Talk:Chicago Sun-Times: Difference between revisions

Chicago Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

did a sun-times fanboy write this? my impression is it's not that well respected, relative to the trib

Sounds like the text was taken from a press release or something. Better now? --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It says that it is a liberal/centrist paper. Is this true? Isn't this owned by Rupert Murdoch (No, but he owned it briefly in the 1980s) of Fox News Lore? Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say it is centrist, it is not as liberal as the Chicago Tribune.

• As far as I know, News Corp has never owned the Sun-Times. The Sun-Time's editorial slant is suposed to be Liberal, but the Chicago Tribune's editoral board is Conservative. —Linnwood 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Template_talk:Infobox newspaper, the political (leaning) field -- which is optional -- is considered less useful for American newspapers as compared with European newspapers, which retain strong party or political identifications in most cases. It's much more difficult with American newspapers because the editorials, the op-eds, and the reporting can all reflect different biases. In the case of the S-T, which successively endorsed Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Kerry, it's editorially basically centrist. In the case of the Trib, which is old-line Republican and continues to endorse GOP candidates for the WH, it's only slightly easier -- their op-eds lean a tad right but their reporting is often progressive. The S-T's reporting is populist but not progressive. So I endorse NO affiliation, as it's very dependent on point of view thus original research. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference? I don't know what an "urban tabloid" is, a compact is a tabloid sized paper of broadsheet quality. GracieLizzie 21:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the unsourced claim that it is best known internationally as the employer of Ebert. I would guess Novak is much better known, maybe even internationally, than Ebert. Especially after his prominent role in the Plame "media event" which was covered incessantly until it was discovered that none of W's underlings were on the chopping block. But it could well be that American movies are in fact more well-known than White House purge attempts. In any event, the prominent Novak can hardly be ignored. Walter Nissen 2006-10-25 00:44 UTC ( Note use of ISO-8601-format date & time )

I bet Ms. Sneed will soon be the best known journalist, internationally, in this current list. (NC_Lao_Wan 15:22 PM, April 19 2007)

The second to last paragraph ("The movie Continental Divide...") should be in a "Sun-Times in Popular Culture" section - 65.24.127.241 06:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the credibility of the Sun Times as a paper relative to the Tribune. The Chicago Innovation Awards was simply co-founded by the Sun Times. The Awards itself is an endeavor seperate from either the Chicago Sun Times or Kuczmarski & Associates. Merging into either of those two articles would not make sense.

The Chicago Innovation Awards, while co-founded by the Sun-Times, Chicago's second largest paper, in 2002, is a distinct awards ceremony, recognized on a national stage and counting amongst its honorees Motorola, Sara Lee, Millenium Park, Abbott Labs, and other Fortune 500 companies. It is a major economic and innovation initiative both in terms of the City of Chicago and in terms of American business innovation. To merge it with the Sun-Times entry would be incorrect.

The independence of the CIAs from the Sun-Times is important, as this independence acknowledges the growing authority of the CIAs as a distinctive organization and venture dedicated to the celebratration and recognition of innovation. Though the CIAs may have been born from a marriage between the Sun-Times and Kuczmarski & Associates, the CIAs now stand on their own as a distinguished ceremony. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdoyle07 (talk • contribs).

Shortly after the VT Massacre, the newspaper published an article, which contained incredibly detailed information on the identity of the gunman like the age, nationality, legal status, origin, port of entry, and date of entry. All the information later turned out to be totally wrong, not even remotely close to the truth. The reporter and the newspaper should have run a credibility check, to the standard journalism stands by, before publishing the article at such a sensitive time as the whole world is eager to learn. The more detailed and sensitive the report is, the more careful the newspaper should be. Failing to do this and to meet reader's expectation will ensure people's criticism on the quality of the report and the professionalism of the newspaper.

This is the reason why people are critical of the newspaper on this particular incident. The criticism was written in a neutral, factual, and objective way and should be kept as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongdongdog (talk • contribs).

• No, it was not. It contained arguments and speculation that were unsupported by any published sources. That is forbidden here. See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you want to present your own new arguments on this subject, a tertiary source such as Wikipedia is not the place. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Uncle G 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with you. My edit contains only facts, which are supported by all the sources in the main article. I am in the process of improving the article by adding those sources to this section. There is criticism on the report. Describing the people's criticism in a wiki article doesn't necessarily make wikipedia a soapbox. Dongdongdog 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't supported by the sources that are actually cited. Where's your source that supports the analysis that you are giving that it was "highly unlikely" that the source was credible, for example? That appears to be your own analysis, and thus contrary to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you care to read my latest edition, which is currently banned by MhKing, you will find I already removed those you believed unsupported by the sources. Dongdongdog 18:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this section is about how a controversial news report was hastily published at an urgent event and later found erroneous. This section is strongly related with the subject of the article.

Second, the spirit of the wiki is based on democracy. There are many people showing interests in editing this section to make it meet wiki standard. This section should be kept in the article to reflect people's choice.Dongdongdog 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a democracy. Uncle G 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are exactly right. It says "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." What I found is a consensus is forming by lots of people's editing on the section. Nobody is asking for a vote. Dongdongdog 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Los Angeles Times, Fox News, and CNN, to name a few, all have a section of controversy, why can't this article? Dongdongdog 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the other guidelines that the section violates, there is also a guideline that discourages "me too" reasoning for an article or section of an article as well. --Mhking 01:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This section has been edited and revised many many time by many editors holding different views. There are currently NO disputes on it except for this one. There are NO "other guidelines that the section violates" as you alleged. You have strong objections to Michael Sneed, Michael Sneed Rumors, and Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. Now you want to get the controversy section on the same incident removed from a news paper article. Your bias is so very obvious. I've had a good faith in communicating with you. Now enough is enough. If you remove this section without consensus, I will sure roll it back. If you ban my ID as you threatened me to, I will sure appeal and get it back. I will do whatever I can to bring the case along the Wikipedia management hierarchy to deprive your privilege as you are now obviously abusing your right to censor other's viewpoints based on your personal bias. Dongdongdog 01:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]