Talk:Santa Barbara News-Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This Article is a part of the Santa Barbara County WikiProject. Please contribute!

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

[edit] NPOV?

2/3 of the article documents the Newspress's attempts to stop unionization; it seems as if the editors are somehow biased against the News Press.

I can't verify the claim that 2/3 of the article documents Newpress attempts to stop unionization. 1 out of 14 paragraphs deals with unionization; only a fraction of that paragraph could be interpreted as documentation of an attempt to stop unionization. There is an attempt in that paragraph (as there is throughout the article) to cite the News-Press side of the story, with quotes and links. Perhaps a more specific criticism would result in something in the article that we could alter. snug 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Begin with On July 6, 2006... and start reading and maybe you'll see what I mean.

There are a lot of facts, which are neutrally stated. Most of these facts have nothing to do with the unionization effort, and are verifiable. It could be that there is omission of the News-Press side of the story, although there is some effort to include that. Perhaps you could suggest other points that should be included. snug 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

i think that this section of the SB News-Press should get its own page. Hoyohoyogold 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea... the crisis section (thanks for formatting that) has grown sort of like a tumor, and it weighs down the rest of the article. So at some point (if no-one else jumps in) I'll try to make a division. snug 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this section could definitely use a cleanup but before you use summary style and create a sub-article, please review WP:POVFORK; my only concern would be that the main points be included in a comprehensive npov summary. --L1AM (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this should be split off right now as the article is 38 kb. --L1AM (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... although the 38kb never bothered me; Wikipedia is not paper. Of more concern was the timeline style, although that style was modulated by some topic-type organization. Mainly I didn't want to lose all the secondary references, although I've not had time for a comprehensive reorganization. I must say, though, that the stub on the controversy that is left is not very NPOV, and also not easy to support by secondary referencing... that the departure of Joe Cole is the catalyst is a little elusive in the articles on the topic... that would be good to reference, if you have a reference. Some say the problem has always been there, since McCaw took over... Alan Parsons etc got the boot early on. Oh well, you've made a fair start. snug 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that the section is already outdated!--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't had as much time lately. However, I did just update the list of those separated, then I'll get to further lawyer news, and the NLRB hearing. Back to the list of those separated... this has grown to a Didionesque scale, and for an encyclopedia would be better represented by a table, with links to the supporting references. I don't have time for that little project right now, but I'd welcome help! snug 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Still more needs to be added, but it's updated well enough. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Any specific advice as to what needs to be added? snug 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)