Talk:The Post-Standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clinton Square The Post-Standard is part of WikiProject Syracuse, New York, a project which aims to coordinate work for and expand coverage of Syracuse, New York and related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.
This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its ISSN information listed. If you can, please provide it.



I removed the Wikipedia controversy section. I urge everyone to have a sense of scale. ONE Post-Standard columnist wrote ONE article about us. And ONE assistant editor followed up with our reaction. Who cared? Us and a couple of blogs. Everyday, there is a group criticized in the pages of the Post-Standard, and within that group there is a hissing reception. Lets give a balanced encyclopedic treatment to this article, and not allow our minor conflict with the paper to spill into this entry. Lotsofissues 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I object because of the following reasons:
  • It wasn't that minor all. Despite this being in a medium-szied paper, this wasn't all that small an issue. You'll find over 1,000 results on Google for "Al Fasoldt Wikipedia" [1]
  • As far as I know, no Wikipedia commonly-accepted policy states that issues like this can't be published. If you think this is an issue you should take it up in the appropriate channels.
  • This article has been up for months like this and is one of the best known early Wikipedia media cases. Of course it is has now been dwarfed by the John Seigenthaler Sr. issue, but this was an early case of Wikipedia:Press_coverage. If it wasn't for this coverage, the this article wouldn't have existed as long as does. (See first version of this article.
  • Wikipedia:Is_Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia
  • Not to mention that this article is pretty balanced. There is mention, for example, of that favorable rating by Al Neuharth.
  • You left the Syracuse_Post-Standard#Investigations section. This is nothing different but a bunch of articles either.
  • Its presence doesn't even speak bad about this paper. The fact that Al Fasoldt stated his (actually revoked his original opinion as a result of a librarian) doesn't mean anything. Only a few die-hard Wikipedians might be offended by the fact that Fasoldt wrote this opinion in the first place.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Syracuse Post-Standard → The Post-Standard – Name of paper -newkai t-c 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support– I live in Syracuse and have never heard it called the "Syracuse Post-Standard"; only "The Post-Standard".
    Darry2385 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Other examples:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Remove the Wikipedia section

It is quite astounding that anyone thinks that the wikipedia contreversy section is deserving of 1/5 of this article, let alone merit inclusion. This certainly was not a major incidence in the history of the newspaper nor is it encyclopedic in any way. I believe that it should be removed. 138.16.12.232 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A few months and no objections later, I went ahead and removed the section completely. It seems to be of incredibly minor significance in the overall history of the paper. heqs ·:. 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)