Talk:Houston Chronicle/Archive 1

message: As it stands, this article is unbalanced.  A page of criticism and three sentences about the paper itself is not adequate.  From WP:NPOV:  The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:As usual, you are free to add other sections if you like. If you think a history of the paper is proper, or perhaps something about its reporters or its circulation or its style, then by all means add it. To date however, your efforts seem to have been directed almost entirely to deconstructing existing content and inserting extraneous POV material about Tom DeLay. IOW, don't complain about the lack of materials you desire when you are unwilling to add them yourself. Rangerdude 01:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough. Once again, you are free to add other material if you wish. My point is don't complain if you are unwilling to do the work. Rangerdude 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect.  We are not here to be partisans, relying on tit-for-tat editing to achieve balance.  Each of us has an obligation as Wikipedians to strive for balance in each article.  Johntex 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits are still strictly voluntary. While balance is desirable (and again I'm fully supportive of adding a counterbalancing history of the paper etc. at the top), time and interest is also prohibitive. You contribute what you can when you can, and seeing as others all have the freedom to contribute as well, there's no basis in complaining about the absence of something unless you are willing to add it yourself. I see you've added some things and I thank you for that & hope Katefan will follow your lead.  Rangerdude 20:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that everyone should contribute "what [they] can when [they] can".  However, they have a responsibility to do so in the proper way.  What they contribute must strive for balance.  It would not be within Wikipedia policy for me to create an article highly critical of Random Topic with the expectation that someone else will come along and add purely positive things until the criticism and the praise balances out.  It is up to each of us to strive for NPOV within our own edits.  If I add criticism, I should endeavor to balance it with the other side of the issue.  If you have time to add one side of a controversy, you have to make time to add the other side of the controversy in order to stay within Wikipedia's NPOV mandate. Johntex 20:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Information about a contractor dispute does not really belong in a section designed to talk about the people who work for the paper.  Besides which, it is a big company.  Companies get sued all the time.  I doubt this dispute even rises to the level of encyclopedic content.  For now, I'm moving it down to the dispute section.  Johntex 22:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That complaint is uncyclopedic.  It is also a clear-cut case of bias to include the statement "In 2003 a lawsuit by a group of former Chronicle distributors alleged that the paper artificially inflated its circulation numbers by delivering excess copies to gradeschool reading programs and by bribing auditors with alcohol and visits to strip clubs." without including any response form the article.  It is no wonder the article has to remain under the NPOV tag with those types of edits.  Johntex 22:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: While combing through the January, 2006, obituaries without a Wikipedia article, I came across Richard Johnson (publisher), publisher of the Houston Chronicle for some time.  I haven't sourced it but wanted to tag it as an article stub.
Deatonjr 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Johnson 

message: I like the idea of referring to the Pulitzer Prize.  However, it would be great if we can find a more specific reference for the statement that the paper is the only one in its size class not to have won a ?  The footnote goes to the Pullitzer main page.  It would be a tedious exercise to go through all winners in all categories to verify that (1) the Chronicle is not there and (2) every other paper in its "size class" is there.  Also, what do we consider its "size class"?  My suggestion would be the top 20 papers by circulation.  Johntex 23:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulitzer Prize 

message: To talk about the Hearst Corporation's role in yellow journalism within the confines of the Hearst article is desirable and proper.  To mention it offhand here as a way of casting aspersions on the Houston Chronicle's practices is not.  The Chronicle did not become part of the Hearst Corporation until long after the era of yellow journalism was over. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, I dont know if it ever ended. This source says the Chronicle is Hearst's largest . Perhaps that should go in the intro. Nobs01 21:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur - to state that the "era of yellow journalism" is over is an opinion in itself, passing judgment on what constitutes yellow journalism. A reasonable argument could be made, for example, that the light rail memo scandal was a revival or continuation of yellow journalism at its worst. Rangerdude 14:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow journalism 

message: A recent editor added the word "controversy" with the comment:
:revert stalker edit re: "controversy" - def. n. " A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - not a POV term
Does this mean that every issue covered in an opinion piece that generates an opposing letter to the editor is a "controversy" and must be so labelled by us? And that calling something a controversy doesn't imply a certain view of the situation?  Whew, this article is gonna get long! How about we just say what happened and let readers decide if it's a controversy or not? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
:Not necessarily if the opposition is minor, but an opinion piece that generates several hundred opposing letters and some 4,000 opposing criticisms of the author certainly does...and Jensen did just that. Rangerdude 08:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Controversy"

message: how about a newer pic? Savidan 04:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: The chronicle continues to drop numbers every year I think someone should make a secion about this I work for the chronicle and they are actually hiding it from the a lot of the people that work for the chronicle how bad it really is it cost a lot of money to put out those papers and no new ads and the thing is sold so cheap that its just not working  —Preceding unsigned comment added by they are going to a internet paper so why was it deleted69.151.106.53 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEWSPAPER Circulation Down  

message: * http://www.lavozdehouston.com redirects to the Spanish section
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Alt link

message: These are in Spanish, but I don't know where they would go...
*Walker, Lance Scott. "Para recibir el Año Nuevo." Houston Chronicle. Friday December 30, 2005.
**Alternate link: Walker, Lance Scott. "Depachanga / Para recibir el Año Nuevo." Houston Chronicle. Friday December 30, 2005. La Vibra 17. 2 Star Edition.
*Jenkins, Jeff. "Mendez, boxeador de 14 anos, celebra exito." Houston Chronicle. Thursday July 17, 2003. ThisWeek 11.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles in Spanish

message: A Houston Press article on a Chronicle 1990s diversity initiative:
*Fleck, Tim. "Seeds of Trouble, Part II." Houston Chronicle. Thursday September 15, 1994.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronicle and diversity

message: I've significantly trimmed down the section. O'Reilly's disputes with the paper aren't really all that notable, and the section on liberal bias had a lot of unsourced claims. I think the section on the light rail controversy is still too long, though I'm not sure how to achieve a balance between information and undue weight. If it's really that significant, it might deserve its own article, or a more detailed summary in METRORail. wctaiwan (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism again 

message: Here is an XML document I found:
* http://www.chron.com/sitemap/2085000-2090000.xml - It has URLs of some articles. "View source" will show you the URLs.
* http://www.webcitation.org/6BcPIhvuS - The URLs display immediately on webcitation
* http://www.chron.com/sitemap/2015000-2020000.xml
* http://www.webcitation.org/6BdK6KYor
* http://www.chron.com/sitemap/2110000-2115000.xml
* http://www.webcitation.org/6CMDq7n1n
* http://www.chron.com/sitemap/2095000-2100000.xml
* http://www.webcitation.org/6CMDoN1xg
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: XML with URLs of articles

message: If you have a Houston Public Library card you can get online copies of Chronicle articles beginning in 1985. You can access them here: http://www.houstonlibrary.org/newspapers (see "Houston Chronicle" and click the link) - Just provide a library card number and you can access them.
This does not include Houston Post articles or Chronicle articles from before 1985. For those, you have to go get microfilms at the Houston Public Library Main Library, the University of Houston Main library, or possibly other places.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Houston Chronicle articles 1985 onwards are available from the HPL website 

message: Please note that the final 3 Ip edits were made by me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferTheEmpress0 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE 

message: "Plagiarism" means unattributed copying of someone else's work. It sounds like the Ward incident was a question of fabricating sources rather than "plagiarism". Muzilon (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 "plagiarism" scandal subheading?