This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Removing three cited paragraphs about a paper's reporter because it "lacks verification" but leaving one line with no citation about another reporter looks fishy -- especially since the information removed reflects badly on the subject of the entry--it detailed a federal investigation of the paper's labor practices.
It's probably someone from the paper. Wvtowner 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please provide sources that are not self-published and the material can be restored. If there was such an investigation, we should have abundant sources that can be used in the article. A blog by a former reporter cannot be used a s a source for claims about third parties. See WP:SELFPUB≈ jossi ≈(talk) 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (note this is an OTRS action)Reply
As requested above, do not re-add a self published source to assert claims made in articles that are not about the self-published sources' subject. Please read WP:SELFPUB≈ jossi ≈(talk) 02:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
The material is credible if it's in a journalistic context. We use blogs as credible sources all the time. I'm restoring it. Tynedaily 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am afraid, that you cannot do that. Personal blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. A self-published source such as a blog can only be used in an article about the blog or the blog author, and we some caveats. See WP:SELFPUB that reads: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves (my highlight) ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
In addition to the brouhaha over blog entries as sources (I agree with User:Jossi, fwiw), I question the notability of the Times West Virginian's "notable reporters". It doesn't exactly take Pulitzer material to win a state press award, especially in a narrow category such as columnist ("Premier Journalist" is a bit better, although it would be best to establish that these folks are notable for something other than possessing engraved plaques). So McLaughlin exposed abuse and disseminated information about sewers. Why should anyone outside the Times West Virginian readership take notice? Show how the reporter's fame has spread beyond the usual industry attaboys -- and provide footnotes.
A possible solution here: I think the article makes a mistake in focusing on "notable reporters" and not on "notable coverage". From what I've seen, none of these three reporters is really WP:NOTE-worthy, but perhaps some of their work is. A better tack than showing the reporters' fame might be to show (again, with footnotes) how the newspaper has improved West Virginia. ```W i k iW i s t a h``` 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
