Talk:Gazette

• Not a single ISSN is listed on this page. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to untag this page and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not? --Keesiewonder ^talk 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and removed. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

hello

Moved from User talk:GHcool My edit at gazette was simply an example of the importance of publishing laws passed by a modern, democratic system. Fail to publish those laws, and they may not take effect. If you have a better example of the confusion that can ensue, by all means include it. In the meantime, I've included one that I know of, and I cannot understand why you'd take it out. PalestineRemembered 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming good faith on this gazette issue because maybe you don't know about WP:Undue Weight. The gazette article should discuss gazettes in general. Singling out one esoteric instance of a possible misuse of gazettes amounts to POV pushing. Imagine if in the article on children's television series, someone added a sentence about the importance of ethical educational standards in children's television by giving the example of "Tomorrow's Pioneers." I would not even flinch at reverting such an edit and I am sure you wouldn't either. --GHcool 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the problem. If laws are not properly published, then some parties may think they've not properly come into effect. I know of one excellent example, so I've put it into the article. I'm not singling out anyone, I'm simply working to improve the encyclopaedia and educate all of its readers. I don't understand why you'd take out a fairly straightforward example of the confusion that can happen, unless you think you have a better example. Do you have a better example? PalestineRemembered 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are absolutely right about one thing: that this is a good example of a legal loophole created through misuse or ignorance of a gazette. That is not what I am disputing. I would encourage you to add this bit of legal trivia in the "House demolition in the Arab-Israeli conflict" section of the house demolition article. The problem with your edits is that you take a specific, esoteric, non-notable example of gazette misuse and place it on a page that basically defines the term "gazette." To go back to my original simile, it would be like putting a sentence on Farfur in the children's television series article. Farfur is an equally esoteric, non-notable example of misuse of a children's television series. It would not belong in a general, broad understanding of what a children's television series is. Wouldn't you agree? --GHcool 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no way this can be dubbed "non-notable", and what you've called "misuse" is central to understanding the concept of the article. An emergency regulation, put into effect straight after WWII, during a major insurgency, and supposedly repealed 3 years later, is still in place and in operation some 60 years later because of an error. It's an excellent example of the importance of gazette publishing - and from every angle - it's long-lived, well-known, well-documented, current and in frequent use. I'd be willing to bet there is no better example anywhere in the world - prove me wrong. Either that, or drop your objection to just 59 words, entirely factual and non-partisan to be added to an existing paragraph. PalestineRemembered 09:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As an outside observer, I do think it is a good idea to have an example of what happens when something is not properly published in a gazette. I do think we could do without an example that is so closely tied to current hot button issues. If possible we should try to find one that is connected to some other part of the world to replace what is there now. - SimonP 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to using a different example, but I'd be surprised if there were any alternatives either historically this notable, or historically this prominent (time, length, currency etc). Nor do I fully understand the objection to using an example simply because it's related to issues that the reader may have come across elsewhere. It would be unfortunate if we give the impression there are red-lines in the encyclopaedia. PalestineRemembered 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

To SimonP: I checked your user page and then your article page on Wikipedia. Very impressive. As you seem to be a kind of expert Wikipedia editor, I would be honored if you would volunteer to act as an impartial judge on this little dispute.

To give you some background, PalestineRemembered and I have had disagreements in the past on articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am not an expert in journalism, and I don't believe PalestineRememembered is either, but PalestineRemembered's addition to the gazette article (specifically "The 1948 repeal of the "1945 Defense Emergency Regulation" was not published in the Palestine Gazette, as required by law, and Israel still operates the policy of House demolitions under the same DER 119 over 60 years later") seemed to me like violations of WP:NPOV or WP:Undue weight despite the fact that the sentence is a true statement and well sourced.

PalestineRemembered's arguments for the necessity of his edits seem to be that the Palestine Gazette faux pas is so egregious that the gazette article would be incomplete without it. It provides an notable historical example of what gazettes were used for while at the same time provides proof of the importance of using gazettes properly. He insists that this is the best example he knows that stress these two points and that these two points are central to the concept of a gazette. I appologize in advance to PalestineRemembered if I misunderstood or misrepresented his arguments.

My arguments against PalestineRemembered's addition is that the gazette article should remain general. It should provide a definition and a brief history of the concept of a gazette and not include esoteric examples of inappropriate use of the media. I provided a simile of PalestineRemembered's edit to the gazetter article (that I believe to be unnecessary POV pushing) to a hypothetical edit to the children's television series article referencing "Tomorrow's Pioneers" (a Hamas-produced children's program in the Palestinian territories famous for inciting genocide and praising suicide terrorism). Certainly "Tomorrow's Pioneers" does not belong in the children's television series article and the Palestine Gazette episode does not belong in the gazette article. I admit that, like PalestineRemembered, I cannot provide a better historical example of disregard for gazettes, but if my interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is correct, even if I could provide a better historical example than PalestineRemembered, it still wouldn't belong in the article because it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:Undue Weight.

I am willing to accept SimonP's impartial judgement on this matter and I hope PalestineRemembered is willing to as well. --GHcool 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply