Talk:Santa Barbara News-Press

Reversing Vandalism
The name of Wendy McCaw's fiancee is Arthur von Wiesenberger, not Arthur von Cheesenburger. I've going to undo this bit of vandalism.

I'm no fan of Ms. McCaw, Mr. von Wiesenberger, or the News-Press, but I am a fan of Wikipedia, and vandalism like this helps no one's cause. If the community can keep this article as focused on the facts as possible, with as much NPOV as we can muster, the facts about Ms. McCaw and her idiosyncratic way of running her business will speak for themselves. 207.154.109.225 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: Arthur von Wiesenberger's name was set up as a link (i.e. enclosed in double square brackets), but there was no article about him. I briefly considered starting one, but decided against it after reading the Wikipedia criteria for biographies of living persons, particularly the notability criteria WP:BIO. If others disagree and want to restore the link, perhaps they might restore it, create a stub for the new page and make the case for notability on the discussion page of the new article. (Ms. McCaw, by contrast, clearly has reached the notability threshold.)

207.154.109.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
2/3 of the article documents the Newspress's attempts to stop unionization; it seems as if the editors are somehow biased against the News Press.


 * I can't verify the claim that 2/3 of the article documents Newpress attempts to stop unionization. 1 out of 14 paragraphs deals with unionization; only a fraction of that paragraph could be interpreted as documentation of an attempt to stop unionization.  There is an attempt in that paragraph (as there is throughout the article) to cite the News-Press side of the story, with quotes and links.  Perhaps a more specific criticism would result in something in the article that we could alter. snug 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Begin with On July 6, 2006... and start reading and maybe you'll see what I mean.
 * There are a lot of facts, which are neutrally stated. Most of these facts have nothing to do with the unionization effort, and are verifiable.  It could be that there is omission of the News-Press side of the story, although there is some effort to include that.  Perhaps you could suggest other points that should be included. snug 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

i think that this section of the SB News-Press should get its own page. Hoyohoyogold 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea... the crisis section (thanks for formatting that) has grown sort of like a tumor, and it weighs down the rest of the article.  So at some point (if no-one else jumps in) I'll try to make a division. snug 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this section could definitely use a cleanup but before you use summary style and create a sub-article, please review WP:POVFORK; my only concern would be that the main points be included in a comprehensive npov summary. --L 1AM (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this should be split off right now as the article is 38 kb. --L 1AM (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks... although the 38kb never bothered me; Wikipedia is not paper. Of more concern was the timeline style, although that style was modulated by some topic-type organization.  Mainly I didn't want to lose all the secondary references, although I've not had time for a comprehensive reorganization.  I must say, though, that the stub on the controversy that is left is not very NPOV, and also not easy to support by secondary referencing... that the departure of Joe Cole is the catalyst is a little elusive in the articles on the topic... that would be good to reference, if you have a reference.  Some say the problem has always been there, since McCaw took over... Alan Parsons etc got the boot early on.  Oh well, you've made a fair start. snug 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that the section is already outdated!-- hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I haven't had as much time lately. However, I did just update the list of those separated, then I'll get to further lawyer news, and the NLRB hearing.  Back to the list of those separated... this has grown to a Didionesque scale, and for an encyclopedia would be better represented by a table, with links to the supporting references.  I don't have time for that little project right now, but I'd welcome help! snug 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still more needs to be added, but it's updated well enough. -- hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any specific advice as to what needs to be added? snug 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sbnewspresstopbanner.gif
Image:Sbnewspresstopbanner.gif 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 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 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 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newspress.jpg
Image:Newspress.jpg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy, ceased publication
On July 24, 2023, it abruptly closed and ceased publication, letting all its staff go. 1 2 P37307 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)