Talk:Southern Partisan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Southern Partisan Still Exists

Friend of mine is a subscriber. He received a copy a few weeks ago (July 2006). They are, however, notorious on being late in publication. His most recent issue was dated January 2006. According to my friend, they have been as far as two years behind at times.

[edit] Defunct?

I can't see any sign that this magazine is still published. All of the internet links I can find go to dead ends.-Willmcw 21:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not all magazines have a website. Absent any direct evidence that they've gone out of business, you have no grounds to declare them defunct. Rangerdude 22:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

They used to have a website, now it's gone. If they'd never had one to begin with that would be different. I'm having trouble finding any mention of them anywhere in the last couple of years. -Willmcw 23:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whether you can find them or not in recent years, the lack of a website alone is not sufficient to support your conclusion. Find a valid source stating conclusively that they're no longer in business, or else no basis or source exists to make the change. Regarding Sebesta, "anti-neo-confederate watchdog" are the words he uses to describe himself. Quoting his own self description is not an ad hominem in any reasonable sense of the term. Rangerdude 23:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I found one entry in a Usenet group that refers in 2005 to a "recent" issue. [1] I guess they're just small. Funny that even their address isn't on the web.

Regarding Sebesta, his full description is on his page. I don't see what giving his city of residence adds to this article. Why are you adding it? I've noted that in other articles, like Sheila Jackson Lee you objected to any characterization of critics. -Willmcw 00:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Describing the Houston Press as a "free paper" and its author as a "gossip" column is simply not germane to the citation. The latter term in itself and the former term in its use appear to have been added for no other reason than to convey a pejorative upon the Houston Press as a source - which constitutes a POV ad hominem, since neither piece of information has any bearing on whether or not the story occurred. Please remove these POV edits. Rangerdude 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, Sebesta wasn't a self-evident newspaper and nobody was calling him a gossip columnist. Per your own additions to untold dozens of articles, it seems pretty standard that when an individual is quoted by name a brief neutral identifier of who that individual is and/or his or her affiliation should be included. Seeing as Sebesta isn't really a member of any group aside from his own, calling him what he calls himself is about the most accurate and neutral way to do this. Of course the real question here is why you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself...Rangerdude 00:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So you won't mind if I add those back to Sheila Jackson Lee? -Willmcw 08:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee has nothing to do with this article (though your habitually disruptive behavior on wikipedia does per WP:POINT). That said, the question still remains: why do you object so much to calling Sebesta what he calls himself? Rangerdude 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm just checkig on whether this is a consistent policy that you're talkling about or just an expedient. Why did you remove the quote from the NYT? It totally refutes the contention about the article that you are making. Regarding your introduction/summary, we can't say what the controversy is "due to". If you want to say that there is a controversy, fine. -Willmcw 22:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the out of context NYT quote you included because you misrepresented it as a position by the Times that "agrees" with all your critics when in fact the Times took no such position. They simply reported a summary of some of SOuthern Partisan's views on slavery, which were accurately represented in the NPOV sentence I replaced it with. As to identifying the controversy, simply saying that there is a controversy without stating what it is over (e.g. the magazine's political conservatism and southern view of the war) is silly, especially when subsequent passages detail the very same things that are summarized! Gripes such as these are plainly disruptive and little more. Rangerdude 05:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

They didn't report a summary, they quoted bizarrely positive views of slavery, which you deleted. Don't lecture me on NPOV. -Willmcw 06:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

"bizarrely positive" is your characterization of the quote. The NYT only identified them as unconventional among historians and passed no judgment either way on them beyond stating that the magazine generally avoids slavery and views the war to be caused by other things. You attempted to ascribe a position to the NYT that it did not take in the article by purporting them to be in agreement with your cherrypicked critics, thus artificially bolstering your critics' POV. That violates NPOV in addition to being factually inaccurate. Rangerdude 06:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)