Talk:Village (magazine)

2006 edit
Merge and keep name 'Village (magazine)' - Monucg 12:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As above. ant_ie 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MagazineVillageIrelandthumbnail.jpg
Image:MagazineVillageIrelandthumbnail.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) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Biasness and smear attack by person who wrote main article
God i've not seen such a biased article since the last time i read libellous comment about a newspaper. Alot of the stuff needs to be cited. it does not suffice to say something was in Phoenix magazine. how about the publication date or the issue number of the phoenix magazine that the claim is made in. Also from what i recall, the village magazine did issue an apology for the article about mary wallace however it stuck to their claim that she hardly took part in discussions in the dail if my memory serves me right. however i do not have a citation so i will not change the uncited article with just a random link to a blog site. further more, i thought it was owned by a group of investors. alot of the information was out of date so i deleted this nonsense. i went very trigger happy on the citations needed iu will admit but i needed to. this page has basically been used as a smear attack on village magazine.

Phil Nolte talk 12:00, 29 November 2008 (utc)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Village (magazine). 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/20090521192122/http://villagemagazine.wordpress.com:80/2008/11/26/village-cover-december-08/ to http://villagemagazine.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/village-cover-december-08/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversies section
Point taken about "controversies" where there are no external references describing something as a controversy. The section should properly be titled 'Controversies and major stories'. The breaking of a story on the alleged leaking of a confidential document by Leo Varadkar was a major news story, involving a Garda investigation, and was still generating news until July of this year. There's not much difference between sourcing this to Village Magazine proper or to their medium account, but the proper action here is to request a citation, not to delete the content.

As regards Soldier's F and G - well, Ronald Cook is dead, so WP:BLPNAME can in no way apply! I contend that BLPNAME does not apply to Soldier F, either. First, it is not a blanket ban on identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. The policy merely states it is "often preferable" to omit it. Soldier F was central to events of Bloody Sunday, is subject to an ongoing trial on a charge that does not give anonymity, and was not a "private individual" during the events of Bloody Sunday. As has been determined by public inquiry, he was acting as a member of the armed forces, under orders. I have therefore restored the content. I will work later today on adding additional/better references where they were requested. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point on Soldier G! I'm happy to discuss the rest soon (busy for the rest of the day), but I did want to note that I removed Soldier F's name again. I know we disagree on interpretation of WP:BLPNAME, but I hope you at least view my objections as good-faith, and we should wait for consensus to develop before restoring it. If no one else shows up to this discussion, we could reach out to WP:BLPN or try another form of dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside of the BLP issue, I don't think any of the content you re-added is problematic enough that it can't stay up with tags while someone corroborating sourcing. I do feel icky about deciding which of Village's stories either "controversies" or "significant stories" based (apparently) only on editor judgment, and not on evaluation by reliable sources. That said, I'm not plugged into how obvious the significance of these stories might be, in which case sources attesting to that should be easy to find. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

NB: I have opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard, here, about whether or not Soldier F should be named. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)