Talk:Tulsa World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article is of High-importance within WikiProject Oklahoma. |
| This article is supported by Taskforce Tulsa. |
I would like to suggest that the second paragraph of this article is biased and inflammatory. Partisan criticism can be attached to any newspaper, and often is, but I feel that the Tulsa World is sufficiently mainstream (this article even states as much) that it can by no means be viewed as "notorious" in this way. Stephendedalus82 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This article clearly shows bias in the second paragraph. I would be one to strike it altogether. As well, I dispute the "liberal" label on the World. It may be seen as liberal compared to the Daily Oklahoman, I think even the Washington Times would be considered liberal compared to the Oklahoman. As well, the World endorsed GW Bush in the last two elections. --D Wilbanks 06:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I pulled the NPOV tag and cleaned up the article. A few of the statements need to be sourced, but I hope it captures the two points that a) the World is an "advocating" paper that rubs people the wrong way (especially conservatives), but b) to call them a liberal paper is ridiculous because they don't meet any of the standards of a liberal paper (e.g. endorsing Kerry/Gore). --D Wilbanks 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone from the World (209.184.242.241 traces back to tulsaworld.com) deleted the old version of the article and replaced it with what appears to be a boilerplate history of the paper (unwikified). I took the liberty of merging the history into the previous version of the article. I am unclear as to whether this history is under copyright and there able to be published under the Creative Commons. I would appreciate some help in determining the copyright status of that section, as well as some cites of historical facts included. --D Wilbanks 08:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ref for political leaning. Needs criticism section
The politcal section was a mess with unsourced material. I have integrated unrelated material into the history section and removed some of the things that were obviously opinion (and seemingly written by a world staffer). Hopefully we can get some refs soon for the paper's political affiliation, which I'm sure is to the left. Also, it needs a criticism section, as there has been plenty of criticism of the paper's bias with different local issues. If anyone finds a ref for these things, just drop it off and I'd be happy to integrate it into the article. Okiefromokla•talk 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
