Talk:Alive! (newspaper)

Article is a mess
I've removed all weasel words and segments contravening Neutral point of view guidelines. I've also tagged most of what's left for citations, but unless they're forthcoming it'll have to be removed or rewritten. See Citing sources for information on acceptable citation sources. Cheers, AC+79 3888  11:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article needs a heavy rewrite - there are factual errors (David Norris isn't the leader of the opposition, he's an independent senator), style that reads like a poor article from Unclopedia (e.g. the sentence about David Norris sexuality), references that don't support the claims made (e.g. the alleged link with two bodies found in a hotel), POV-pushing (the bizarre comment about Kerry), outdated links (the reference to same-sex marriage - the page seems to update each issue, plus the bizarre reference to bicyles), etc. Autarch (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a small scythe to the article, trimming much of the material I criticised above. Much as I disagree with the politics of the paper in question, it's better to have an article that's properly sourced than one that's poorly sourced. Autarch (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kulturkampf
Hohenloh added into the article an unsources claim that this publication is "right wing". Yet in Catholicism there is no such thing, there is orthodoxy or heresy. This publication just happens to fall into the former; they put across The Catholic Position of the world. Now onto the Ivana Bacik's comment, this is simply unacceptable to include in the article, since its just simply an anti-Catholic attack by a woman who is a radical (Marxist, feminist and atheist, thus not a neutral source on this topic). Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of info, we already have a comment in the article putting across that the liberal press let out a terrible scream against this publications Catholicity. I don't think we need Bacik's bigoted and slanderous commenting, calling this a "Catholic Church paramilitary" when its just a magazine. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok you want to talk about Bacik. First of all it is someone's comments and opinion, it therefore does not have to be neutral. Indeed the very point of having a person's comments is to give their views, and since it is their personal view it will always be biased or slanted in some way. Neutrality on Wikipedia consists in stating the fact it is this persons view, not a fact, and in then presenting a contrasting view (if one exists). You cannot simply remove a comment by a well know politician and commentator, just because you don't like what she has to say. As for the "Right-wing" issue, frankly what else would you call it? And no Wikipedia does not operated by Catholic Church doctrines, if it did just about every article would be labelled "heresy". Wikipedia acknowledges the existence of something called the political spectrum and by any definition, this group is self evidently right-wing. Therefore I shall reinstate these components. --Hibernian (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, "self evidently" isn't good enough, since that is unverifiable POV. You have to find a reference, otherwise it must stay out. Catholic is the term you are looking for, that is the viewpoint of this publication. This is a religious publication and tackles world issues from that perspective, it isn't a secular political paper, it doesn't stand for election. Bacik is an extremist, her lunatic anti-Catholic comment is of no value to the reader because it doesn't approach anything to do with reality. Its unencyclopedic and Wikipedia isn't just an indiscriminate collection of information. The world already knows feminists and communists hate the Catholic Church, I don't see why we need to include her ridiculous libel here; if it belongs anywhere it belongs at Anti-Catholicism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really seriously think that any objective person looking at their stance would think that they're not right-wing? You can't just say "they're Catholic", the Catholic Church is not some entity above politics, it has a political view just like any other organization, and that view is almost always right-ring. So yes they're reflecting a lot of Catholic thinking, but that does not mean what they say is; by definition "Catholic", since there are plenty of Catholic people who would totally disagree with them. Indeed, I would bet that most Irish Catholics either laugh at what is in that Magazine or feel sickened by it. Their views aren't even consistent with the Church on many issue in-fact, like being anti-Evolution. The Church has essentially accepted Natural selection and Global Warming, yet I guess no body told them. There are a wide body of political beliefs in the Catholic Church, some left-wing, most centrist, and some extreme right-wing, like these guys. As for Ivana Bacik, yes she's a Leftist, a Feminists and an Atheist and probably a few other things, but she is also an elected politician and media commentator, and that means her views are as relevant and noteworthy as anyone. Whether you like those view is utterly irrelevant, besides her jib about "paramilitary wing" is clearly a joke and not meant to be taken seriously. I told you, if you think it unbalances the article, then go find a quote from someone who likes the magazine. Try David Quinn maybe, I'm sure he loves it. Now, unless you can come up with any reasonable reason that the Bacik quote should not be included (other than your own "offence") then I suggest you leave it alone. --Hibernian (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is terrible and needs cleaning up
This article is terrible and needs cleaning up. I will just give two examples but there are many.

1.	There is too much language bias. Eg, “right-Wing” should be replaced with “conservative”

2.	The lengthy paragraph about the Editors private life at the end is irrelevant in an article about the newspaper.

Encyclopaedia articles need to be objective. This is not an objective article. I made a number of valid edits to address this problem but the “consensus” here seems to be one that supports a wholly negative and biased view against the publication.

I made these edits, explained why, and then get a message telling me that I might be a vandal!

This is unacceptable to those of us wishing to make Wikipedia a better, more reliable, source of information.

Theroyalcanal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroyalcanal (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits did not improve the article in any way, all you did was remove large sections of it, including relevant sources. Your edits were reverted with good reason, please don't try to put them back again. Wikipedia is not describing the group’s beliefs or ideology, that is coming from various journalists and politicians, which we are merely reporting. --Hibernian (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let’s come to an agreement. At least can we acknowledge that the term “right-wing” should be replaced with “conservative”? Also, the paragraph talking about the Editor is absolutely irrelevant and should be removed. I can guarantee you that if I put in a paragraph about the editor on the Irish Times wiki article it would be removed for this very reason. Theroyalcanal


 * Well, from your continue editing, you don't seem to be trying to compromise. You have yet again tried to delete large parts of the article, which are well sourced, and your edits have been reverted again by User:Hohenloh. What exactly is the different between "right-wing" and "conservative"? As far as I can see, the two are interchangeable for many purposes, except perhaps that "conservative" is a specific type of the right-wing. To put this in the context of Irish politics, many Irish political parties are described as conservative, such as Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, whereas the position of Alive! is quite far to the right of either of these. So conservative may not be an accurate term in this context, right-wing seems an acceptable alternative and I don't see why there should be any controversy about it. --Hibernian (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven’t made any changes actually. If there were any changes made since I posted to this page they were not made by me. (Even though I am perfectly entitled to make edits - Wikipedia belongs to us all).

The term Right-wing is politically charged and therefore a tad biased. I agree to the extent that neutral language is rather illusive and that biased language is unavoidable in certain instances. However, the term conservative is a much less biased term and more befitting an encyclopaedia article.

The section on the Editor - as I’ve said before - is irrelevant and should be removed.

If no one else has any objections to these changes in the next few days I will go ahead and make the relevant edits.

(assuming I’m not being a vandal, SIC)

Theroyalcanal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroyalcanal (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said already, Right-wing and Left-wing, etc, are perfectly legitimate terms when talking about politics. You will find them used in any Encyclopaedia you care to read, they are not inappropriate here. As for the sentence about the Editor, I don't see what's wrong with it. It simply states that he attended some kind of Anti-Lisbon meeting in 2009, which I think is relevant, since that is (or was) one of the main themes of his publication. I see no reason to delete it. --Hibernian (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)