Neoliberal Scum

Arthur

You are not allowed to add unsourced criticism of a newspaper's reporting record to its article. If you want such content to be present in the article, you must provide actual reliable sources to verify that such criticism has actually taken place, and it must be written in a neutral point of view. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is non-NPOV. I have been working to resolve that. A truly unbiased Wikipedia editor would recognize this, but I fear you are no such editor. This is the problem with Wikipedia, it's turned into a bunch of elitist self-important nerds who think that they, above all others, speak from a NPOV, when really they are just re-enforcing a very particular, liberal narrative. Take a look at my last edits and let me know how I have made the article LESS rather than MORE neutral, then edit ban me, since you apparently aren't interested in adhering to the spirit of Wikipedia.

Firstly, it is not POV to describe what the content of a newspaper typically is. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the paragraph Historically, Arthur has had a left-leaning political stance. In the past articles have focused on issues such corporate boycottism, socialism, LGBT rights, Canadian Aboriginal rights, feminism, corporate presence on campus, and accountability in university administration. It would be POV to assert that such content is inherently either good or bad as a focus of a campus newspaper, but as written it's just a description of what the paper's editorial focus is.

Secondly, you simply cannot assert that a newspaper has been criticized for anti-Semitism unless you can provide actual sources to demonstrate that such criticism has actually taken place. Without genuine sources, what you're adding is pure editorial comment. You also cannot describe a newspaper as publishing op-ed commentary rather than news unless you can provide sources to indicate that some kind of academic or critical analysis of the paper's content has actually been published describing the paper as more based in op-ed than news reporting.

The bottom line is that no matter what problems the article has — and I'm not saying that it doesn't have any, but being POV as currently written is not one of them — adding deep POV violations is not making the article "more" neutral. And I'm most certainly not, in even the slightest sense, an editor who has a problem with letting my own personal opinions influence the neutrality of my editing — I don't even have a pre-existing opinion in either direction about the Arthur, for example, because I've actually seen it for myself exactly once in my life, about fifteen years ago. What you're adding, however, is POV commentary, because you're adding statements of opinion about the paper to the article without independent sources to back them up. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur prints opinion pieces, not news. Your assertion of content is unsourced. Meanwhile, the assertion that it has focussed on misandry, anti-Semetism (including the printing of anti-Jewish propaganda) needs to be sourced? Ridiculous. You look horribly biased.

I am nothing of the sort, and one needs only look at the paper's website to see that its core content is news articles. The fact that you don't personally like the editorial thrust of that news doesn't automatically make it opinion rather than news — the difference between a news article and an opinion piece is in the structure of how the article is written, not in whether you personally like the topic that the article happens to address. You can discuss your concerns about the content on the article's talk page, but I've put a three-day page protection on the article itself so that the content cannot be edited by anyone who isn't an administrator. You may go to Talk:Arthur (newspaper) and discuss what your concerns with the article's content are, which is the proper process you should have been following from the beginning. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NS, as a Trent grad myself (CPTC 88-92), criticisms of the Arthur are nothing new to me. However, I think it's ironic that you want you want to engage in the same sort of activities over here at Wikipedia that you accuse Arthur of doing - publishing unsourced opinion as fact. I really recommend that you take some time to read the Wikipedia policies at WP:NPOV and WP:V, and then take up your issues on the article talk page. One more thing -- the snarky little insults and accusations in your comments aren't really doing you any good; besides being contrary to policy (see WP:AGF and WP:Civility), the insults and accusations make it hard to take you too seriously. If you treat others with respect, they will typically pay more attention to your comments. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that NPOV does not imply that any or all opinions about the topic should be presented, no matter how trivial. It means that all such opinions which are verifiable (with relevant sources) and significant should be included. Adding unsourced statements or opinions to an article without sources is inherently POV, and results in undue weight being given to a particular perspective. This is why there is an insistence on reliable sources, particularly if you want to make bold statements such as "it has focussed on misandry, anti-Semetism". Mindmatrix 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors as you did on the User talk:70.29.126.110 and User talk:24.235.190.37 pages. Your edits have been reverted. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --NormanEinstein (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)