Talk:The Berry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject University of Cambridge, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
- See also: Talk:The Berry/Archive
[edit] On conflicts of interest and personal attacks
All right, kids, it's time to stop fighting. I've archived the odd discussion going on here to Talk:The Berry/Archive, but before you resume again, let me make a few things understood:
- I was the editor who added the conflict of interest tag to this article, as it was clear that someone close to the paper had written it.
- I am not a Cambridge student. I have no idea who Mike Morley is. And I don't harbor any particular feelings toward either — so the tag was not some sort of personal attack.
- This article was originally marked for speedy deletion. As the reviewing administrator, I declined to delete the page, as it may be notable enough for an article. However, I believe that has yet to be determined. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for details on what sources are appropriate for citation.
- The tag is not to be removed without a general consensus here first.
Please read the information linked through the COI tag (and above) to understand what the policy is. To summarize, editors with a conflict of interest (i.e. anybody related to The Berry) are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Specifically, those editors should "1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors; 2. avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality; 3. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; 4. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)."
Please keep conversations here relevant and to the point. If there's some sort of personal issue between Cambridge students that needs resolving, figure it out amongst yourselves elsewhere — this is not the place. Tijuana Brass 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the COI tag as it continues to be an issue, after it was originally tagged by an admin (above). The tag was subsequently removed without explanation or addressing the problem. The article's history shows a clear pattern of continued vanity posting and posting of self-promotional material and comments. It remains clear that the only ones writing this article are directly associated with the subject of the article. Most of the recent edits consist of self-promotional comments and un-supported or un-cited praise that, in addition to vanity issues, fails to provide a NPOV assestment of the subject. Furthermore, based on that, and the fact that little to no independent contribution has been made over the last 6+ months it would seem that the article also suffers from notability issues. If after such a long time the only ones able and/or willing to contribute to the article are those with a clear COI then the subject is not likely currently worthy of an entry. If this newspaper is really as great and important as some of the COI posters are suggesting then surely individuals not associated with it will have created, edited and maintained an article for it... that fact that they haven't strongly suggests that it's not, yet, a notable subject for Wikipedia. However, note that at the moment I haven't re-tagged the article as having a notability problem, just COI, as I agree with the above admin's assesment that the subject may warrant an article if one can be written by those not assocaited with the subject. It is again strongly suggested that those with any connection to this newspaper refrain from editing the article. Roger95231 15:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On past Editors section
Both Editors have been notable enough to be specifically mentioned in Varsity articles in connection with their position in the newspaper. Furthermore, it seems normal and consistent with wikipedia to add names of former leaders of such societies: Cambridge Union, CUCA and Varsity. Yet again, the editor's history, albeit brief, suggests that he might be a fellow student with an ax to grind. (not signed)
The widely used and agreed format is that for any organization listing particularly notable alumni, members, ect. in the article is OK; however, simply listing people for the sake of listing them dosen't add any meaningful content to the article as, unless the person is notable, then why would anyone else care about it. Wikipedia is not a directly for simply listing information. "Notable" is quite universally agreed to mean that the individual is important enough to have their own entry in Wikipedia. So if the person isn't important enough to independently warrant their own biographical page then it's simply irrelevent to list their name in the article as having once been associated with an organization.
In regards to the above comment attempting to establish 'notability': Being mentioned in a local student run newspaper hardly counts, in its own right, as credible evidence for establishing that someone is notable enough for the rest of the world to know, or even care, who they are. There is some precedent for establishing a chronological 'list' catagory, separate from the article itself, for long established offices or other leadership positions when that list would contain a number of notable indivduals (see above) with links to their biograpical articiles. In such cases, there isn't much harm in filling in the list with 'non-notable' individuals for the sake of continuity. However, in this case as this is still a very new organization and none of the names are, yet, notable it dosen't really make much sense nor does it add any meaningful content. Perhaps is 30 years when, potentially, some former Berry leaders have gone on to notable careers such a list would be justified, but at the moment it would essentially just consitute pointless self promotion (citing the above previous concerns that this article appears to have been mostly written by those directly associated with the topic of the article). (R)
I am intending shortly to remove the COI tag as in my position as a member of the University, this article is an accurate reflection of the status of the newspaper as an impartial publication for political debate. The article may have been created by a former editor (of the paper), but it remains an accurate description of a significant publication at the University of Cambridge (WillWearden) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillWearden (talk • contribs) 13:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
