Talk:The Dartmouth Review

message: What stand has the Review taken on the college alcohol policy? I'm not sure that a liberal or conservative position is easily identified.Dynzmoar 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol policy 

message: I reverted two of the many changes by User:ChulaOne. They aren't major or very contentious, but explaining them will take more space than is available in an edit summary, and I didn't want to revert those two things without explaining why.
* I replaced the removed "and has been at the center of several lawsuits" clause. This is not only true but a very defining characteristic about the Review. It seems based on the title of their book (The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent: Twenty-Five Years of Being Threatened, Impugned, Vandalized, Sued, Suspended, and Bitten at the Ivy League's Most Controversial Conservative Newspaper) that it is acknowledged as an important part of their history. It doesn't seem to me that it reflects negatively on the newspaper (i.e. in an NPOV way) to mention something like that.
* I removed the inserted "alleged" preceding the list of controversial actions by the Review. All of the things there are recorded in the cited sources as having actually occurred; none seem contentious, at least not to the point that anyone denies that they happened. "Alleged" makes it seems like these are stories made up to discredit the Review.
Some of the other changes (e.g. "right-wing" to "politically conservative") seem a bit odd to me (at least in the context of being an attempt to de-POV the article), but they don't need reverting.
Let me know if anyone has any problems with this partial revert. Kane5187 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial revert 

message: Re: The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent: Normally, we don't link to Amazon (or any other retailer) for a book. Is there a site on the web for the book itself? If not, we should probably get it out of "External links" and into "Further reading", and just give publication information and ISBN, which will bring up our usual ISBN-based page that doesn't favor one retailer. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: Buckley is quoted in this Wikipedia article as saying that the Review published a quotation from Hitler in its masthead because a "former staffer" inserted it.  Jeffrey Hart has claimed that "a disgruntled or perverted junior staffer on the newspaper invaded the word-processor circuit," implying that some kind of cyber-crime took place [in 1989!].  The Review's offices were locked upstairs rooms on Main Street, and it is highly doubtful that their computers were on the college's AppleTalk network (dialup, perhaps?).
The article would be improved by naming the person who inserted the quotation.  It was very likely a staffer who worked on the paper at the time, and the editors at the time almost certainly knew who he was, although they seem to have tried (successfully) to hide his identity.  
The present editors certainly know who he was, as they admitted after a February 18, 1998 article by Buckley: "Editor's Note: The identity of the individual responsible for placing the Hitler quote in The Review was established after the publication of In Search of Anti-Semitism. He was known to the Hanover police in connection with other incidents. []
Why not reveal his name?  Is it because he was still at the paper when he inserted the quote?
--Edit07 17:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source that identifies the person by name, then I see no reason not to include it. schi talk 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent".  Beginning on p.222, a great deal of evidence is presented that links a staffer to the quote.  The evidence would be insufficient to establish his/her guilt in court, but it seems highly doubtful that anyone else was responsible.  I'm not sure if that warrants inclusion, so take it as you will.  Also, I seriously dislike the section of the article that claims the Review published a list of those present at a gay student organization.  This is factually inaccurate; the review published the names of the officers only, which were already a matter of public record. I will change and appropriately cite this in a day or two if there are no objections. Vonspringer 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically it was an article by editor Kevin Pritchett reprinted in the book that made the claim that the staffer was responsible. While a reasonable supposition based on the evidence, the editors of the book nonetheless made the statement quoted below. (I'm not disputing that staffer was likely guilty but just clarifying what's evidence and what's conjecture.)
04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have a copy of The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent to check for myself, but considering the uncertainty surrounding the identification, you should just make sure that it passes WP:BLP criteria before adding this name. schi talk 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems questionable that the individual should be named given that the identification is apparently speculation--even according to the editors of the The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent. WP:BLP criteria would seem to suggest that this doesn't justify a "some have speculated that XYZ was the person responsible" sort of thing.
Basinrange 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They know who inserted the Hitler quote

message: I would be mildly astounded if student rallies at Dartmouth routinely obtain explicit permission in advance, or if this has been true at any time in the last four decades. If so, it would be close to unique among institutions in its class. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rallies

message: Hmmm... I was there for the rally and would have easiliy noticed Review staffers being chased on the Green.  It sure would have been more interesting than hearing everybody speak for their 15 minutes of fame.  In retrospect, I think the entire situation was handled poorly by all sides.  Student government was grandstanding, college administration was seeing this as another opportunity to bury The Review, the paper itself tried to make itself out to be a martyr, and everybody else went along for the ride.  
As far as knowing who actually started the whole Hitler mess, is there credible evidence other than what right-leaning sources have postulated?  I think it would be unfair to label somebody with a hate crime without credible evidence.  I knew enough Review staffers at that time to know that there were many keys to the office, the office itself was hardly secure,... and knowing Dartmouth's computing department well enough, I can assure they wouldn't (knowingly) let the Dartmouth Review maintain a connection to the Appletalk network.
Centerfield13 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent visitor to this page 

message: I have just reverted some vandalism done by User:Ccccnash.  However, I was only able to revert the vandalism through 01:07, 6 October 2007.  When I tried to revert farther back than then, there was some error.  I need to leave soon, so if someone else could pleas clean that up, that would be great.  Thanks.  -- Imperator3733 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I posted this, User:Ccccnash has made several other edits that look like vandalism to me.  Imperator3733 06:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted vandalism 

message: This article is absolutely littered with POV issues on a scale I didn't think was possible on here; from flat-out asserting (with no in-text citations) that it is xenophobic to statements like "diseased movement of so-called politically conservative but actually fascistic-minded"***, the whole thing is like a monument to everything that WP:NPOV doesn't stand for.  There's so many issues in there I don't even know where to start; I'm tempted to rewrite the whole thing (making it a stub if necessary). In the meantime I'll just remove terribly POV sentences. Ours18 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that's necessary is a revert to the last edit not by User:Ccccprescott. It's POV editing that to this point is vandalism. I just can't do much because of WP:3RR. Kane5187 04:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that it was the work of one editor; anyway, I just edited roughly the first half of the article, that's enough for now.  By Cthulhu, there's too much nonsense here to rid the article of in one sitting....I think I'm going to wash my hands, reading all that makes me feel dirty. Ours18 04:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issue

message: I note that well over half of the names in this section have neither sources nor, apparently, sufficiently notability to warrant Wikipedia articles. What, I wonder, does "notable" mean in this context? --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable alumni 

message: This article cites a single source -- The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent -- more than 70 times. Considering that the book was written by two former editors of the Review and published by a conservative think tank, how reliable is it as a source for facts? 66.87.80.180 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article relies too heavily on a single source written by the subjects  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Dartmouth Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725142823/http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/11/29/dartmouth_rallies_for_minority_students/ to http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/11/29/dartmouth_rallies_for_minority_students/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the one source tag from 2015.  The problem isn’t that the article was originally sourced to one book, the problem is that this source is partisan.  I suggest that someone other than me review the current article and determine if there is an ongoing POV issue. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Viriditas: I have added POV & 3rd party tags now. Thanks. Kiran_891 (TALK)  17:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed one source tag 

message: The new President is Sunil Krish and the new EIC is Jacob H. Parker as listed in the new Volume 42, Issue 1 64.223.224.41 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New President and EIC