User talk:Bloopyoop

Still a problem

I don't think you understand the issue with respect to your editorializing about The Mining Journal. Find us actually sources which characterize it as you would like to have it characterized, and as long as they are notable, then that material can be included. If for example you can find an article in The Nation characterizing MJ as "one of the nation's most persistently conservative newspapers" (and I emphasize I just made that up), then provide a citation for that and it can be included in the article. Your own analysis is unacceptable as an authority, whether I agree with it or not. If you do not understand the difference, and persist in preserving your own edits in the face of this, I can guarantee that you will eventually be blocked. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mangoe, I apologize - it was not an intentional effort at propaganda, though it is clear how I feel on the paper and it's merit as a true news source; it was sincerely a sloppy comparison, as I see now, with existing wiki articles on Le Monde, and Le Figaro, for example, which include sections on "politics," and so forth. See, for example:

"Le Monde was often described in the past as centre-left, but its editorial line may be more appropriately described nowadays as simply moderate."

and

"By the start of World War II, Le Figaro had become France's leading newspaper. After the war it became the voice of the upper middle class, and continues to maintain a conservative position."

In fact, I had actually thought I had gone a bit of the extra mile, by providing some backup; but I understand now how this doesn't fly, given the absence of authority cites (and constructing an argument linking the paper's citing Zogby, with the WSJ link showing how Zogby isn't the unimpeachable authority the Journal would have it be, is really a bit of amateur courtroom lawyering, not proper citing.).

Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were an editor, or rather a Journal devotee pasting up a violations argument, so did the reversal believing the latter. Again, I'm sorry.Bloopyoop (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)