Talk:中大學生報

message: The whole article is completely baised against the student, and use the materials exclusively from  known conservative newspaper. I therefore added the material from Appledaily as a balance.
I removed the following links for the stated reasons.	
"向影視及娛樂事務管理處投訴方法" (At best, this link is unrelated to this entry. At worst, this link is a loaded and biased link and breaks the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia.)
"學聯社會運動資源中心( 自治八樓)聯署聲明:懇請中大校方三思" (This is a petition, and again breaks the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia.)
"虛妄的「大學之道」" (This is a personal blog entry and again breaks the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia as it is "personal opinions" and "original research" thus not allowed.
I hope both sides will not hate me for my removals. Or both sides of this debate will hate me equally. (smile) I've removed links from both sides and it is important to note that I am not taking sides as I try to follow "neutral point of view" .K ideas 2007年5月12日 (六) 20:52 (UTC)
* :User:K idea, 看你劃花這兩頁討論區, 也不恰當呢! 小心你才是。 —What is your ideas ? 2007年5月12日 (六) 22:29 (UTC)
**:User:WhattsD, I make mistakes all the time. So please feel free to point out where did I make a mistake here? I think "neutral point of view" is an ideal worth defending. Without NPOV, we are just a bunch of propaganda writers. So please be specific on your recommendations and suggestions. Vague complains and imprecise charges like "看你劃花這兩頁討論區, 也不恰當呢! 小心你才是。" are difficult to address when the debate is as heated as this one. Thanks for your understanding. K ideas 2007年5月12日 (六) 23:08 (UTC)
Again, I can be wrong but I removed some more links due to NPOV again. Those personal blog entries may be very insightful but they are person blogs none the less and thus broke the NPOV requirement. Sorry to be taking things out added by User:137.189.4.1 especially some insightful links were added by this user. K ideas 2007年5月13日 (日) 08:45 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links 

message: Added link for "中大學生報 - 情色版爭議討論". Because of the listed letters "包括 香港中文大學學務及素質組, 國際特赦組織, 等 信件", I believe the link can now be included safely without violating the "neutral point of view" requirement of Wikipedia. K ideas 2007年5月14日 (一) 00:39 (UTC)
replies: text: 相關網站被記載﹐只要保持客觀記錄﹐當然無問題。我也加了寄存在 blogspot.com 的同步網頁。—零空網 2007年5月14日 (一) 10:50 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dear 零空網, Thanks for your feedback. Basically, it is the content of the website, in particular, those letters from the internationally recognized organizations which lead me to include the original reference site "http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07 中大學生報 - 情色版爭議討論". Strictly speaking, my ground for including the rest of the site is rather weak. I probably should have just link to those letters and not link to the site as a whole.

text: :I am still struggling if a blog at blogspot.com should be allowed. My gut feeling is that it should not be allowed. Anyone can create a blog. For that matter, anyone can create a website. So both blogs and websites (non-notable ones at least) should carry no weight. A notable site like RTHK or BBC is totally different. To me, there are too much complication to include a blog because of NPOV. May be more people can enter this debate and add some insights here. I don't think it is a vote but more a founded and rational discussion of what links are to be included. I sure like to hear a rational discussion from CUHK students (and those that work in 中大學生報) and the general HK public here. K ideas 2007年5月14日 (一) 15:09 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Agreed with your thought on direct linking to the public documents instead of linking to CUSP's homepages, not so much that the xanga and blogspot pages being non-notable, but because they are suspicious of "self-serving" in the way that they are put together by the publisher for the their own argument. (See Self-serving) But to put it fairly, they didn't publish much "original arguments" on their homepages anyways, rather, the majority of informations there are quotations, though not explicitly verifiable, from other notable sources (國際特赦組織, etc).

text: :: I think what we can do in order to maintain NPOV without losing the balanced context is to direct link the public documents such as the reportings, letters, petitions, rebuttals, both for and against, all together according to the context of this encyclopedia article, with verifiable sources explicitly shown; but not according to the context of the CUSP, like currently *(with regard to the xanga & blogspot page links)*. All the documents linked will be notable, verifiable, and non-self-serving, and therefore they should be included to give our readers a balanced view for this serious matter. If no objection, let's get it started. —零空網 2007年5月14日 (一) 17:39 (UTC)

text: :Great, so direct linking to the pages of those original public documents seem to be the preferred method. You may be right the there may not be too much "original arguments" on the websites but it is still difficult to monitor and maintain. Yeah, "balanced context" may be a key here and I will add "independent". Sounds like something to proceed on. K ideas 2007年5月16日 (三) 21:45 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of links 

message: (留了在你個人討論頁的留言副本)
59.149.26.248兄﹐你好﹐我叫零空網。我看到你在“中大學生報”主版面的留言。首先多謝你對維基的貢獻﹐但有以下事項需要注意﹕
*1) 請在“討論頁”中討論主版面之內容﹐而避免把“討論”和“內容”混在一起。
*2) 如果你對內容有意見﹐除了提出疑問外﹐請大膽提出改良方案。討論區是很好的交流平臺。
*3) 我會現在刪去你在“內容”中的留言﹐而把它搬去討論頁﹐以便作詳細討論。
有關其他使用維基的詳情﹐請查閱編輯手冊。
謝謝。
如果你對那一段文字有意見或提案﹐煩請詳述。
thread_title:  關於 (這段意義何在？) 

message: 現時本頁有關情色版事件內容，篇幅已佔全文八九成了，而且可預見事情於短期內還會繼續發展下去。為免條目出現喧賓奪主的情況，建議把情色版事件內容分拆到中大學生報情色版事件，中大學生報只保留一段簡要介紹及情色版事件條目之連結。 -- Kevinhksouth (Talk) 2007年5月16日 (三) 17:07 (UTC)
replies: text: 讚同 —零空網 2007年5月16日 (三) 17:07 (UTC)
replies: text: : If no solid objection until tomorrow morning, we split the article. If Kevin is free to do it, please do. Thanks in advance.—零空網 2007年5月16日 (三) 18:07 (UTC)

text: 同意。:)—石 2007年5月16日 (三) 17:14 (UTC)

text: Yeah, make sense. Lets split them up. Of course, lets take the opportunity to fix up and update the main 中大學生報 article. Why not improve the main article at the same time? It will be neat to get some benefit from this controversy (a better 中大學生報 wikipedia article). K ideas 2007年5月16日 (三) 21:49 (UTC)
replies: text: : 各位﹐分拆完成了﹗—零空網 2007年5月17日 (四) 00:36 (UTC)

text: : Hi 零空網, thanks for your 分拆. It looks clean and thanks for spending time to fix it up. I will have to look at the content (of the new page) closer when I have time, but it looks great on first glance. K ideas 2007年5月17日 (四) 12:37 (UTC)
thread_title:  建議分拆內容到[[中大學生報情色版事件]] 

message: 本版只是提及「性」、「人獸交」等幾個名詞，並不屬於只宜成人閱讀，無須保護。
thread_title: 移除不必要的保護