Talk:Pennsylvania Punch Bowl

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

JohnnyNutty (talk · contribs)

Comments

Hey ChrisGriswold, what would you like me to cite? I assumed it was the Ezra claim, so I added the sources for that. What else would you like me to add?

It needs citations for a number of things. I'll leave tags so you know what I'm talking about specifically. The reason the article needs citations is that a number of the college publications articles make claims they can't back up, including those of notability, and I have the feeling that some editors will be looking to delete some of these. You seem familiar with the subject and interested in improving the article; I'm glad you asked. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - I think I found a good reference, it's from the school's student paper. I'm not sure how to use it, as I think it might be good for both the things that need citations. It confirms the 1899 founding date, which makes it 4th behind the Harvard Lampoon, Yale Reord and Princeton Tiger for oldest. But it also gives examples of the magazine's campus presence during that time. Should I just cite it for both? Here's the article: Let me know what you think.

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1999/11/05/Resources/Campus.Humor.Mag.Marks.Its.Centennial-2166663.shtml?norewrite200609280731&sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com

ChrisGriswold, I reverted your edits regarding this page. Considering your sockpuppeting under 'Truth in Comedy' and whatnot, I'd prefer a more reputable editor make such removals. No disrespect. --AstrolobeJones

Ha. That's very funny. I really do appreciate the credit for the advisory work I did on behalf of your publication. I've been sure to note this on my resume. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... what? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but anyway thank you for desisting, it's appreciated. --AstrolobeJones

Hey, there's obviously some difference of opinion here. I realize why the disputed section's a little controversial, though I think the term 'attacks someone' and 'serves no purpose' are a little harsh, but just because something disagrees with Wikipedia doesn't mean it's unpublishable. Is there a better way to present this data? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see why it should get deleted out of hand without discussion. AstrolobeJones 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Take also a look at Wikipedia:Attack page. The factoid that Wikipedia had something with PPB is hardly relevant for anything pertaining PPB in the long run, and the fact that certain Chris Griswold had something with PPB even less so. And the said section certainly smells like an attack to me. Duja► 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been so many people interested in editing this article! As for the policies: it's certainly not a biography of any living person; it mentions the username of a living person, I suppose. The guidelines atWikipedia:Avoid self-references are hard to apply here also- I mean, it isn't referencing Wikipedia in the clearcut "You are reading a Wikipedia article way," but citing criticism the subject of the article has made of Wikipedia. As for Wikipedia:Attack page, that seems to cover users attacking one another in discussions and whatnot. If I, an editor, call everyone else here profanities, that's an attack. Or if I edit the page to say, "Duja is a dick", that's certainly an attack too. But using that criteria to judge the subject that the article is about doesn't seem to make sense- it'd be like removing it from Seigenthaler's biography saying it was an attack. I mean, if the New York Times ran a headline piece: "Duja: What a jerk", it'd be sort of silly to exclude because it's an 'attack'. It isn't an editor, it's the subject doing something, which belongs on the page. I don't think any of the policies cited cut-and-dry exclude this section from the article. That being said- I do see where you're coming from and think an equitable solution is perhaps to just remove the username mentioned- it still conveys the information but would lay to rest any "attack" claims, dubious though they may be. Thoughts? AstrolobeJones 06:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? Why do you think it needs to be added to the article? It does not add anything about the publication at all. You wouldn't put in the article: "In the May 2008 issue, the publication lampooned people from Canada." So why would is it any different about this statement? Metros 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an article about a publication that has been around since 1889, neither the description of a one-line joke nor a self-reference to the Wikipedia article deserves to make up a third of the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people feel so strongly it isn't worth mentioning, I'm not that passionate about it anyway. I strongly disagreed with the initial quibbling arguments of 'biography' or 'attack', but 'not significant enough' is a more plausible reason, and should've just been argued from the start. Anyway, I was thinking of trying to add a 'notable former editors' or something section, I'll try and expand on that when I get a chance. AstrolobeJones 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to find good citations for the notable former editors section. I know that there are editors who cruise articles looking for such sections and eliminating entries that are not well referenced. Just try to find something that links the person directly to the magazine. I want you to understand: I have never had any ill will toward your publication; I like college humor magazines, and I want to make the articles as good as possible. Yours has been around so long that it ought to have a particularly good one. If you want ideas for expansion, I would try finding old student papers that refer to the Punch Bowl's activities, some of which may be controversies. You have almost 120 years of history, and I'm sure you can find documentation for much of it. Does your college library keep microfilm copies of the Punch Bowl? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, most issues ever printed has been preserved, bound and catalogued in one of the libraries, though the records before 1920 or so are a little patchy. Regarding notable editors-- what is a sufficient citation? Citing a specific issue where they appear, or worse comes to worse, scanning the mastheads for reference? Regarding controversies, I think that's a good way to interject some interesting information, and I'll try and find citable sources regarding that.AstrolobeJones 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good citations would be a notable person mentioning their time with the Punch Bowl on their site or in an interview. Or just an article that connects them to the magazine. One that is not quite as good is to use an issue of the Punch Bowl as an example because it says Salman Rushdie is an editor. First, it's a humor mag, so it's not always immediately clear what's a joke. Second, just because your magazine has a Salman Rushdie as editor does not mean it is THE Salman Rushdie. Another thing some editors will do is remove people from "notable people" lists because they use the existence of an article as evidence of notability. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyNutty

While I understand the intention behind the inclusion of the notable Wikipedian template on this page because of a conflict of interest, I'm not sure it is appropriate; no person other than Ezra Pound is named in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, maybe this template is really to do with conflicts of interest rather than just an interesting fact! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pennsylvania Punch Bowl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]