Talk:The Boston Globe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Portal
The Boston Globe is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Boston; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its ISSN information listed. If you can, please provide it.



Contents

[edit] Controversy / Political Bias

Most wiki articles about major newspapers have a section on controversy and accusations of political bias. This article conspicuously lacked one-- so I added it.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expand

this is a rather short article for the most circulated newspaper in New England. I'm sure we can do better than this, just not sure how to go about improving the article.--Alhutch 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon controversy?

I'm going to get rid of the "Cartoon Controversy" section. If they didn't publish the cartoons, than there was no controversy. If their refusal to publish the cartoons led to outcry, than it needs to be sourced. AFAIK nobody really cared that they didn't. -Xcm 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted, but I agree. Including this implies that the Globe was an actual player in the controversy itself, as opposed to merely reporting it, and, to my knowledge, it was not. --Elcocinero 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other controversies

Should mention be made of the Mike Barnicle and Patricia Smith fabrication controversies? Coming right after one another the way they did made the Globe look really bad for a time.--ColForbin 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can write it in a WP:NPOV way, then be bold and do so!
Atlant 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
done, hope people like it.--ColForbin 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on Peter Quinn, and I also suggest deleting the "Big Dig" section unless a citation is provided Mateo LeFou 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Barnicle case was more complicated and less clear-cut. Wasn't the accusation at him more about his re-using his own old material without acknowledging it? I don't think that pure fabrication was ever proven in his case.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section?

I added a couple of lines to History on the false 'GI rape' photographs of 2004 - the story is on a Wikipedia "scandals" page (List_of_United_States_journalism_scandals) and needed to be wiki-linked. I didn't go into any detail - but left 3 citations. Don't you need a controversy section? It might be a bit much for a History section, this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)