Talk:The Martlet

message: The result of the VFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Martlet -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD Result 

message: Give proof that the degree mill story was falsely reported.  The link added for the apology has nothing to do with an apology.  If you're going to switch it back again, do it right.
*was the martlet wrong about this? i dont think the link makes this clear. what happened with this?Spencerk 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsely Reported 

message: Do your research.  The report was false and malicious, and the link is to an apology if you take the time to scroll down to the second item.  Stop perpetuating this mean attack on a man who is very intelligent and worked very hard towards his degrees and graduated with high honours.  Thirty years later, more people ought to be finding out the truth. unsigned entry by Julieanna -16:57, 26 February 2006
-------
I have yet to see any proof that Blackstone College is indeed a legitimate institution (Blackstone no longer does offer a law degree).  If Partridge got a masters afterwards, good for him, it doesn't affect the veracity of the story.  The Publishing Society is just trying to cover its ass from a legal point of view and not get involved in anything.  Degree mills can be legal, and common sense dictates that the degree for a university administrator shouldn't be of such a poor reputation.  The link is all about the publishing society and the reprints from the anniversary book, but this doesn't mean the paper admitted falsely reporting anything.  Also, a lot of this is the responsibity of the editor and not members of the Society.
Patrick White was the editor in 2003, two years after this apology, and he had a different view according to this page.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Martlet&oldid=9730759)
It seems like family members have a personal vendetta against the paper and I don't think this has any place on Wikipedia. I hope my latest edit can be accepted as a compromise.
-Sal.
The information about the former president of the university is true, and is frequently mentioned in journalism courses at the university. It is also verifiable information; thus, it belongs in Wikipedia. To remove it is to attempt to hide the truth. The Martlet has archives, and this information can be checked. Meatfight 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Report 

message: I think the key difference here is that, while the anniversary book (as far as I know; I haven't seen it) republished the article(s) that may or may not have contained incorrect information regarding Partridge's qualifications, the paragraph I would like to see added to Wikipedia simply reports that this event happened. If the original article(s) in the '70s was/were incorrect (and I have not seen any proof that they were or weren't), it would make sense that they would have to issue an apology for reprinting it/them. However, that does not change the fact that these events did happen. This story is a big part of UVic/Martlet history and legend, and I think it is important enough to be included in Wikipedia. The paragraph I would like to see added to Wikipedia does not state that Partidge did in fact obtain his degree from a degree mill. It states that the Martlet was responsible for bringing about the resignation of the university's president, Bruce Partridge (true as far as I know) when they reported that he had obtained his law degree from a university under investigation as a "degree mill" (true as far as I know; not the fact that he DID obtain it this way, but that they reported it and the institution was under investigation). It also states that in 2001, the Martlet Publishing Society issued an official apology to Partridge for reprinting the article in an anniversary book (also true, as we have a source for this).
The paragraph I would like to see added to Wikipedia does not, however, state that Partridge actually did obtain his degree from a degree mill, and I have no idea whether he did or not (I would like to see proof either way). It seems, judging from the Ring article, that he did not (which is presumably why they could not reprint the article in the anniversary book). However, we are not casting a judgement on whether or not the allegations are true here; we are simply reporting that these events (the allegations and subsequent resignation) happened. It was a fairly major event in Martlet history (as I've mentioned, it's been brought up in a lot of journalism classes at the university), and that is why I believe it should be included in Wikipedia. I would also like to know (from an impartial source such as a news article) whether the allegations turned out to be true or not. Regardless of the allegations' veracity, however, the fact remains that the Martlet was responsible for his resignation (as I understand it).
So, in short: I would like the Wikipedia article to say not that Partridge obtained his degree from a degree mill, which may or may not be true, but that the Martlet was responsible for his resignation. Where the anniversary book said the former and therefore had to issue an apology, I would like the Wikipedia article to simply say the latter, which is true (as far as I know, and I can check this in the Martlet archives if I have to) and an important event in Martlet history.
I believe that Martlet readers and UVic students will come to this page looking for information on the Partridge fiasco, and I believe that we have a responsibility to include this information and to make it as true as possible. Meatfight 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning Behind Keeping the Partridge Paragraph 

message: More recently, the Martlet has come under fire
Is there a source for this? Letters to the editor? If not, this is not verifiable information.
for what some perceive to be a more totalitarian brand of the paper's noted leftism.
Again, is there a source for the "totalitarian" remark and the "noted leftism"? This does not seem to have a neutral point of view.
citing a need for dialogue and tolerance between religious groups
Is there a source for this? My understanding is that they simply felt it unnecessary to publish the cartoons; it would not lead to the dissemination of previously unknown information (which is the point of a newspaper), as they are all over the Internet. It would just be unnecessarily fanning the flames of controversy that has led to violence.
this motivation was highly suspect,[1]
This source doesn't really have anything to do with the Martlet; it discusses the issue in general. Is there a source that proves the motivation was suspect?
as religiously offensive articles published both prior and following this controversy met with no such censure."
Does this refer to articles published in the Martlet? Is it verifiable information? Is there a source?
As it stands, this paragraph has neither verifiability nor a neutral point of view.
Meatfight 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish Cartoon paragraph verifiabilty and NPOV