Talk:El Mercurio/Archive 1

Untitled
The "bias" of El Mercurio has, in the past few days, been changed from "conservative" to "neoliberal" (by me) then to "derechist", a nonexistent word that I'm assuming is supposed to mean "right-wing". However, I would argue that, currently, the newspaper advocates classically liberal or "neoliberal" stances rather than conservative ones. There are certain editorials that seem conservative; others are markedly neoliberal. From my judgment, on the balance the neoliberal stance is more and more influential in El Mercurio's "voice", especially in the Economia section but also in the main editorial page. However I do concede that some editorialists still have a conservative point of view, so I nominate that the "bias" be changed to something like "right-wing, neoliberal". This is because I don't think that simply stating the paper is of the "derecho" (right) satisfies the definition of its slant.\

I don't understand why the following was deleted: "It is known for its weekend magazines, Wiken ("Weekend" - a cultural guide), El Sabado ("Saturday" - politics, leaders, and public interest stories), and Viajes ("Travel"). Its Club de Lectores (Reader's Club) also offers discounts on multiple consumer items and cultural events such as film festivals." (Sean 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Because it falls out of place with the rest of the article, which is merely a stub, and borders on publicity. —Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"(A stub's) main interest is to be expanded." "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Those are both quotes from the Wikipedia site itself, the 1st from the stub guide and the 2nd from the actual page. I don't see anything about "too much information". The tone could have been easily changed (removing the "it is known for", for example) but browsing U.S. newspaper articles shows that many of them have sentences mentioning their "feature" sections. Also regarding your removal of my "unattributed" quote, it was very clearly cited to an FOIA document (albeit hosted on a 3rd-party site because of a want to keep link stability), which is a legitimate practice done on other Wikipedia pages. Also, looking at the Columbia Journalism Review article by Kornbluh critical of El Mercurio, quoted in a paragraph you chose to leave in, the author's main sources comes from the "declassification of thousands of CIA and White House records at the end of the Clinton administration." If you read the article at http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/5/chile-kornbluh.asp, nearly every piece of information is taken from declassified FOIA papers, which Kornbluh actually DID NOT PROVIDE DIRECT CITATIONS FOR (on the webpage at least). Yet, somehow his work is valid, while my paragraph, drawing from a DIRECT CITATION, and just as relevant, was taken out. I'll put that back in and, if I haven't been replied to in the next day, I'll also resubmit neutral version of the features paragraph. (Sean 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC))