Talk:The Remnant (newspaper)

Merge

Both The Remnant Newspaper and The Remnant (newspaper) concern the exact same newspaper. There is no need for two articles. Wild Wolf 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SPLC listing

Since the addition of the mention of the SPLC listing for The Remnant (newspaper), there have been many attempts to remove that section from the listing via reversion. This is veering close to edit warring. In the interests of heading this off, I would like to hear reasons why the listing is not relevant for inclusion in the entry by those who believe it should not be included. Tagryn (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Secretary2019 please discuss your edits here. Your apparent conflict of interest appears to be interfering with your neutrality on the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Crit section and similar

Regarding edits restored via these reverts:

First, I consolidated redundant references. This is a routine, minor formatting issue, but if a single primary source is being used for lengthy promotional details, that's almost always a sign of undue weight, so I also trimmed some of these details to more succinctly summarize this source. If this level of detail belongs, it should be obvious why it matters, and also it should be supported by reliable, independent sources without the use of promotional language such as "leading" and "cutting edge". Using Wikipedia for promotion is not acceptable, obviously.

Right now the article has a significant lack of independent sources. The paper itself should not be used to demonstrate notability, per WP:GNG. Armstrong's blog posts are fine with attribution, but they also do a poor job of explaining why this paper is encyclopedically significant. That means that the SPLC hate group listing is currently the only reliable, independently sourced fact about the newspaper which clearly demonstrates encyclopedic significance. Therefore, this should be presented in both the body, and the lede. Presenting this in a "Criticism" section is reasonable, and unfortunatly common on Wikipedia, but this is not ideal for many, many reasons. WP:CSECTION is a good start, but another way of looking at is this: being a hate group is not incidental to this topics significance, it's currently the most significant thing about it by Wikipedia's flawed standards. Removing this from the lede and placing it in its own subsection at the bottom is downplaying this, which isn't appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As for the section Islam, reliable source is badly needed for this. It might be possible to summarize some of the paper's opinions based on the paper itself, but contrasting this opinion with other Christian right outlets is a form of editorializing. This paper isn't, in my opinion, a reliable source for anything other than itself, so all of its ideas must be presented with attribution. If there are independent sources for this, I would like to see them. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have a better understanding where you're coming from with these edits. For "Islam and the West," agreed; at the very least, there needs to be a number of different references if the intent is to establish that the paper has a particular set position towards Islam. Citing one article/author does not do that, in my estimation. Tagryn (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)