Talk:Bear Magazine

Created

Created from personal knowledge, I was one of Richard Bulger's best friends back in the day.... Newstruck 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

100% BEEF Magazine was launched in May 2002, shortly after Bear Magazine folded, by by former employees of BEAR Magazine (including 2 former Bear Magazine Editors) and many of the the contributing writers, photographers and artists responsible for the creative energy of the original "Bear" Magazine. 100% BEEF Magazine is now entering its 7th year of publishing, and continues the publishing tradition started by its predecessor, the Original Bear Magazine, celebrating masculine identities and challenging standards of adult male physical beauty and sexiness.

100% BEEF Magazine, its principals and employees have ABSOLUTELY NO connection to the current owner of BEAR, Bear Omnimedia LLC (Las Vegas, NV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.108.4 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I've gotten a start at bringing this article up to encyclopædic standards by removing commercial links per WP:EL, applying the relevant templates and tags, and rewording POV sections of the text. A fair number of authors have written extensively about Bear magazine over the years; surely we can find some good quality reliable sources with which to support the assertions in the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Official site link

Angina Floss (talk · contribs), it's evident you care passionately about Bear Magazine, and that's terrific and quite understandable; it's certainly a one-of-a-kind publication with a great deal of significant history and cultural significance. I'm curious, because you seem to know a lot of specific info on its publication and history: are you involved with the magazine or its publisher? The reason why the Bear Magazine site is not an acceptable link is clearly spelt out in a particular section of Wikipedia's external links policy. Please take a moment to click this link, which will take you directly to the relevant portion of the policy. The Bear Magazine site is primarily a commercial site, and it's not okay to link to commercial sites, even if they happen to be the official site of the subject of an article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked begins 'Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any.' There's nothing about the official site having to be noncommercial. The section Links normally to be avoided specifically applies only to links which are not to the subject's official site. All the section you've linked to says is you should avoid linking to sites you are connected to personally; it does not prohibit links to commercial sites. Algebraist 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is a history of Angina Floss (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, repeatedly inserting commercial and promotional material into this article. This does not necessarily demonstrate bad faith, nor does it demonstrate that angina floss is affiliated in some capacity with Bear Magazine — he or she may simply be a very passionate fan of Bear Magazine — but either way, we've got a conflict between two provisions of WP:EL. One provision says "Link to the official site". The other provision says "Don't link to commercial sites". There's the additional provision saying "Don't link to sites you're associated with". There're also provisions stating that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise.

It's to be hoped that angina floss will be candid and forthcoming about whatever association s/he may have with Bear or its publisher. However, even in the worst-case scenario (a user is affiliated with the subject entity of an article and does not disclose this affiliation), it seems to me there are still multiple provisions suggesting the Bear Magazine site should not be linked, against a single provision suggesting the site should be linked. We have to figure out how to interpret and apply the various provisions to determine whether the link should stay or go.

It's tempting to look at other articles about magazines — Time Magazine, for example, or Popular Mechanics, and see whether or not those magazines' official sites are linked. In both of those cases, they are. However, there's a critical difference: both of those sites (and most other magazines' sites) contain significant, substantial content. Whole or partial articles from the magazine, archives, articles similar to those found in the magazine, additional resources related to articles in the magazine, that kind of thing. But the Bear Magazine website is almost purely commercial, a conduit for subscriptions and purchases. There are some links, but there is no magazine or magazine-related content available on the site. For that reason, it seems to me the conventions and protocols against linking commercial sites might outweigh the convention of linking an article subject's official site. I certainly could be wrong; I'll leave the link in for the time being. Given the small number of contributors to this article, and the passionate nature of some of the opinions involved, it'd probably be a good idea for us all to grab a cuppa tea and talk the matter over, with all of us making a strong effort to move the article towards closer adherence to Wikipedia protocol and convention, rather than in whatever direction we personally might prefer. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:EL does not say 'don't link to commercial sites'. It says, in the section titled 'Links normally to be avoided', which I linked to above, that commercial links should be avoided except for a link to an official page of the article subject. It also says that you shouldn't link to sites you're connected with, which might justify your removal (which I do not dispute the validity of) of the link when posted by angina floss, but ceases to apply when an uninvolved editor (myself) has decided it should be in. The only thing in WP:EL that could justify removing the link at present is the clause under 'Restrictions on linking' that says that we mustn't link to sites that violate any copyright. Having only glanced at the website in question, I can't say if that applies here, but it's the only criterion in the guideline that might possibly apply. Algebraist 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points here. I'm not sure I agree with you that all it takes is a previously-uninvolved editor (such as yourself) deciding a potentially questionable link should stay. If that were in fact the case, it would provide a very easy workaround for affiliates and SPAs, and could run afoul of several important tenets of what Wikipedia is and isn't (meat puppetry, etc.). That said, I do not mean to suggest you're acting in bad faith here. Rather, the reason I bring it up is that your tone ("I have decided it should be in") might be a little questionable. Wikipedia generally does not operate based on what an individual editor — you, me, or anyone else — just decides. We operate on consensus, which in a case of disputed application of protocol means consensus on the interpretation of whatever points of protocol are in question. It's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive; what you or I think any particular protocol means is less important than a genuine effort we both make to come to an agreement on how to apply the protocol in this particular case. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is no question about how to apply the guideline. The guideline says to link to the official site. The only question is whether to ignore the guideline or not. I don't see anything special about this case that makes it necessary to ignore this guideline which has been established by the general consensus of wikipedians. In particular, many official sites are largely devoted to advertising of a commercial product. But the guideline recommends linking them regardless, and this is indeed the general practice on Wikipedia. In other words, an official site being commercial in nature is not prima facie a special case that requires usual practice to be overruled. On your other point, the section of WP:EL on conflicts of interest recommends that anyone with a conflict of interest over a link should post to the talk page so other people can judge whether they should be included. This is also the advice of WP:COI on contentious, possibly COI, edits. Thus the entire point is that someone else (or several someones) comes along, determines from their unconflicted perspective whether the suggested edits are reasonable, and acts accordingly. The problem you suggest is easily remedied: if possibly questionable material is added to an article, other editors (like yourself in this instance), can question it. After all, the point of the COI guidelines is that people with a conflict of interest may submit dubious material, not that otherwise acceptable material becomes unacceptable simply due to its source. So if a dispute arises as to the propriety of an editor's contributions to an article, the dispute can be resolved by examining the contributions, without worrying about the contributors. Algebraist 00:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say a very interesting debate about adding or deleting the official site of an article's subject; it's truly a question of semantics. Before this continues any further, I'm happy to reveal myself as an employee of Bear Omnimedia, the new owner and publisher of Bear Magazine. If you are up on your Bear history, especially having to do with Bear Magazine, you'll be aware of its glowing beginning which eventually became rather tarnished by the previous publisher. Since then much rumor, speculation and downright lies have circulated around the net; to the point of blurring the lines between truth and myth. Because of my close affiliation, I KNOW what happened and what has taken place between 2002 and now. This knowledge especially applies to Bear Omnimedia and how they became the new publisher. If you'll notice, my contributions include a legal summary of how Bear Omnimedia came into possession of Bear Magazine. Though the new owners of Bear Omnimedia may not care about the validity of the Bear Magazine page on Wikipedia, I DO think it matters. When I first saw the article, it was riddled with marketing copy for 100% Beef Magazine, a magazine which was started by disgruntled employees of the former publisher, which really had no direct relevance at all. The article was also old and claimed the magazine was dead. Because of Bear Omnimedia reviving the magazine, I felt I needed to update the article with correct and current information. If I am guilty for adding links and editing the format, then I am also guilty of following the templates of other magazine articles, such as Time Magazine, Popular Mechanics, Playboy, and all the rest who add all kinds of links and information. I am only interested in the truth and accurate information. As for the link to the official page, the website is what it is right now. The owners are working on getting a much more detailed and informative site up, but unlike Time Magazine, Popular Mechanics and Playboy, its only been up for a month. I agree, it definitely needs to be fleshed out, and I have no doubt it will. Scheinwerfermann, you've apparently done your research and are very passionate at what you do here. Though we may disagree on a few points, I do think that we share the quality of wanting to get at the truth. I have passed along the facts and relevant information to my knowledge. If you feel like removing the facts, then censor all you like. If my affiliation disqualifies me, then sobeit. Angina Floss (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Angina Floss, Thanks for your responses and comments, and especial thanks for identifying yourself as a Bear Omnimedia employee. That doesn't disqualify you from contributing to this article, but it does mean you need to keep in mind the conflict of interest and be careful to follow the relevant Wikipedia protocols. Beyond that, realise that because you're personally involved with the subject of this article, just by human nature it'll be challenging to stay within the boundaries of acceptable factual reporting. It's really easy to edge over into advertising or promotion (whether explicit or implicit), and there's a strong tendency to write from the assumption that your point of view is the uniquely correct one; none of that is okay here. I appreciate the knowledge you have by dint of your position as an insider, but remember, the standard for inclusion here is not what you know, it's what you can prove by reference to acceptable, reliable third-party sources. Justifying an edit with "From personal experience, I know this to be true" will not cut it; you need to be able to back all of your assertions with published factual support.

A couple final things: please take care with your tone on the talk page and remember to assume good faith. It's counterproductive to toss out loaded, accusatory words like "censorship", or to insinuate that there's a band of malcontents out to wrong you. Nobody is trying to censor you here. And please don't make assumptions about other contributors to this (or any other) article. Anyone can edit any article, and it's an error for any of us to assume she is uniquely or exclusively qualified on any particular subject. You may have me in mind as a faceless general Wikipedia editor, but — not to put too fine a point on it — you've no way of knowing how big my beard is, how long I've had it, or why I keep it, eh?

Algebraist, I'm not on a crusade and I'm not interested in digging in my heels. I'm not convinced that it's as clearly black and white as you think in this case, but neither can I strongly disagree with your logic, so I'll defer; the link stays unless something changes significantly and requires a new consensus. I would ask only that you try to be slightly less snippy and strident in your edit summaries. Thanks for your time. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, thank you for your response and I do agree with what you say about personal responses vs. proven facts. Personal views/statements are unavoidable on Wikipedia (not to mention many history books, the Bible, etc.) though many times is the only viable source of information. I know I am only one voice among many and that my words will be edited here, which is not always such a bad thing. I also want to apologize for any tone or insinuation that I wrote, which shows how close I am to the topic...my response required editing as well. As for a beard comparison, I'll take you on anytime my friend. (wink!) Angina Floss (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi all! I've looked at the article and I've read what's been said here. I think that as a starting point you should both Check out Playboy Magazine#External Links and consider whether your desire for inclusion of the link or not is based on POV. After you've checked out the link let me know what you think of the acceptability of linking an external site to an article such as this. Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is pretty much an open and shut case. The Wikipedia guidelines state that the external link should be included in the page and that's my opinion also.

I'll look in again later.

Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue collar, working class...

The last thing I want to do is bring the never-ending BML "what is a bear?" debate to this forum, but it is needlessly and inaccurately restrictive to say that Bear magazine was/is for those who admire "blue collar" and "working class" men. Certainly that's a significant focus of attraction for some bears, and a major marketing/mythology angle within the community, but there're plenty of suit-and-tie white-collar types, as well — both reading the magazine and featured in it. I've reworked the lead paragraph to give an appropriately-inclusive description of the subject matter and target audience as a whole. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a very generically worded introduction, seems good. Are we done with the dispute that asked for WP:3? Can I close the case?

Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead and close it, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"bart" being the German word for "bear"

The German substantive "Bart" means "beard" while the English substantive "bear" is the German word for "Bär". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.97.97 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)