Talk:The Beverly Hills Courier

message: I did what I could on this article. Unfortunately, there are not many independent third-party sources writing about the subject (which calls into question the notability of the subject). What I could find in terms of reliable sources, I've added. SueDonem (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puffery 

message: An IP address removed the following paragraph:
: The Courier has been criticized for publishing errors, false accusations, bias and libel, and its owner/publisher Clifton Smith has been accused of slander and has been described as "right-wing" and "bombastic" by a competing local newspaper.
The reason given was:
: Deleting paragraph referencing allegations that are based on opinion and contain citations that point to quotes from direct business competitors.
This is not sound justification for removal of sourced materials. That the material contains opinions is clear given the context of the language. That some of the opinions come from a  a direct competitor is also evidenced in the language. SueDonem (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of sourced materials 

message: :Here is my take at a revision which includes the suggested attribution. I welcome any collaborative thoughts... SueDonem (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to including the Rudy Cole attribution. That said, his article was included to show that a comparison is being made by a third-party source between the Courier's politics and the political affiliation of the majority of Beverly Hills. This satisfies the No Original Research policy of Wikipedia. Remember, we are not obligated to present neutral points of views; rather we strive to present points of view neutrally. It's a subtle difference. But that's why the second half of the sentence in question is completely valid. Again, I am not opposed to providing attribution to Rudy Cole as you suggested. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: You are correct. The Canyon News didn't make that assertion about the Courier, but rather supported that the assertion by Metro was made. Having coverage in a relevant third-party source further verifies the statement. And you are also correct that we should not get into a tit-for-tat in this article. The subject of this article is the Courier. METRO's point of view of the Courier is relevant and should be included. What shouldn't be presented in this article is the Courier's stance on METRO. That might be expressed in the METRO article or - perhaps more relevant - the Westside Extension article. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I disagree that the Damien Newton POV should be removed based on the quality of the sources. You are correct that blogs can often be considered unreliable sources. However, StreetBlog is recognized as authoritative in this subject matter and would thus be considered a reliable source of a relevant opinion. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: If you would like to provide ideas to how to augment this, please feel free. But again, this article is about the Courier. It is not about Barry Brucker. We should not cover tit-for-tat in this article. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: If you would like to suggest some changes, please do. As it stands, the Chronicle's statement is completely valid for inclusion. That said, I am not opposed to including a touch more information. Again, this article is about the Courier (and consequently Clifton Smith). This article is not about the Westside Chronicle. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that the Westside Chronicle is now defunct, perhaps this isn't worth mentioning. I will take it out. SueDonem (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This sentence covers the opinion of the local competitor to the Courier. It is not coverage of the Meshkaty trial. That much doesn't belong in this article. Again, this article is about the Courier. Sorry to sound like a broken record. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of compromise, I will settle for your suggestion of "former". I suppose if someone was curious, they could go ahead and read the source to find out why his is a former reporter of THR (which seems to be quite a salient story involving bribes and kickbacks). Perhaps a George Christy (journalist) article should be written. SueDonem (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution revisions 

message: This edit removed information from the article. The edit summery makes a point about the text not being fully supported by a primary reference. Can we find a third-party reference which discusses the Courier's donor status with BHEF? SueDonem (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of BHEF information 

message: An IP address user added this content:
: Beverly Hills City Manager, Jeff Kolin, has accused the Courier of printing false allegations with regards to an article alleging city staff had falsified documents concerning city water rates. 
It's attributed and well-cited to a reliable third-party source. The only flag that goes up (and only a yellow flag) for me is that the article and letter came out just this week. There could be some recentism concerns. I don't think it is worth tagging as such, but I am open to feedback and invite the IP user to join in this conversation. SueDonem (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit