Talk:Lobster (magazine)

message: I removed the following statements from the article:
 In fact, it was my idea (Stephen Dorril) to start the magazine (I still hold the correspondence between myself and Robin Ramsay) in order to shift the focus away from primarily US politics/intelligence to looking at British politics/intelligence in terms of parapolitics. As co-editor, I funded the magazine for the first few issues and Robin did the typing and production.
 As he stated in a letter to myself (Dorril)out-of-the-blue, at issue 26, Mr Ramsay decided that he was experiencing something of a mid-life crisis and wanted to have greater recognition for his contribution. He then decided to take the name, back copies and valuable subscription list for his own. Mr Dorril continued to publish Lobster for five more issues.
Even assuming this is Stephen Dorril, I don't think we can have direct claims from subjects of the article in the article itself, and definitely not in the first person.  As the relevant correspondence is not publicly available, I don't think they are useful as a source.  -   Crosbiesmith 08:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can verify that it's Dorril, then it's a good source for what Dorril claims, I suppose. Although what he says isn't totally inconsistent with what Ramsay says (I'm guessing this squabble boils down to a pathetic semantic argument over what an 'editor' is), I'm tempted to just delete the question of 'editorship' out of there and just say it was started by those two and is now run by Ramsay. Oh, and the 5 post-split issues of Lobster he talks about aren't really the same Lobster that this article is about. --Aim Here 20:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Dorril contributions?

message: I'll readily agree that this isn't the best article in Wikipedia, but I don't think that it should be deleted without further discussion.  Rlquall 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's a poor article, but I think Lobster is notable enough to be mentioned. I removed the prod before the automatic deletion kicked in, but maybe we'll be visited by an AfD... --Aim Here 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not convinced that this is unencylopedic 

message: Removed the tag (added recently by someone who didn't add an explanation here). Did a quick LexisNexis search for Lobster plus editor's name and it came back with 64 references in UK/US etc newspapers and magazines, including the Independent and the Toronto Star. Of recent note was a July 2007 piece of over 1000 words (Hull Daily Mail, July 13 2007) entirely given over to discussing the magazine and its importance over the years. Agree the article isn't great but that's nothing to do with notability.Testbed (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - if you find sources like that add them in here and we can take a look at them and add anything that looks useful. (Emperor (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy too. They are quite long, so I'll put them in under new headings.Testbed (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: As the newspaper articles referred to above were removed for copyright purposes (the same editor then immediately tagged the article for deletion, citing a lack of references - which is what I would call disingenuous) here are details of the two longest, one recent and one from over 15 years ago:-
Hull Daily Mail (July 13, 2007) Sexed-up files, lies and surveillance tapes ... One man's search to uncover what lies beneath
By A Coggan
The Guardian (August 31, 1991) Inside Story: In the lair of the lobster - Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsey edit a left-wing journal that offers succour to conspiracy theorists and keeps the professionals on their toes
By Robert McCrum
Testbed (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability - again 

message: I wish to declare a potential conflict of interest, as I am the webmaster of the Lobster website, from which receive financial compensation. Editors may wish to subject my edits to addition scrutiny to ensure their objectivity. --Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see some work on this article at last. Thank you! I found the list of contributors rather hard to read so simplified the layout (perhaps you can find a way to remove the extra dots?) - also, given the discussions above, I removed people who don't already have an article to themselves. Hope to see more from you - could you provide a few more references to parts of the article, for example?Testbed (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try and do so. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another update, I've removed the template requesting citations, I think we have satisfied it. I still plan to add sections on (a) parapologics (b) The Colin Wallace/Clockwork Orange case. --Iantresman (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on all your work - the article is much better now. But you asked us to keep an eye on you: I have put back a self-description of the political positions of the founders, as this is pretty important. Testbed (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, though I wonder whether we should have short subsection on each of the founders? --Iantresman (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested a review of the article at WikiProject Magazines. --Iantresman (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: COI declaration

message: Would I be premature in making a Good Article nomination? --Iantresman (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there appears to be no objections, and I think there are several people watching this page, I'll make the leap. --Iantresman (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made the nomination. I think that compared to other Good Article class magazines its not too far away. --Iantresman (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lobster (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130227034314/http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w33/msg00042.html to http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w33/msg00042.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130227034314/http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w33/msg00042.html to http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w33/msg00042.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified