Jump to content

Talk:The Martlet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is up for speedy deletion, I disagree. I work for the Martlet, and this is all accurate. The article quoted is archived on our website.

Falsely reported? What is that all about?

VFD Result

[edit]

The result of the VFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Martlet -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Falsely Reported

[edit]

Give proof that the degree mill story was falsely reported. The link added for the apology has nothing to do with an apology. If you're going to switch it back again, do it right.

False Report

[edit]

Do your research. The report was false and malicious, and the link is to an apology if you take the time to scroll down to the second item. Stop perpetuating this mean attack on a man who is very intelligent and worked very hard towards his degrees and graduated with high honours. Thirty years later, more people ought to be finding out the truth. unsigned entry by Julieanna -16:57, 26 February 2006


I have yet to see any proof that Blackstone College is indeed a legitimate institution (Blackstone no longer does offer a law degree). If Partridge got a masters afterwards, good for him, it doesn't affect the veracity of the story. The Publishing Society is just trying to cover its ass from a legal point of view and not get involved in anything. Degree mills can be legal, and common sense dictates that the degree for a university administrator shouldn't be of such a poor reputation. The link is all about the publishing society and the reprints from the anniversary book, but this doesn't mean the paper admitted falsely reporting anything. Also, a lot of this is the responsibity of the editor and not members of the Society.

Patrick White was the editor in 2003, two years after this apology, and he had a different view according to this page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Martlet&oldid=9730759)

It seems like family members have a personal vendetta against the paper and I don't think this has any place on Wikipedia. I hope my latest edit can be accepted as a compromise. -Sal.

The information about the former president of the university is true, and is frequently mentioned in journalism courses at the university. It is also verifiable information; thus, it belongs in Wikipedia. To remove it is to attempt to hide the truth. The Martlet has archives, and this information can be checked. Meatfight 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can offer a good reason why the paragraph about Partridge should not be included (ie. not "let's ignore the history that happened"), I won't put it back in. But it is verifiable information that can be proven, therefore it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Meatfight 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to resolve this dispute instead of just deleting and re-adding content. (I was unaware of the 3RR before and will be more prudent in the future; my apologies). Users who have deleted the Partridge paragraph, let's talk about the issue instead of engaging in edit wars. Why do you disagree that that paragraph should be there? As I have mentioned, it is verifiable, historical information. It also makes the Martlet more notable and thus makes it less likely for the page to be seen as irrelevant if there is another dispute over the necessity of university newspapers being listed on Wikipedia. Meatfight 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) __[reply]

If the Martlet Publishing Society had to issue an apology for republishing these articles, what makes you think that it's ok to keep spreading the information here? If all the information is true and verifiable, why did the Publishing Society state "Mr. Partridge showed restraint in not taking legal action in connection with the 1971 stories, placing the interests of the University of Victoria ahead of his own." (http://ring.uvic.ca/01jun05/page16.html) I don't think this information has a place on Wikipedia.

Reasoning Behind Keeping the Partridge Paragraph

[edit]

I think the key difference here is that, while the anniversary book (as far as I know; I haven't seen it) republished the article(s) that may or may not have contained incorrect information regarding Partridge's qualifications, the paragraph I would like to see added to Wikipedia simply reports that this event happened. If the original article(s) in the '70s was/were incorrect (and I have not seen any proof that they were or weren't), it would make sense that they would have to issue an apology for reprinting it/them. However, that does not change the fact that these events did happen. This story is a big part of UVic/Martlet history and legend, and I think it is important enough to be included in Wikipedia. The paragraph I would like to see added to Wikipedia does not state that Partidge did in fact obtain his degree from a degree mill. It states that the Martlet was responsible for bringing about the resignation of the university's president, Bruce Partridge (true as far as I know) when they reported that he had obtained his law degree from a university under investigation as a "degree mill" (true as far as I know; not the fact that he DID obtain it this way, but that they reported it and the institution was under investigation). It also states that in 2001, the Martlet Publishing Society issued an official apology to Partridge for reprinting the article in an anniversary book (also true, as we have a source for this).

The paragraph I would like to see added to Wikipedia does not, however, state that Partridge actually did obtain his degree from a degree mill, and I have no idea whether he did or not (I would like to see proof either way). It seems, judging from the Ring article, that he did not (which is presumably why they could not reprint the article in the anniversary book). However, we are not casting a judgement on whether or not the allegations are true here; we are simply reporting that these events (the allegations and subsequent resignation) happened. It was a fairly major event in Martlet history (as I've mentioned, it's been brought up in a lot of journalism classes at the university), and that is why I believe it should be included in Wikipedia. I would also like to know (from an impartial source such as a news article) whether the allegations turned out to be true or not. Regardless of the allegations' veracity, however, the fact remains that the Martlet was responsible for his resignation (as I understand it).

So, in short: I would like the Wikipedia article to say not that Partridge obtained his degree from a degree mill, which may or may not be true, but that the Martlet was responsible for his resignation. Where the anniversary book said the former and therefore had to issue an apology, I would like the Wikipedia article to simply say the latter, which is true (as far as I know, and I can check this in the Martlet archives if I have to) and an important event in Martlet history.

I believe that Martlet readers and UVic students will come to this page looking for information on the Partridge fiasco, and I believe that we have a responsibility to include this information and to make it as true as possible. Meatfight 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Further research (ie. a Google search) reveals a 1971 article that ran in UBC's Ubyssey (it's on page 3). This shows that Partridge said at the time: "I could not afford to attend law school full time, and since I did not have any intention of practicing law, I enrolled at Blackstone College of Law as an external correspondence student." This supports the information in the 2003 Martlet article quoted previously in this discussion. It includes these sentences: "Partridge had obtained his degree by correspondence, but talk of his “mail-order degree” swirled beyond control. His resignation came on November 15, 1971." That would seem to prove that though Partridge obtained his degree legitimately by correspondance (at, as previously stated, an institution that was under investigation for being a "degree mill"), he resigned regardless, presumably due to the rumours. Thus the paragraph that I would like to see put in the Wikipedia article is correct and verifiable. Can we include quotes from these articles? I don't think that violates copyright, but I could be wrong. Meatfight 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___

My main intent in deleting the paragraph was to insure that Partridge's reputation was not further slandered, as many still believe that he obtained his degree illegally and misrepresented himself to the University. If the paragraph can remain without further perpetuating these untruths, I have no objection to it.

___

What do you think about this?


In 1971, the Martlet was responsible for bringing about the resignation of the university's president, Bruce Partridge, when they reported that he had obtained his law degree from a university under investigation as a "degree mill." In 2001, the Martlet Publishing Society issued an apology to Partridge for reprinting the article in an anniversary book. A 2003 Martlet article by Patrick White stated that, though Partridge acquired his degree by correspondence, rumours about Partridge's qualifications spread throughout the university and he resigned in November 1971. An article with a statement from Partridge can be found in an archived 1971 issue of the University of British Columbia's paper the Ubyssey.


I believe this has a neutral point of view, as required of Wikipedia articles. If you have any other links that point to the legitimacy of Partridge's degree, please let me know, as all I can find is his statement in the 1971 paper and the White article, and these only say that he acquired his degree by correspondence.

My intention in including the Ubyssey article is to show Partridge's statement and explanation (about being a correspondence student). I would prefer to quote the White article (and possibly Partridge's initial statement as well) but after spending a good half hour or so perusing Wikipedia's copyright information I think it's easier just to paraphrase, cite, and link. Meatfight 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Works for me. Thanks for your thought on this issue. I appreciate your desire to find out the truth and your ability to write without bias.

___

I'm glad we could come to a compromise. I too appreciate your input and willingness to discuss the issue. Thanks! Meatfight 02:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Cartoon paragraph verifiabilty and NPOV

[edit]

More recently, the Martlet has come under fire

Is there a source for this? Letters to the editor? If not, this is not verifiable information.

for what some perceive to be a more totalitarian brand of the paper's noted leftism.

Again, is there a source for the "totalitarian" remark and the "noted leftism"? This does not seem to have a neutral point of view.

citing a need for dialogue and tolerance between religious groups

Is there a source for this? My understanding is that they simply felt it unnecessary to publish the cartoons; it would not lead to the dissemination of previously unknown information (which is the point of a newspaper), as they are all over the Internet. It would just be unnecessarily fanning the flames of controversy that has led to violence.

this motivation was highly suspect,[1]

This source doesn't really have anything to do with the Martlet; it discusses the issue in general. Is there a source that proves the motivation was suspect?

as religiously offensive articles published both prior and following this controversy met with no such censure."

Does this refer to articles published in the Martlet? Is it verifiable information? Is there a source?

As it stands, this paragraph has neither verifiability nor a neutral point of view. Meatfight 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____________

Additionally, if a NPOV/verifiable paragraph is to remain about this topic, it should mention, or at least link to, information on the very few student newspapers that did publish the cartoons, and the consequences and reactions that they had to deal with for doing so. Meatfight 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____________

Since it's been a week and no citation has been forthcoming, I suggest that we either delete the unverifiable information ("citing a need for dialogue and tolerance between religious groups; this motivation was considered hypocritical by some, as religiously offensive articles published both prior and following this controversy met with no such censure") or reword it so that it has a NPOV and is verifiable and only includes facts, not conjecture. Meatfight 17:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____________

I deleted the rest of that paragraph, because it was not verifiable and it's been nearly two weeks since my initial query about sources. Meatfight 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a member of CUP

[edit]

At a 2013 general meeting, the Martlet Publishing Society voted not to retain membership in Canadian University Press in the 2013/2014 publishing year. The Martlet is not currently a member of CUP and is not paying membership fees to CUP. We maintain a positive professional relationship with CUP staff and have members who still morally support CUP, if not financially. The Martlet still shares many common goals with CUP and still quotes extensively from the CUP constitution in its own constitution.

MPS members don't wish to violate Wikipedia rules by editing our own page, but we would like the reference to our membership in CUP to be corrected. Find a list of CUP members here: http://www.cup.ca/members/. Please notice the Martlet does not appear on this list (it was previously in the Western Region section).

Thank you, Shandi Shiach Volume 66 Editor-in-Chief Martlet Publishing Society


Alumni

[edit]

This section moved to talk because tagged for cleanup. Can be returned to article page once cleaned up and properly referenced.

{{Alumni|date=December 2010}} Numerous well-known people and successful journalists have worked for the Martlet or its precursor, the Microscope. Notable alumni include:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Martlet&oldid=1209303458"