Talk:The Dorchester Review

Problematic lead

A former version of the lead looked like this:

The Dorchester Review, while styling itself as "a captivating journal of history and historical commentary," is actually a non-peer-reviewed magazine of history and historical commentary published semi-annually.

This is problematic for several reasons. First of all, the phrase is taken from their Twitter page, and sources about themselves should not be unduly self-serving (which if the editor took the time to read the whole section should've noticed). The word "captivating" is definitely self-serving and does not adhere to our neutral point of view policy. The "actually" later in the lead is also problematic, as the two clauses are not necessarily opposites. Meanwhile, there's also a problem with due weight, since this controversy about what the journal claims to be is quite insignificant. The whole sentence just makes for a strange lead that isn't a great overview of the subject. The phrase has been moved to the body, let me know if you still have any questions. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 05:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

There is much in dispute in this article. Please make your case for the changes that have been made in the last week. Edit requests will be based on consensus. Risker (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Current Infobox: editor = C. P. Champion, Michael R. Jackson Bonner, James W.J. Bowden, F.H. Buckley, Philip Marchand, John Pepall, Phyllis Reeve, Alastair Sweeny

Suggest adding a second ref: editor = C. P. Champion, Michael R. Jackson Bonner, James W.J. Bowden, F.H. Buckley, Philip Marchand, John Pepall, Phyllis Reeve, Alastair Sweeny, Huntingleaf (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Huntingleaf (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Noting that the "about the author" reference identifies *only* C. P. Champion as the editor; the rest are contributing editors, which is not the same thing. Risker (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking online, "The Team" makes no distinction between "editor" and "contributing editors". Take a look here: https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/pages/about-the-author Huntingleaf (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay they may be part of the "team" but are they all editors? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Request disabled due to lack of consensus for change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Hard copies of the journal have a masthead, and the indication is that they are "contributing editors" and therefore, presumably, all "editors" Huntingleaf (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Semi-popular"

This keeps being added without a reference source, and appears to the be the personal opinion of the editor. It seems to depend on the editor's personal definition of the term. I want to see a third-party reference source that uses this descriptor for the magazine. Wikipedia articles are not the place to add personal research ("anyone who's read the magazine") or personal opinion. Risker (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

not not not

Am I the only one who is annoyed by multiple negations such as [..] and anthropologist Hymie Rubenstein criticized[29] Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Marc Miller's rebuke of those that criticized "the nature and validity of these and other recovery efforts" following the announcement of the discovery of potentially unmarked grave at the St Joseph's Mission School?

Such texts should not be brainteasers, even simple brainteasers, which you have to solve before you get to the actual information of who supported which position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)