Talk:Daily Illini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comment

I don't know if it warrants inclusion in the article, but as a early 1990's DI reader, a bit of trivia is that we used to give the paper the derisive term of "Daily Death", It was referred in that manner due to the relatively low editorial standards in the paper (probably a common issue with other college papers as well, I do not know). In the end, though, it was our paper, and so we loved it.

Reporters, photographers and other student workers don't actually get paid as much as intern. It's very small pay.

This Middle East section is about a too-recent controversy to include in an encyclopedia article. It isn't needed to balance any other information in the article. It seems to be thrown in just to say, see, the paper isn't perfect (no one will assume it is).

Also, don't cap every "university." Might be DI style but it isn't here.

DavidH

I agree, the "controversy" is not notable. I will delete soon if no one raises an objection. Thesquire 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This has been done. Thesquire 09:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have an objection. I think it is very notable to have the controversy with Israel-Palestine. It is something that was covered very heavily and has been repeated a number of times throughout the history of the paper. To delete such an integral "news" item for the paper is revisionism. In addition it makes the post seem current and all-encompassing of the news around the paper. --UofIMedStudent 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with UofIMedStudent on including some discussion of the controversy. Although I was not aware of the controversy, it appears that it was widely covered in other media. The fact that the newspaper itself was the news (rather than reporting the news) is relevant. The amount of space devoted to the coverage, however, seems a little too much in relationship to the complete article. Compromise by editing it down? -- DS1953 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A paragraph then, no more, hitting up the high points only and not giving a blow-by-blow account of the past three years. Thesquire 22:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Mariam Sobh really a notable alum? Also, University refers to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, not just any university. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Superdosh (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I moved her back. The sentence nowhere said that they have to be notable, so since you you probably thought this to be appropriate I added it to the sentence. Please make revisions directly in the text, so that I do not have to guess your intentions. Regards, gidonb 09:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Apologies. A bit new to this. I meant notable in the literal sense ("worth mentioning"). Thanks, Superdosh 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Welcome at en.wikipedia! I would say that if she is worthy of an article, she is notable in the literal sense. Perhaps only a little less than the others. But please go ahead and edit as you think is appropriate. Best, gidonb 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No evidence has been identified

The article states: No evidence has been identified to demonstrate systemic bias within the newspaper itself. Is that phrase a conclusion of the original research of one of the contributors to the article? gidonb 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It was the best I could come up with to summarize and replace the multiple paragraphs that were there before. Personally, I think that entire section didn't add anything to the article before I altered it, hence my bold removal of it earlier that sparked the above discussion. People squawked when I removed it, but no one stepped up to pare it down the way they wanted it to, so what's in that section is mostly my work. If you want to take a crack at doing a better job, be my guest. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I was the author of the original Israel-Palestine section, but only because I was extremely bored at work one day, and realized that, as a former opinions editor, it was the only section I could create with some authority. If we're treating entries in Wikipedia as information that should withstand the test of time, then I agree it should be cut. Contraversies like these are a dime a dozen, and four years from now, it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. DOScrash 16:20, 17 February 2006 (CST)

[edit] Merge Gorton & Prochaska

There is very little notable biographical info available on Chuck Prochaska or Acton Gorton. Most of their bios are the same, using text taken from this article. Relevant biographical details are so few that we can inclue them in passing ("..., who served as a journalist in Iraq"...). -Will Beback 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because the articles aren't complete doesn't mean they can't be beefed up. I don't think all the biographical details abuot those two should make it in here, and I think there is more than that in those articles. -- Jbamb 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Are they notable for anything other than publishing the cartoons? -Will Beback 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No, not yet, but that's not reason to merge their bio's into an article. That's not a merge, that's a delete. -- Jbamb 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a possibility too. Non-notability is a fine reason to merge or delete. We should certainly mention the guys' names in covering the matter here, but there's not much else to say about them. -Will Beback 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well it seems like you are more asking to delete than merge. This article already mentions them and the controversy, merging their biographical details here is inappropriate, so I think we are looking at deletion or nothing here. As much that is mentioned about the controversy is already mentioned here. I don't see the point of talking about their biographies in this article, that would just be cruft here. So I say either AfD their bios or leave them. Merging doesn't strike me as the solution. -- Jbamb 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Same difference. Either way we'd probably keep the redirects and the references to them here. So if you prefer I can switch this to an AFD. -Will Beback 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think a redirect makes much sense, I don't think a merge makes sense because we aren't exactly going to merge content. All the content is here already that we'd write in. So if you want to AfD it fine, I just don't see how a merge would be anything less than a sanitized delete. -- Jbamb 01:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(Resetting margin) I think its worth seeing if the Gorton and Prochaska articles go anywhere over the next year. They're certainly notable now, and it's hard to say if in a year we'll care about who exactly made the decision versus caring about the fact that it was the Daily Illini. (Or maybe they'll be notable for other reasons by then.) So I'd be against a merge (and a delete). -- Superdosh 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll defer to the two of you on that since you both agree and . However, since the description of the incicdent is repeated three times, can we consolidate that into one or two paragraphs here? It seems repetitive to have virtually the same text in three places, considering how short the articles are. -Will Beback 04:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure it would make sense to remove it it either of the three places. It makes sense to be on the DI page, and removing it from the bios doesn't make sense because that's the main source of notability. -- Jbamb 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also leave it for now, but I suspect in a few months these two will be junior staffers on some non-notable regional paper (or in law school, like many of the editors from my days at Illini Media) and they will be no more notable than the average man on the street. At that point, as DOScrash notes above regarding the dustup on the Israel-Palestine section, it will likely become clear that "it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things" and the non-encyclopedic nature of this material be obvious - and ripe for an AfD. -- DS1953 talk 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge the editors (2nd discussion)

It's now been three months since the last comments about the of merging Chuck Prochaska and Acton Gorton to this article, and nothing seems to have come of either of them. Should we merge?--Chaser T 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the proper tags. I'll merge them in a week if I don't get any comments here.--Chaser T 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree to either merge or delete. There is a lot of incomplete information in their articles. For example, they were not fired due to their decision to print the cartoons. At least not officially, officially they were suspended for advertizing irregularities or some such rubbish. I consider them significant because, the actual act of firing them just after the publishing, meant that it might be construed that they were fired for exercising the freedom of the media. They were heavily covered by the tv, radio and print media, both individually and together, nationally and internationally. The daily illini has enough controversies every few years to keep it a seperate article. From the looks of it, Acton Gorton at least (who is suing the daily illini with the ACLU) is not going to be out of the limelight any time soon. -Arvind Badrinarayanan (Reporter for the daily illini 2003-2006)

I agree with the merger proposal. The editors are not notable outside of their editorships, which can be covered best in this article. -Will Beback 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Agree with the merge as well. Everything you said, Arvind, is true. But it's not at all independent of the Daily Illini. It could be added to this page as new information is gathered. Superdosh 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


So what is gained by merging? The editors were the first in the country to publish the cartoons in a college paper, and probably the third in the country over all. All the other editors, even the so called big shots in the mainstream media, were deathly afraid of printing the cartoons because they thought there would be violent retributions. What resulted was the two proved the mainstream editors wrong and showed a clear double standard exists in popular journalism. Plenty of people are celebrated for firsts, so it seems that the only reason to delete mention of them or merge them would be because you don't like their decision. How many authors who wrote one book and disappeared are listed in WikiPedia? The very fact of having the seperate articles of them is so someone can learn more about them without having to clutter up the Daily Illini Wiki. As it stands, it's not hurting anything so why the fuss? If you didn't mind seeing the names mentioned, then this discussion would not be going on. Are you upset that maybe someone is becoming more famous than you? Maybe even more upset because you don't respect their decision? Just drop the issue. - PA_FIRE
These two haven't even written a book. They made a single controversial editoral decision in a college newspaper. We have standards of notability which these two do not seem to have met. The "what harm does it do" argument could be applied to every junk article that gets created. The reason we remove unimportant topics is the same reason that editors of newspapers cut articles. Impugning our motives does not help your case. -Will Beback 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I listed this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to see if outside editors would have any thoughts. No hurry, after all. Arvind, I couldn't find anything on the internet about Gorton suing with the ACLU. Do you have any weblinks indicating that? I didn't find anything on Lexis, either. Finally, I should note that mergers are not permanent. If he becomes individually notable later, we can always de-merge.--Chaser T 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Pentagon Papers was a single editorial decision too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers). Are you going to take that out? The Pentagon Papers decision was very significant for it's time, and so is this. Maybe the Mohammad cartoons didn't result in a Supreme Court decision, but the people involved in deciding to print the Mohammad cartoons are significant to this era. You're applying a very arbitrary sense of reasoning that it seems only you can apply. It's pretty obvious that just because YOU think it's not significant, it therefore must not be significant. That's censorship at it's best. - PA_FIRE
Your hostility will not help your case, PA_FIRE. Your argument is a non sequitur. The Muhammad cartoons do have their own page, as do the Pentagon Papers. I suppose your comment would be why does Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers have his own article? Simple: Because he's done a lot of things besides leaking the Papers (although b/c of the magnitude, he'd have his own page anyway, I suspect) -- e.g. the Ellsberg paradox in decision theory.
Further, this is hardly arbitrary. We're arguing the matter in full on this page before doing anything to the individual articles. No decisions have been made. (Incidentally, censorship is the use of governmental power to restrict free speech. There is no censorship on Wikipedia.)
If you stop yourself from ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs, you could influence the decision the community takes. Wikipedia tries to build consensus before making changes. -- Superdosh 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh garbage, all of it. Ad hominem attacks -- seriously, that's a really crappy buzz word. And censorship, no, it doesn't always have to come from the government, that's a naive understanding of it. What you all are doing is judging someone's prominance because you think it's insignificant. You can't argue past that, and I'm willing to bet you won't seriously address it. - PA_FIRE
[removed personal attack]].
This encyclopedia devotes an enormous amount of space to the cartoon controversy, and even this article has 295 words about it. The fact is that college newspaper editors do controversial things all of the time. Unlike the Pentagon Papers, these two people didn't do anything illegal, didn't go up against the U.S. government, didn't reveal state secrets, or anything else dramatic. Wikipedia is a long-term project. If these two people are truly notable then they'll still be notable later on. -Will Beback 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
They were fired for standing up for something they believed in -- freedom of speech. No other college paper editors were fired. They were all over the news, including: NY Times, Chicago Tribunes, LA Times, Associated Press. They appeared on Fox News twice and repeatedly on local television stations. They were massively covered in the blogosphere: Glen Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, Eric Zorn. They did interviews with NPR, Larry Elders, ManCow. Googling the names brings up 13,200 hits. They have a pending legal case with representation from a Muslim lawyer, Junaid Afeef. The ACLU and other civil liberty watchdog groups deplored their firing and released several press releases against their persecution. They proved that Muslims in this country will not respond violently to disagreeable speech, despite what the rest of the media predicted would happen.
So with all this, it's YOUR opinion that they didn't do anything significant. You are doing nothing but using an arbitrary guideline, up to your own discretion, to develop an argument to suit your conclusion. You want it merged, and for what? I honestly don't believe your intentions are altruistic, despite your argument for the WikiPedia mission statement, because you are asserting and arguing your personal opinion.
Merely saying, "if they're notable than they'll be notable later on," frankly just doesn't hold water. You are dismissing what they are notable for. On top of that, you are trying to destroy their notability by erasing their track record. That's extremely poor taste for a WikiPedia editor. - PA_FIRE
Also, that was a cheap shot at dismissing the _FACT_ that you have an apparant double standard by allowing superdosh to maintain a profile without acknowleding that the two editors are, in fact, notable. - PA_FIRE
Every editor may register and get a user page. There is no requirement for notability. If you don't know how Wikipedia operates then your complaints about its operations aren't helpful. You are welcome to join us and contribute, but sniping and whining aren't welcome. -Will Beback 00:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
PA_FIRE, all the media coverage I've seen barely mentions the editors' names, and otherwise talks about the paper itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, providing links to the relevant media coverage of the individuals. In any case, with merging, much of the content from the current articles would be retained and put in this article. That's hardly censorship, no matter who the actor is.--Chaser T 04:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking carefully at the articles for both Gorton and Prochaska, it's hard to see anything worth merging. Should we nominate both for deletion via AfD?--Chaser T 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Turning them into redirects would be simpler, but an AfD would be more thorough. I support either move. -Will Beback 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Both are now redirected. Thanks, everyone!--Chaser T 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November controversy and alleged email

Several IP's have been edit warring over the inclusion of an email allegedly written by the University's Chancellor. I am removing that line from this article, as no one has been able to provide an actual source, just a promise that verification will be coming. If that is true, then the respective sentence can be included when that verification comes, in the form of a newspaper article, a press release, or some other published source. It need not be on the web, but it must be published, and a citation must appear in this article, so that the reader can verify the information, not in the edit summary as has happened before. This is in keeping in compliance with wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Chaser T 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misidentifying the party affiliation of a politician is, unfortunately, a common mistake by news outlets. It's barely notable, except in the context of increased scrutiny of the editorial page. And that is the current context, so it seems to be handled properly. Regarding the alleged email, we'll just have to wait until it's reported somewhere. We can't base our encyclopedia on privately obtained emails. -Will Beback · † · 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight... paper documents are not verifiable or reliable, the Freedom of Information Act is not verifiable or reliable, but FUCKING BLOGS are reliable? Is there any better statement that shows why wikipedia can be such a joke? -- 74.134.242.248 19:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what blogs you're referring to, but they are generally not considered a valid source according to WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. As to this recent addition, I'm not sure how the reader is supposed to verify "FOIA Request, November 30, 2006", since the information hasn't been published anywhere. The reader would have to also file a FOIA request to verify the information.--Chaser T 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The IP editor commented that the material "will appear in News Gazette shortly." If that's the case then let's wait until it does. -Will Beback · † · 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let UIUC publish it themselves or wait for an actual newspaper to print it. Your comment about blogs is not an acceptable answer and posting a phone number is also unacceptable. Wait for it to be published. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Your addition is original research and is unverifiable by others. Please wait until a reliable source publishes this material. --Dual Freq 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor persists in adding in the portion about the Chancellor's letter despite the fact that several others have noted the lack of evidence. Is there anything that can be done to ensure that the unsubstantiated report does not continue to be written into the article until incontrovertible evidence emerges? -vagrant829

He or she has now inserted it three times in the last 24 hours after repeated explanation of why it is inappropriate and several 3rr warnings. The next time he reinserts it (even if not violative of the letter of 3rr), he or she will probably be blocked. I've warned of as much on the IP talk page.--Chaser T 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Learn what "verifiable" means. It means it can be verified. The Internet is not the sole source of the entire body of human knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.242.248 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
In this context, it means verifiable by ordinary means, such as going to a library. Calling the dean is not considered a normal form of verification. If you have the FOIA document in front of you why don't you scan it and post it? Or even better, what happened to the local newspaper you said would run a piece about it? Did they decide it wasn't true or not newsworthy? -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
First it was a link to a massmail it didn't exist. Then it was an impending publication of a Champaign News Gazette article because of a FOIA that was filed by a "local journalist," a story that the paper would have most likely published as soon as it had the e-mail because of the nature of the e-mail. Now it's that the poster himself filed the FOIA and supposedly obtained the letter himself. In the meantime, the poster continues to ask the other editors to verify the existence of the letter and continues to shift the burden of proof away from himself, which is clearly against Wikipedia policies, and now has ignored repeated warnings about violating the 3RR policy. I wonder if it would be best to prevent further edits of this article until further notice since the editor seems intent on continuing to persist with his unsubstantiated assertion. Vagrant829 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Editor at 74.134.242.248 again reverted the previous edits to include the bit about the Chancellor. Something must be done. Vagrant829 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)