Talk:The Daily Illini

message: I don't know if it warrants inclusion in the article, but as a early 1990's DI reader, a bit of trivia is that we used to give the paper the derisive term of "Daily Death",  It was referred in that manner due to the relatively low editorial standards in the paper (probably a common issue with other college papers as well, I do not know).  In the end, though, it was our paper, and so we loved it.
Reporters, photographers and other student workers don't actually get paid as much as intern. It's very small pay.
This Middle East section is about a too-recent controversy to include in an encyclopedia article. It isn't needed to balance any other information in the article. It seems to be thrown in just to say, see, the paper isn't perfect (no one will assume it is). 
Also, don't cap every "university." Might be DI style but it isn't here. 
DavidH
I agree, the "controversy" is not notable.  I will delete soon if no one raises an objection.  Thesquire 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I moved her back. The sentence nowhere said that they have to be notable, so since you you probably thought this to be appropriate I added it to the sentence. Please make revisions directly in the text, so that I do not have to guess your intentions. Regards, gidonb 09:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. A bit new to this. I meant notable in the literal sense ("worth mentioning"). Thanks, Superdosh 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome at en.wikipedia! I would say that if she is worthy of an article, she is notable in the literal sense. Perhaps only a little less than the others. But please go ahead and edit as you think is appropriate. Best, gidonb 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The article states: No evidence has been identified to demonstrate systemic bias within the newspaper itself. Is that phrase a conclusion of the original research of one of the contributors to the article? gidonb 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No evidence has been identified 

message: There is very little notable biographical info available on Chuck Prochaska or Acton Gorton. Most of their bios are the same, using text taken from this article. Relevant biographical details are so few that we can inclue them in passing ("..., who served as a journalist in Iraq"...). -Will Beback 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the articles aren't complete doesn't mean they can't be beefed up.  I don't think all the biographical details abuot those two should make it in here, and I think there is more than that in those articles. -- Jbamb 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they notable for anything other than publishing the cartoons?  -Will Beback 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not yet, but that's not reason to merge their bio's into an article.  That's not a merge, that's a delete.  -- Jbamb 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a possibility too. Non-notability is a fine reason to merge or delete. We should certainly mention the guys' names in covering the matter here, but there's not much else to say about them. -Will Beback 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems like you are more asking to delete than merge.  This article already mentions them and the controversy, merging their biographical details here is inappropriate, so I think we are looking at deletion or nothing here.  As much that is mentioned about the controversy is already mentioned here.  I don't see the point of talking about their biographies in this article, that would just be cruft here.  So I say either AfD their bios or leave them.  Merging doesn't strike me as the solution. -- Jbamb 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same difference. Either way we'd probably keep the redirects and the references to them here. So if you prefer I can switch this to an AFD. -Will Beback 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think a redirect makes much sense, I don't think a merge makes sense because we aren't exactly going to merge content.  All the content is here already that we'd write in.  So if you want to AfD it fine, I just don't see how a merge would be anything less than a sanitized delete. -- Jbamb 01:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (Resetting margin) I think its worth seeing if the Gorton and Prochaska articles go anywhere over the next year. They're certainly notable now, and it's hard to say if in a year we'll care about who exactly made the decision versus caring about the fact that it was the Daily Illini. (Or maybe they'll be notable for other reasons by then.) So I'd be against a merge (and a delete). -- Superdosh 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer to the two of you on that since you both agree and . However, since the description of the incicdent is repeated three times, can we consolidate that into one or two paragraphs here? It seems repetitive to have virtually the same text in three places, considering how short the articles are. -Will Beback 04:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure it would make sense to remove it it either of the three places.  It makes sense to be on the DI page, and removing it from the bios doesn't make sense because that's the main source of notability.  -- Jbamb 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also leave it for now, but I suspect in a few months these two will be junior staffers on some non-notable regional paper (or in law school, like many of the editors from my days at Illini Media) and they will be no more notable than the average man on the street.  At that point, as DOScrash notes above regarding the dustup on the Israel-Palestine section, it will likely become clear that "it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things" and the non-encyclopedic nature of this material be obvious - and ripe for an AfD. -- DS1953 talk 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Gorton & Prochaska 

message: Several IP's have been edit warring over the inclusion of an email allegedly written by the University's Chancellor. I am removing that line from this article, as no one has been able to provide an actual source, just a promise that verification will be coming. If that is true, then the respective sentence can be included when that verification comes, in the form of a newspaper article, a press release, or some other published source. It need not be on the web, but it must be published, and a citation must appear in this article, so that the reader can verify the information, not in the edit summary as has happened before. This is in keeping in compliance with wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Chaser T 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Misidentifying the party affiliation of a politician is, unfortunately, a common mistake by news outlets. It's barely notable, except in the context of increased scrutiny of the editorial page. And that is the current context, so it seems to be handled properly. Regarding the alleged email, we'll just have to wait until it's reported somewhere. We can't base our encyclopedia on privately obtained emails.  -Will Beback · † · 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight... paper documents are not verifiable or reliable, the Freedom of Information Act is not verifiable or reliable, but FUCKING BLOGS are reliable?  Is there any better statement that shows why wikipedia can be such a joke? -- 74.134.242.248 19:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what blogs you're referring to, but they are generally not considered a valid source according to WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. As to this recent addition, I'm not sure how the reader is supposed to verify "FOIA Request, November 30, 2006", since the information hasn't been published anywhere. The reader would have to also file a FOIA request to verify the information.--Chaser T 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP editor commented that the material "will appear in News Gazette shortly." If that's the case then let's wait until it does. -Will Beback · † · 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He or she has now inserted it three times in the last 24 hours after repeated explanation of why it is inappropriate and several 3rr warnings. The next time he reinserts it (even if not violative of the letter of 3rr), he or she will probably be blocked. I've warned of as much on the IP talk page.--Chaser T 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn what "verifiable" means.  It means it can be verified.  The Internet is not the sole source of the entire body of human knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.242.248 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, it means verifiable by ordinary means, such as going to a library. Calling the dean is not considered a normal form of verification. If you have the FOIA document in front of you why don't you scan it and post it? Or even better, what happened to the local newspaper you said would run a piece about it? Did they decide it wasn't true or not newsworthy? -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First it was a link to a massmail it didn't exist. Then it was an impending publication of a Champaign News Gazette article because of a FOIA that was filed by a "local journalist," a story that the paper would have most likely published as soon as it had the e-mail because of the nature of the e-mail. Now it's that the poster himself filed the FOIA and supposedly obtained the letter himself. In the meantime, the poster continues to ask the other editors to verify the existence of the letter and continues to shift the burden of proof away from himself, which is clearly against Wikipedia policies, and now has ignored repeated warnings about violating the 3RR policy. I wonder if it would be best to prevent further edits of this article until further notice since the editor seems intent on continuing to persist with his unsubstantiated assertion. Vagrant829 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor at 74.134.242.248 again reverted the previous edits to include the bit about the Chancellor. Something must be done. Vagrant829 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  November controversy and alleged email