Talk:Santa Barbara News-Press controversy

message: I think the `proseline' criticism is no longer valid.  Of course, the Didionesque list will be objectionable to some, and I'd prefer to make a nice table/list out of that, but I don't have the time.  So the article could use more editing, but I think it is above the median for Wiki... snug 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With not a single heading, this article is an unreadable unencyclopedic mess, far below the WP median. -- Jibal 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK... thanks for the observation snug 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proseline

message: I think when you have 30 or so references in a row, we really needs to reevaluate some things. --waffle iron talk 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The independent website links have all been fixed. Great job, snugspout. Butterand (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: A blog is not a reliable source that can be used as a reference for citing facts in articles. exceptions are for BLP articles when the blog run by the BLP subject is referenced. That is not the case here. Piperdown 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing those references is incorrect in this case.  The Blogs you removed simply are reliable sources, and your removal of the references without prior discussion or contact is near-vandalism of the article.  The blogasphere in Santa Barbara has blossomed due to the travails of the News-Press, and the Independent regularly follows up and references to the Craig Smith blog, for example.  I would like to revert the article to its pre-July 11 form, but I believe in discussing before taking precipitous actions.  Concerning the address: I already reverted that because it is not the home of anyone, it is an empty lot.snug 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I just put one reference in, where the Santa Barbara Independent followed up on the original Craig Smith Blog entry concerning the response of Lou Cannon to Wendy McCaw.  Craig Smith is a recognized expert on Santa Barbara media issues, who appeared as a regular commentator on local and national TV during the Michael Jackson trial here, prior to the News-Press controversy.  One of his blog entries per week is published in the Daily Sound, a print newspaper in Santa Barbara.  I think his blog qualifies under the guidelines, since he is a recognized expert who appeared in editorially-supervised media outlets prior to the topic of the article.  In any case, he simply is a reliable source, and that fact makes his blog satisfy the Wikipedia policy, although one could quibble about whether his blog satisfies the guideline.  I think the only way to deal with the deletion of all the references to his blog is to revert the article. snug 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A source is not unreliable merely by virtue of being labeled a blog.  Craig Smith is a former DA and a law professor at the local college, appears on local TV news as an expert on legal affairs, writes a column for the Daily Sound that he republishes on his blog, has been reporting on this case since it started, and many of the principles in this "controversy", including Lou Cannon, the fired reporters, and News-Press representatives such as Barry Capello and David Millstein talk directly to Smith, with their comments published on his blog often being picked up by local media.  Craig Smith is an entirely reliable source by the dictionary definition of the word. Wikipedia, as part of the shift toward non-commercial on-line information sources, is institutionally hypocritical if its policies don't recognize this shift. -- Jibal 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Taking a look for the first time, this is a violation of NOT NEWS--as containing unencyclopedic blow-by-blow detail out of all proportion to the importance of the events. The dispute is certainly notable, and worth an article. A reasonable one. . Essentially, without it, it strikes me a unbalanced POV; much of the specifics are inadequately documented and as they stand, are OR: e.g. "after the newspaper failed to bargain in good faith for six months,"  I've removed one unencyclopedic list of staff names, just as a starting point, and tagged for NPOV and OR. Perhaps those who know this best are the best ones to do the further cutting. DGG (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: excessive unencyclopedic detail and related problems. 

message: I have cleaned up the article in response to the above comments and removed the two tags, concerning WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research. Feel free to put them back if you want. In editing the article, I have moved most of the information regarding union organizing at the newspaper to a new page, Labor relations at the Santa Barbara News-Press (the original article was getting really long). There is still a lot of work to do, mostly dealing with the References. I discovered very many dead links, and I think many of the references are not complete. I've corrected some of them and will work on the others soonest. Yours very sincerely, in friendship, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you -- greatly.  It's looking much improved.  I haven't really wanted to edit it myself, having lived here through the whole thing, and having certain strong opinions about the matter.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup in response to the above comments 

message: When there is a request for a source or a clarification, please make them instead of simply deleting the requests. Otherwise, those particular sentences are just ripe for deletion altogether. Sincerely, 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and clarifications needed