Talk:The Beverly Hills Courier

Puffery
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)

Deletion of sourced materials
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)

Deletion of sourced materials due to possible non-neutrality violation
The Courier has been described as "conservative" in a city which is "heavily liberal and Democratic".

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.

I have moved these sections to the Talk page, as I believe it to be a violation of the non-neutrality policy. If any of the above accusations had gone to court, and a judge had ruled against the newspaper for any of the them, then it would be a non-contested fact. But in all the above allegations, this has not happened. If published opinions about media outlets were posted on articles, they would be filled with them. Look at LA Times article for an example - there are no opinions of their newspaper posted good or bad (except in the talk section). Quick reference to the "conservative section" - it also is cited by a direct competitor, and again, is opinion that is not absolutely verified.

SueDonem - your edits on many of the items of this article have improved it, as some sections of the original article was written in more of a "sales-pitch" type of format. Your intention of course, to bring the article into a neutral format. But I believe some of the additions or edits you have made have taken the article into a non-neutral stance in the opposite direction. And those are the ones I contest. Perhaps if you feel so strongly about having them in the article, we can bring in a senior third party Wikipedia editor to moderate?

Diamond204 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are conflating the act of accusation with its substance. If the article claimed that the Courier really did print errors, then perhaps a court ruling would be a necessary citation.  But that isn't what the article claims; it says only that accusations (whether or not they are correct) have been made, and the citations certainly seem to support that claim.  (Whether or not these accusations are notable enough to appear in the article I cannot say.) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with Psychonaut's assessment, so no need to rehash that which has already been written. I would humbly point Diamond204 to read the following pillars of Wikipedia: WP:NPOV and WP:V. With that, I am going to revert your changes which removed properly sourced information. Please let me know if you would like to continue this discussion or if I can be of any of assistance. Welcome to Wikipedia! SueDonem (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

SueDonem - Psychonaut was valid in saying that your citations led to articles that supported the claims, and I never contested that. Now I wish to address Psychonauts second point, which it is the accusations themselves that I am contesting and that those paragraphs do not belong in the article as they are one-sided.

Among others, I believe these paragraphs are in violation of this : "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone."

I am once again deleting these paragraphs from the main page, as I believe it to be a compromise to bring the discussion here until the dispute is formally resolved between all parties. I am formally requesting a third party opinion. We will go from there. Diamond204 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FIrst, please don't delete the paragraphs in question again without first reaching a consensus on this page first. Your actions could be construed as edit warring. That said, I will leave the article in the current state as it is your preference for the time being during this disagreement.


 * NPOV concerns itself with how we write articles. Here's NPOV in a nutshell:  Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. I believe that the opinions were clearly demarcated as such and presented in a neutral, disinterested tone. If you disagree, please suggest a rewrite on how we can present the information.


 * If you would like to request a third-party opinion, I will gladly set that up for us or you can visit WP:3PO to learn more. However, I do not think we've come to an impasse yet. Rather, I feel we can reach a compromise if necessary, but would prefer to help educate why I feel the nature the paragraphs in question are entirely acceptable in a Wikipedia article. SueDonem (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I also believe the paragraphs / edits to be in violation of this : Impartial tone

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Diamond204 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, if you take issue on the tone, the please suggest rewrites. Deleting well-sourced material is not the best course of action. I don't think we are dealing with a heated dispute in any of the sources. Rather, they are newspaper and media publication which should be presenting facts and opinions rather dispassionately. If you feel I reported impartially on what these publications were saying, then I am open to hear your ideas of how you would present this material. SueDonem (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding the edit of "suspended" to "former" in regards to identifying George Christy - I am contesting it as suspended is a loaded word even though verified and adds bias where it is unnecessary. Diamond204 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just trying to stick to the source here. Is he currently a former columnist with THR or is he currently just suspended? "Suspended" is verifiable. If you have a reliable source which verifies that he is now a "former" columnist, I welcome the change to the content.


 * Thanks and let me know if you would like help setting up the 3PO or any other dispute resolution measures. SueDonem (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your 3PO, Yaris678. I think attribution is an excellent suggestion. I can begin to implement that. Diamond204, I'd love your input here. SueDonem (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. And I agree that if the two of you can work together on some text that includes the attribution that would be great.  Yaris678 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Attribution revisions

 * 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)

The Courier has been described as "conservative" by LA Weekly blogger Dennis Romero in a city which is "heavily liberal and Democratic".

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Canyon News have has criticized the Courier for publishing errors and misleading statements with regards to the Westside Subway Extension. . Damien Newton of LA streetsblog has accused the Courier of publishing libel with its coverage of seismology experts who weighed in on the geotechnical issues facing the subway extension. .

Beverly Hills mayor Barry Brucker has accused the Courier of being biased in its coverage of the local city government and various development projects.

Vipin Sahgal of the Westside Chronicle accused Clifton Smith, the Courier's owner/publisher, of slander, stating that Smith has called him a con artist. Josh Gross, publisher of the Beverly Hills Weekly, a competing local newspaper described Smith as "right-wing" and "bombastic".

--

Attribution is only partly helpful is some cases. To be put in a more neutral POV, these pieces require a good further amount of attribution and most likely some deletions. I will address each by section:

''The Courier has been described as "conservative" by LA Weekly blogger Dennis Romero in a city which is "heavily liberal and Democratic". ''

This formation derives a conclusion from two low quality sources (one a blogger, the other the Editor of the competing same-city newspaper) and the way it is formed implies a possible bias on behalf of the Courier, and also that perhaps it does not share the same political beliefs as its cities residents. While further research and expansion of this would be better for the article, I believe a more neutral POV version to be :

The Courier has been described as "conservative" by LA Weekly blogger Dennis Romero and Beverly Hills Weekly Editor Rudy Cole  Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

''The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Canyon News have criticized the Courier for publishing errors and misleading statements with regards to the Westside Subway Extension. . Damien Newton of LA streetsblog has accused the Courier of publishing libel with its coverage of seismology experts who weighed in on the geotechnical issues facing the subway extension. .''

The Canyon News source did not necessarily criticize The Courier, it merely reported METROs claims that the Courier allegedly reported inaccurate and misleading information regarding the METRO EIR Document. The article drew no conclusion for or against the Courier. Also note it is not a quality source as Canyon News is a direct competitor to the Courier’s website. The Courier printed a response to the METRO allegations. In this case we have two sources with competing viewpoints over the same material.

One or more of these may apply to this article: 1.	If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information: "The town's population in 1990 has been reported as being 5,000 and 7,000." You may also note that sources disagree, if the disagreement is general: "Inflation has been low, and experts disagree on the effect this will have." 2.	If the conflict represents information that is trivial or of limited value to the article, you may also omit the disputed information entirely. 3.	Take care to avoid characterizing, implicitly or overtly, the accuracy of otherwise reliable sources in any article. We do discuss and evaluate sources as part of our work in researching material for inclusion in articles, but the policy no original research prohibits combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There are times that a reliable source is simply incorrect, but it is inappropriate to imply or state that is the case without a reference to a reliable source. You may not, using the examples above, say "Source A asserts the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances, and the true population was at least 7,000 in 1990." 4.	If another reliable source discusses the accuracy of one or another source, it may be appropriate to use that source to choose between alternative sources or to discuss the conflict between them, depending on the strength of the sources and the relative importance of the material. For example, if source C says that source A is incorrect, it may be appropriate to simply state "The town's population in 1990 was 7,000" and cite source B and/or C, or to say "Source A asserts the town's population as 5,000, but Source C disputes the accuracy of that claim. Source B asserts the population was 7,000 in 1990."

Both the METRO and Courier articles are a small part of the rather large conflict over the proposed Century City Station, which, oddly, is not mentioned at all on the Westside Subway Extension Wiki Article you cited.

While I don’t believe this tit-for-tat should be in the article at all, if it were presented, it would have to be even handed such as : Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and The Courier have accused each other of publishing errors and misleading statements in regards to the Westside Subway Extension. (with a citation to both articles) Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

In regards to blogger Damien Newton, his claim is that the Courier committed slander – but of course, in this case, if proven true, it would have been libel (as you corrected in the revised article, and a commentator of the article also noted to him). Again, this is a very low quality source making a large claim they obviously seem to know very little about. It should be removed. Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

- ''Beverly Hills mayor Barry Brucker has accused the Courier of being biased in its coverage of the local city government and various development projects. ''

Regarding this, to bring into more neutral POV it would require the Courier's perspective on the issue at the very least – I would need to further research. At the current moment it is one-sided. A possible more-neutral version would be re-worded and include your current citation to the letter, a link to the original article the former Mayor had issue with, as well as the Courier response to his letter. Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

''Vipin Sahgal of the Westside Chronicle accused Clifton Smith, the Courier's owner/publisher, of slander, stating that Smith has called him a con artist. Josh Gross, publisher of the Beverly Hills Weekly, a competing local newspaper described Smith as "right-wing" and "bombastic". ''

Regarding this article, it would need to be fully expanded to include more information on the trial and POV of both sides. Upon initial search I have not found how the case concluded, but that may also prove valuable to this.

Here is also another article that includes some of the Couriers argument and perspective that may be of use to even out the article Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Regarding the Joss Gross quotation, it should be omitted, and rather the context of the article where he mentioned that quote should be included in the article expanded to include their conflict of facts over the Meshkaty trial, with both sides presented and include a link to the Courier Article as well as the Original Weekly piece. But here again we have two competing sources with conflicting viewpoints on the same material. Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

--- Regarding George Christy, your cited article states that he was "removed from his job at The Hollywood Reporter" (making him 'former') and that his article was suspended. Diamond204 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

Assessment
Per the 3PO given above and the assessment of the second attempt at a 3PO, I suggest we reintroduce the removed content with the attribution per our discussion last week. I will sort through our collective comments and fashion the most consensual version. Obviously this is always open for discussion, but let's respect the 3PO and the dispute resolution process in general. SueDonem (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, well the 3PO was given on an earlier revision, and not the current ones, so I re-instated the request for a 3PO with a hopefully more clear description. Diamond204 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. That said, it may be better to go directly Yaris678 as a 3PO, since he/she has rendered a 3PO here previously and is thus familiar with the article. SueDonem (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to get a 30 without discussing the proposed changes?Curb Chain (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a valid question. The changes we've made and introduced to the article were based on the advice of a 3PO (to give more attribution), followed by a discussion amongst the editors (Diamond204 and myself). I thought what we came up with was a satisfactory compromise. Are there any other issues specifically which Diamond204 wants to discuss now that we've reached a compromise? If so, please enumerate them clearly and let's discuss. Perhaps we won't need a 3PO. SueDonem (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

- The pieces that I am not in agreement with are these: Damien Newton of LA streetsblog has accused the Courier of publishing libel with its coverage of seismology experts who weighed in on the geotechnical issues facing the subway extension. . The Courier has been described as "conservative" by LA Weekly blogger Dennis Romero in a city which is "heavily liberal and Democratic". Josh Gross, publisher of the competing Beverly Hills Weekly, described Clifton Smith, the Courier's owner/publisher, as "right-wing" and "bombastic".

Regarding the Damien Newton reference, as I said before, I believe it is a very low quality source and should not be included. But I should clarify that while lastreetsblog is a respected blog, it is this post and claim itself that is of low quality. The (incorrectly stated) slander claim that he makes links to the Metro article already cited in the previous sentence (of the Courier article). The METRO article never mentions the words slander or libel (as you correctly constructed in the previous sentence). If you look at the very sarcastic writing style of this particular blog entry, you will see that the author was pushing the use of "colorful" words in the context of adding more sarcastic dynamics to the piece. If METRO had made the libel allegation, it would have the weight to go into the article. But I don't believe so in case of this particular article and the context in which it is written.

Regarding the Joss Gross quote, his paper is in direct competition with the Courier, and in particular, his quote of "right-wing" and "Bombastic" against Clifton Smith was a "duke-out" between the two competing publishers. Due to the obvious competitive nature of the two publishers (it is stated in the cited article) I don't believe it has the substance to go into the Courier article, just as much as the Courier calling the BH Weekly a "thinly-distributed local tabloid" does not belong on their page (not that it is there).

The Rudy Cole citation is also from the BH Weekly. While stated and verifiable(as the others), it is of low quality as it comes from a direct competitor. LA Weekly is not a direct competitor, so its references would carry far greater weight than the BH Weekly. So no issue with the first part of that sentence from the LA Weekly, just the later part from the BH Weekly. Diamond204 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I am glad that you agree that Streetsblog is a reliable source generally speaking. The confusion between "slander" and "libel" is common. Most people outside of the legal profession probably don't know the difference. While his mistake makes me think a little less of Mr. Newton, it doesn't discredit his entire article as unreliable. That Streetsblog is a third-party source, makes the case for inclusion even stronger than if METRO had stated it alone. I am assuming that Streetsblog is operated wholly independent of METRO and the Courier.


 * I don't see any reason why a direct competitor's opinion can't be included in an article; especially, if said opinion is properly attributed. Therefore, I find the Josh Gross and Rudy Cole references to be completely acceptable. And thus I would have no problem if one was to add the Courier's opinion of the Weekly to the Weekly's article with proper attribution. If these two papers are truly competitors - as you state - then their rivalry is part of their respective "stories" and should be included in their articles. SueDonem (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of BHEF information
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)

IP edit
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)