Talk:The Plain Dealer

message: I would like to see an update to the article regarding the Judge Saffold lawsuit. More info here: http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/30307/
65.43.181.37 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: controversies

message: I would like to see a section that is criticisms of the Plain Dealer, and will happily write it myself, but I would appreciate al the help I can get.  (unsigned comment by FozzyMaple 23:10, 24 July 2006
I consolidated all the Criticism and Controversies into one section, but did not add any material.  (deleted one redundant sentence)   JimmB 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: criticisms of the PD

message: This site fails to acknowledge that the company that runs Cleveland.com (Advance Ohio) and the Plain Dealer operates two newsrooms - one union and one non-union. All past awards were won by the Plain Dealer newsroom, the union newsroom which oversees publication of the print product. Both newsrooms publish to Cleveland.com with writers indicating which newsroom they work for in their byline. There truly should be two separate pages for the different newsrooms because, as is apparent if you take the time to READ THE NEW ADDITIONS BEFORE PASSING JUDGMENT, they operate as two separate entities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsman12 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Read for context

message: Does anyone know the source of the claim in the third sentence of the article, which states that Greater Cleveland "is ranked #1 in the country for Sunday newspaper readership percentage (75.4% of total adults) and #2 in daily newspaper readership percentage (62.6% of total adults), second only to New York City in the weekday editions"?
Thanks in advance. Mamawrites 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: readership

message: Can someone please add to the list of Discontinued Sections of the Plain Dealer? Thanks --Josh 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued Sections 

message: :Image:Plain Dealer masthead.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Plain Dealer masthead.png

message: An image used in this article, File:Plain Dealer front page.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 27 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Plain Dealer front page.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Usually when a hatnote grows that big, it's a good sign that a separate dab page is needed. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwieldy hatnote 

message: It seems apparent that this article, which is on a significant & timely topic, needs a significant reorganization and rewrite.  In addition to several points made in the GA reviews above, the article has an ad-hoc feel (which is a normal result of numerous edits by numerous people over years) - its organization is slapdash, and circular, with certain topics (eg, circulation, ownership, reduction of days delivered, certain rounds of layoffs) arising repeatedly in multiple sections, while the relevance of parts (eg, NEOMG, see coatrack comments) is not adequately explained.  I have been taking a first stab, in evening and weekend time, at a major reorganization and overhaul.  Nearly all material from the current page is kept except for a few extraneous details, eg Moses Cleaveland landing in the Flats, but redundancies and outdated descriptions are eliminated, and a more consistent story organically emerges.  My reorg addresses some but certainly not all points from the two recent GA reviews.  I hope to have it completed and published by this weekend.  The current proposed organization is below, and you are welcome to look at a working, incomplete draft of my work in my personal temporary "scratchpad" page here: 
[scratchpad]
I welcome any reactions to or comments on these plans, either on this page or in messages to me.  Thanks. 
Proposed New Contents
    1 History
        1.1 Founding
        1.2 Name
        1.3 Ownership history
        1.4 Awards and honors
        1.5 Editors (Editors-in-Chief)
    2 Shrinking in the 21st century
        2.1 Declining circulation
        2.2 Reductions in newspaper size and delivery
        2.3 Closure and transfer of bureau[x]
        2.4 Elimination of staff
    3 Other facts
        3.1 Pricing and distribution
        3.2 PolitiFact Ohio
    4 Criticism and controversies: The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com
        4.1 Political leanings (since 1864)
        4.2 Publishing concealed weapons permit holder lists (2005)
        4.3 "Held stories" controversy (2005)
        4.4 Music critic sidelining (2008)
        4.5 Shirley Strickland Saffold (2010)
        4.6 Removal of debate video (2014)
        4.7 Tamir Rice coverage (2014)
    5 References
    6 Further reading
    7 External links
 
 
Sullidav (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned reorg/rewrite

message: Until January 13, the first sentence of this article had, from the time the article was first drafted in 2004 and this was the only thing that the article said, correctly identified the PD as "the major newspaper of Cleveland." (That phrase included the word "daily" while it was true.)  
That's the best short description of the PD.  See, eg from a quick Google search, this and this.  There has been no other major Cleveland newspaper since the PD's last competitors, the Cleveland News and the Cleveland Press, closed in 1960 and 1982, respectively.   
Recently User:Infactinteresting, among improving edits, twice changed this first sentence to drop "the" in favor of "a."  (Between those edits, I changed it back.)  It currently reads "The Plain Dealer is a newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio; it is a major newspaper."  Aside from being redundant language and klutzy writing, I think this edit weakens the article and is a ridiculous deletion of the sentence's key point made by "the," that there is no other major newspaper of Cleveland. 
So I think the lede should be reverted to the description it has essentially used since 2004, and should again say "The Plain Dealer is the major newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, United States."  I'm making that edit again but to avoid an edit war, I'm also asking others through the talk page - who's right?  Thanks.
Sullidav (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s not a matter of right or wrong, this concerns house style, convention, grammar, and personal choice.  At this time, I prefer the edits made by you, Sullidav, but there is always room for improvement.  I suggest taking a look at other, similar articles, preferably of higher article quality, and seeing how they do it. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede degraded by recent edit?  WDYT?