Talk:The Centurion (magazine)

Untitled
It looks like there is a discrepancy over the Editor in chief. kien barry is listed as the eic at the bottom, but dan whitney is on the side, which is right?

Recent removals by myself
I removed three things just now:


 * "War on Christmas" note under "Controversial antics": "also fought what it claimed to be a War on Christmas" and "taboo slogan "Merry Christmas!"" are both useless to readers. First, the Centurion seems to simply be repeating Bill O'Reilly's ideas. The linked War on Christmas article doesn't mention the Centurion as an important leader in that so-called war. Second, "Merry Christmas" is not "taboo," oficially banned, or otherwise frowned upon at Rutgers University. Should a contributor wish to claim otherwise, a citation would be in order.


 * Attribution of Coat-of-Arms design: besides breaking the link to the Coat of Arms article, this attribution seems meaningless. The "artist" is an unknown, and hence not important. They do not have their own article or any other significant presence on the web.


 * Daily Targum article: "contribution to the rising conservative movement at Rutgers". Read the article. The DT mention of this "movement" uses weasel words. This "rising" is opinion, not backed by facts (the stated membership in the College Republicans is irrelevant). The article is poor with uninteresting quotes and just generally bland, and I suggest its removal altogether. I'm sure there are sources that better explain the Centurion's movives, which weren't butchered by a college reporter.

MJKazin 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Another minor removal:

To describe Klimek as an astrophysisict is misleading. He is merely majoring in it at university, and has not even attained a bachelor's degree, as he is of the class of 2007 (see and ). As for his prior affiliation with the Daily Targum, he's listed as a corrospondent here:. Mertz as I've mentioned before is an unknown, hence not an "artist". MJKazin 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One final note from myself on this matter:

As previously stated, the "astrophysicist" issue is moot. I apoligize if I misunderstand the search application I used at Rutgers' website to determine the graduate/undergraduate status of Mr. Klimek. I still stand by my opinion that he is an undergraduate, but I conceed the possibility that he has a bachelor's degree in physics. Even so, persuing a graduate degree does not entitle the use of the title any more than persuing a doctorate allows one to affixing the honorary of "Doctor" to one's name. More importantly still, is that the term is irrelevant to the article at hand. If he were an active policitian, note-worthy journalist, or otherwise skilled or learned in a field related to the Centurion's goals. I added his past affiliation to the Targum, as that fact is relevant.

I also added the missing name of Joseph P. Nedick, who was not attributed co-founder status. My source was the Centurion's own page, dated back to February 2005 available here.

Regarding whether Mertz is an artist, I believe my previous argument stands until proof is provided of some notable status as an artist.

I'm sorry to have reverted. I would much rather have invited my fellow contributor (69.143.161.37) to a discussion, but they did not log in. If anyone has comments on these, please let's discuss them here and work out an agreeable solution.

MJKazin 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Biased material
You know, I'm getting sick of having to correct the ridiculous amount of biased material that is written on this wiki. The Centurion has not been accused of libel or harassment; writing that is an outright lie.

Secondly, to claim that the reaction of students is mixed, consisting of either simply amusement or the belief that it is antagonistic and does not reflect true conservative views, is also a lie. While some people do share those sentiments, a great deal of others applaud The Centurion's efforts.

The point of Wikipedia is to be an unbiased source of information. Therefore, I would ask those who edit this page to cease posting these ridiculously biased comments. Save that for your blogs.

Thank you. --128.6.30.204 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)RutgersStudent


 * Much of the information contained within this page is inaccurate and/or biased. I have either edited it to be more accurate (and less biased) or I have deleted it entirely. 25 April 2006

I no longer see any signs of obvious bias. The nomination should be revoked. Viz 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

request for expansion of The Daily Targum
I see a lot of fellow Rutgers University allumnus and current students editing here. So, if anyone is not to busy it would be good if anyone could help expand the "The Daily Targum" article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Centurioncoatofarms.jpg
Image:Centurioncoatofarms.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
In the controversy section there is mention of the magazine's criticism of a Lenin Peace Prize-recipient for his relationship to the Soviet Union. How is this a controversy since the Prize was awarded to "prominent Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union". Given the Cold War-shaped political culture of the United States isn't this a commonplace view? Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)