Talk:Iowa State Daily

From Rofflehaus

I think Erin Randolph was Editor for Summer 2002. That's when I worked there at least. --Talenos 20:57, 1 Jul 2005 (CDT)

[edit] Gay Depiction

What the...why was the "Gay Depiction" section in the Controversies removed? That took me forever to look up.agape 08:49, 5 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Dan, just do ~~~~ for a signature and Campbell keeps deleting the controversy. --Talenos 20:27, 5 Jul 2005 (CDT)

This is so stupid. it's not a controversy. so it pisses off a few people. wah. that doesn't make it a controversy. it's once a year and big freaking whoop. most people ignore it or don't give two shits. - Matt

Why the hell are we even arguing this? The section is labeled "Controversy". This is most definitely a "controversy." The decision to print pictures of gays kissing have not only elicited a lot of letters pro and con, but also several editorials written by the editors-in-chief--they apparently think their decision to print these pictures is controversial.

This has also elicited a full-blown apology--which is controversial in itself, and I don't think has ever done before in recent Daily history. Matt seems to to think by mentioning that, OMG, people get stirred up when the Daily prints these pictures is some slur on the Daily's credibility. If you don't like the fact that you go to a school where this kind of thing is a "controversy," then stop bitching and go to Grinnell.agape 00:35, 6 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Controversy: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views

I think the whole "gay thing" counts. Cburnett 23:07, 6 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Why protect. Just let it revert back and forth. Matt will get tired of it soon enough Its not that big of a deal. I think protecting a page should only be saved for extream examples of abuse or vandalism.G-RAM 11:18, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Or just block matt for a day...hmmm Cburnett 11:32, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

naw man, just let the process of community consensus work itself out. G-RAM 11:40, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

I've learned that nothing is ever solved in a revert war except who's got less patience. Patience isn't a measure of consensus. So I'll start a vote here. Cburnett 14:04, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Well not on individual scale, but as an aggregate of which side is more invested in the article it might seem that just letting it revert back in forth a while would be ok. Eventually someone gives up, ya know concede the point, in other words consensus. I mean its not like either version was bad. One just appears slightly better in my opinon.G-RAM 14:09, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

[edit] Vote to keep gay bit

Write whether your support or oppose it's inclusion and your rationale and sign.

• Support, seems controversial to me. Heck, even the inclusion of it as controversial has proven controversial... Cburnett 14:04, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

• Support G-RAM 14:09, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

• Support agape 20:43, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)

If Matt has a good reason why it shouldn't be listed in the controversies, then let's hear it. From what I've seen so far, here and on ST, it seems to be: "Only rednecks think this is a big deal." Which would be a convincing argument if: a) the person who originally posted the controversy, Joel, were a homophobic redneck. b) I were a redneck for clarifying Joel's original point c) whoever finds this a controversy is actually relevant. It's not--let's face it, the status quo of many ISU students is that gay kissing is gross. Hence, more than a few people were riled up by the printing of the photos. That is just the facts.

Both me and Matt have worked at the Daily...but I'm pretty sure I've been there longer and worked closer to the editorial process than Matt did. And I'm not exactly out to rip on my old paper.