poffenbarger's claims of "racial sensitivity" LOL. But seriously. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw this on arbitration enforcement noticeboard and without commenting on the notability of the deleted section, it is interesting that the main concern is negative information, rather than cleaning up an article that has no references. The irony is that the negative information that was deleted is one of two third-party references (the other being a 3 paragraph mention in an article about "The New Face of the Campus Left") Trödel 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, hold there. I asked TDC to work with me on his talk page regarding the passage. It was he who refused to cooperate, but instead resort to the playground art of name calling. To imply that editors of this page are intent on keeping negative comments off the page seems awfully irresponsible. And your note seems rather like an argument for notability, despite your protestation to the contrary. Xiner 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come off accusatory, I didn't read the user talk pages and thought the above was the extent of it. From the above, TDC insults the current editors of Turn Left, I didn't think that he was rude to you, in fact, he was willing to live with your decision on whether it should be included or not and he hasn't reverted your deletion. And while I would discourage such comments, there is no reason for you to take offense at them. --Trödel 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the above to the judgment of readers of this discussion. Xiner 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How in God’s name do you interpret “I will leave the ball in your court on this one, and if you don’t think that the information is noteworthy, then I will trust your judgment on what to do with it” as a refusal on my part to cooperate? I give you carte blanch to do whatever you want with the passage, just so long as you provide a justification for it, and you accuse me of not cooperating? Whatever. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Xiner 02:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, an anonymous IP from Florida claiming to be a Cornell student writing "african american" [sic] with a right-wing source is racism exemplified. Then again... Xiner 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the new york times is a right-wing source - the links provided look like there is a notable contoversy about this issue. --Trödel 02:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the page history if you're somehow confused about what biased source I'm talking about. Thanks. Xiner 02:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So exactly how does that negate its notablity per the NY Times article - i'm confused by your comment --Trödel 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also find your comment that my edits are one-sided to be insulting - I have looked into the issue and think it is notable. You deleted information that was properly sourced - I restored it. I don't know much about the history, but evaluating the actions taken since recently, it is you who seems bent on expunging negative information regardless of who adds it. Including accusations of racism because the person made a grammer mistake and is from Florida - frankly it was that intolerance that inspired me to revert and defend that editor --Trödel 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reference I could find re the statement by Turn Left was on a blog (which I am loathe to use as a source). See statement and blog commentary --Trödel 22:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The public statement is here: http://turnleft.theworldoutthere.com/?page=606/staff0 AG

This section on the stabbing is irrelevant. Mr. Pfoffenbarger acted as an individual so far as I can tell. He did articles on electoral and political analysis. The publication had nothing to do with the incident, and no one, Left, Right or Center, has said anything contrary. So why include it in an encycopaedic article on the publication? If a New York Times writer got drunk, stabbed a black man and called him the N-word in 1975, would this all of the sudden become part of a definitive statement about the publication? I think not. This is a silly discussion hinging only on divisive partisan politics. I have removed the section, again. AG

This information is verifiable, it had impact on the organization etc. As to your example, it could, depending on the factors and the impact on the the Times. Trödel 12:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That Editor Emeritus Wayne Huang is of Chinese descent is verifiable. It is still irrelevant to the publication, and therefore is not mentioned in the publication's article. As far as I can tell, the stabbing had NO impact on the publication. Re: the Times example: The fictional stabbing by a NYT staffer had no impact on the publication or its readership. Same with the Turn Left stabbing incident. What you need to do is make a case that the stabbing was important. I have yet to see that case from anyone at all, Trödel included. I am removing the section yet again. AG

Restoring the section - it was in the news and connection to Turn Left was identified in the references. --Trödel 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but if the NYT reporter stabbed someone, that would be in the news too, no?

That is a red herring - comparably sized weeklies that have an event similar to this one that goes contrary to the stated position of the weekly would have the controversy generated by the even included on their page. --Trödel 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Including this "incident" in a general discussion of this newspaper is plainly an underhanded attempt to discredit the paper. The actions of this reporter have nothing to do with the paper itself. If an employee of General Motors, for example, commits a crime, does that "incident" belong in the article about General Motors? Of course it doesn't. I'm taking this out. Griot 19:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason every defender of that section has accused me of wanting to delete unfavorable info when they first talk to me. What does it say about WP:AGF? Xiner (talk, email) 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Founders

WHy is one listed twice? Rich Farmbrough, 13:34 14 January 2007 (GMT).

lol...this question gets asked a lot. It's two people. Please read the middle names again. :) Xiner (talk, email) 16:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

At least I didn't assume it wasn't! Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:02 14 January 2007 (GMT).

Graduation and alumni dates

According to WP:MOSNUM,

Do not use two digits to express a year unless at the end of a range, e.g., "1970–87"...Using the less formal two-digit form for a decade is acceptable when not ambiguous; for example, when referring to the decade of the 20th century known as "the eighties", use "1980s" or, less often, "the '80s", not just "80s".

I think that applies here as TL was founded in 2000, so there should not be any confusing about the '02 graduation years until the next century. The customary way of stating the alumni years should be sufficient for now, and we can always do a link like '02. Thoughts? Xiner (talk, email) 16:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is little point in linking to the years. But while "Class of '89" is a familiar term to many non Americans, we don't know whether this is the year of graduation, or commencement. This is effectively a slang usage and should, in my opinion be avoided, especially for institutions such as Cornell which do (I guess) run back over a century. We shoud also endeavour to be consistent, WP never (in theory) uses two digit years, for a number of reasons, one is to avoid abominations like 02/03/04 which could mean anything. Rich Farmbrough, 19:09 14 January 2007 (GMT).

The American custom is the year of graduation, but if you're not sure, others may not be either. I'm not sure how to deal with the issue without being clumsy, though. In any case, it's a separate issue from two-digit vs. four-digit. Guess it's time to change the title of the section. Xiner (talk, email) 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

When

Turn Left was renamed The Cornell Progressive in the Spring of 2007.

This time period is ambiguous. Did this happen in September, October or November? (Wait a minute, those months haven't happened yet.) It would be more informative if it was reworded to give more precise dates. Phrasing like spring of may be poetic, but it is not as informative to a worldwide audience as a precise date or month. --B.d.mills 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Turn Left is no longer.

Please, accept reality and let go of silly grudges. Turn Left was a great club but now we're the Cornell Progressive. Let's work together - we're all for the same cause, aren't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.139.242 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that labeling the feelings and opinions of the former editors and staff of a publication that made yours possible as "silly grudges" does not contribute to meaningful and polite discussions.

In any case, just because Turn Left is no longer, does not mean you should erase the wiki page. The whole point of an open-source encyclopedia is to store as much knowledge as its contributors provide. You're perfectly fine and encouraged to create your own page for the Cornell Progressives, but there was no need to erase Turn Left. It is *not* the publication you now produce. They are two different publications in time and substance, so why do you not want people to know about TL, in addition to CP? You can simply provide a link to CP, noting TL has ceased publication. That would have been fine and no one would begrudge you of it.

Like the change in name and ideology, we, the former editors and staff of Turn Left, only found out about this content deletion when someone stumbled across it. I think that answers the question, too, of whether we're *working* for the same cause. I mention this only because, again, if TL is not CP, then they should each have their own page. You now control the destiny of CP. Let go of TL, please, just as you already did with the name and the publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastcoastmystery (talk • contribs)

Sorry about that, but I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding. Anyway, I think the page looks good now, right? Imagine Reason (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST: Turn Left cover page with Obama on it

Does anyone have it? That's what used to be in the infobox but someone deleted it from the wikipedia servers. I guess another cover would do, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.101.125 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)