Talk:Epigram (newspaper)

Comment
You fundamentally misunderstand the role of Articles for deletion and Deletion review. I suggest you go and actually read those pages, and then explain why you will not allow this to be a redirect. Anyway, it's a pointless redirect since noone would ever search for it. We can just have this deleted then. Splash - tk 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Year
Anyone know the year the paper was formed?

Fair use rationale for Image:Epigram.JPG
Image:Epigram.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism Section - Discussion
Some recent edits to this page are concerning. While we should debate if the section fails WP:IINFO the other issue that must be addressed is the repeated removal of this section without any attempt at consensus. It seems that someone is intent on glossing over the issue without attempting any discussion to avoid looking bad,, and they're trying to do so through a variety of IP edits and new accounts. All IPs who have removed the Plagiarism section are either registered to the University of Bristol's network or can be traced to the City of Bristol geographic area, making is likely that there could be connections to the university or the paper. At best they're concerned students, but they potentially are Epigram or university staff trying to gloss over the incident.

There are several edit summaries that warrant a closer examination:
 * "This has now been dealt with internally and should not appear on wikipedia."
 * –The edit was reverted by me, and the editor was advised to consult WP:CENSOR


 * "Very offensive and now dealt with. No one wants this on here."
 * –Reverted by another user, the editor was advised to not violate WP:CENSOR


 * "The 'source' is now gone. Can we please put an end to this."
 * –The apology from the editor of Epigram was removed from the website before this edit, eliminating the source cited by the section. It still appears in Google search and there is a cached copy of the original page. I may seem paranoid but it seems more than coincidental.

While we definitely need to discuss if the section fails WP:IINFO, we should also consider the various attempts to remove the section and the removal of the cited information from the Epigram website. RA 0808 talkcontribs 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note in support of these concerns. I wrote at User talk:RA0808 ...It looks as though the editors of Epigram have taken down the web-page with the apology on. To me this smacks of editing the history to make it more palatable. Whilst this is a very minor storm in a very small tea-cup, I cannot believe that this is in accord with the no censorship stance of Wikipedia. The source was there, the event happened, it is significant and yet we are apparently left with no verifiability. any thoughts or suggestions ? .
 * I remain concerned that, although this as a very minor newspaper where somebody made a mistake and accepted the consequences, the result has been a campaign of censorship which even the paper itself seem to have colluded in. This is the serious issue.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Creating a section for this incident, which has no apparent impact outside of the newspaper itself seems Undue weight, a failure of IINFO and Recentism. One writer failed to meet the newspaper's editorial policies and the newspaper itself carried a notice after the editor "stepped down". No other publication that might be considered a quality reliable source to illustrate impact has yet been identified. If there has been a notable "campaign of censorship" then I suggest someone produce verifiable sources (not just odd tweets). Without any demonstrable social or historical impact, this section appears to be short term gossip rather than a "scandal" as currently titled and should be removed.
 * If editors from Bristol University have been attempting to manipulate this Wikipedia article then shame on them, and appropriate action should be taken to advise them of how COI works here and action should be taken on their accounts if necessary, however keeping this section in as a punishment, or to embarrass unknown editors, rather than due to solid grounds of policy and best practice that this improves the article or makes it more encyclopaedic would be a serious mistake. Disclosure: as an administrator, I semi-protected this article due to apparent edit-warring but am otherwise uninvolved. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't advocate keeping the section as punishment, but I wanted to draw attention to the editing practices of the users who repeatedly attempted to remove it. As Vellela said, the censorship is the issue. I would not oppose the removal of the section. RA 0808  talkcontribs 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where it says 'Well-known contributors' it has the Football Cliques blog listed. This is obviously a bad joke (as the plagiarised article originated from there)and so should be removed. The Football Cliques blog is clearly not a well known contributor and has been put there an an act of malice by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloden (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With the passage of time, I suspect that this has run its course. Although the original plagiarism issue was of interest, it was only on the most minor scale. What was much more significant was the Newspaper itself sanitising its history though self censorship - not something that any newspaper should be proud of. My intention is to remove the offending paragraph but I will try and think how the reputational damage to the newspaper might best be presented in a balanced, referenced and encyclopaedic way. Any suggestions most welcome.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I'm not opposed to the removal of the paragraph. Additionally, I've received a message purportedly from the author of the article that this "scandal" began from. It can be found on my talk page, feel free to take a look. RA 0808  talkcontribs 23:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epigram (newspaper). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215113/http://www.epigram.org.uk/view.php?id=1434 to http://www.epigram.org.uk/view.php?id=1434

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Senior Members of the organisation
Here is a list of all the members of the organization. I thought it could be helpful for future reference. Here are the sources: SnoopyStudent (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)