Talk:The Oregonian/Archive 1

Comment
Shouldn't this be at Oregonian (newspaper), disambiguated from Oregonian? There is no newspaper called the Portland Oregonian, as far as I know.-- Decumanus | Talk 17:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, it seems like the 2005 entry might be biased --Jason McHuff 02:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's avoid an edit war

 * 2005 Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights publishes a six-month study claiming that the paper under-reported Palestinian deaths in its news stories of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
 * 2006 The paper faces more criticism on its coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict after Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights publishes another report from a one-year study claiming the paper's editorial pages were not balanced when it came to including opinion pieces reflecting the Palestinian narrative.

Should these be included in the article or not? I say no. --Liface 05:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing it would violate Wikipedia's rules on neutrality. --shirbil 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it's really a small-non notable organization, and it's the only criticisms on the page. --Liface 06:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing it would violate Wikipedia's rules on neutrality. Noooo, removing it would comply with Wikipedia's "no undue weight" policy. If you're looking for a place to promote your group, go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will avoid personal attacks. I am trying to include something I am very familiar with, is factual, relevant and is substantiated.  Unfortunately, you are trying to censor it.  Can you provide more information on this "no undue weight" policy?  And how is it that you get to decide what is considered "undue weight"?  It is certainly not here WP:NUT --shirbil 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also not too helpful that the user's only contributions are to the Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights page or referencing them in response to other Oregon politicians. --Liface 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is nothing wrong with that. That actually makes me an expert on this topic.  --shirbil 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make you an expert on anything. It just leads one to believe you're using Wikipedia as a tool to further a political agenda, is all. --Liface 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think this way.  Your actions to censor on the basis of what YOU think is more important is probably more suspect.  --shirbil 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be kept in. Who gets to decide that one group is "small and non-notable" and one group is not? Who gets to decide that a critique is unimportant or not? A part of a newspaper's history is criticism of that newspaper and in this case the criticism is a significant set of media studies with supporting documentation testifying to efforts of this group. Media critique should be a part of a newspapers history, as it should be for the Oregonian. There are already two references to criticism of the Oregonian in the article: first a reference to the joke: "If it matters to Oregonians, it's in the Washington Post" and the criticism of the Oregonian's handling of Goldschmidt. Perhaps there could be a section on controversy and criticism? Peteskitoo 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC) User's only other edits are to Ted Kulongoski
 * Yes, we would do better to introduce a section about that. It doesn't belong in the history of the paper as it's not something that a paper has DONE. I agree that media critique should be a part of history but this is far too insignificant. --Liface 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should also be noted that your only contributions to Wikipedia are defending the inclusion of this group's opinions on Oregon politicians. --Liface 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose a new section added just like that for for the Nytimes under the title "Allegations of Bias". It should also include the references mentioned above.  Let me know what you think. --shirbil 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of "undue weight" did you miss? Wikipedia? Not a political organizing tool for tiny pet causes. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this contribution is of 'due weight'. --shirbil 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." "...For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources..." From WP:Reliable sources. --Liface 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The sentence right before your quote says, "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist..." From WP:Reliable sources. 2) There is no credible evidence to suggest that this organization is extremist.  3) I believe we have correctly labeled this under "Allegations of Bias".  I guess we could combine them into one entry if that makes more sense.    --shirbil 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's "undue weight" because you're treating the very narrow concerns of your very minor group as if it were a significant part of the history or coverage of The Oregonian. It's not, it's bloody obvious that it's there as a promotional/organization gambit, not because it actually adds the article or to a reader's understanding of the paper. Try Indymedia if you want to organize something. --Calton | Talk 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support for Assertions within Criticisms Section
General support for Oregonian as Republican/conservative

New York Times article on Oregonian endorsement of Bill Clinton: October 18, 1992: "The Portland Oregonian, the oldest daily newspaper published west of the Mississippi, endorsed a Democrat for the first time in its 142-year history, when it called for the election of Gov. Bill Clinton."  Oregon's early newspapers reflected the strong political positions commonly held by newspapers. One of the most noted of the outspoken publishers was Abigail Scott Duniway, a campaigner for women's rights. Duniway's brother, Harvey Scott, was editor of the Oregonian and promoted a conservative agenda. To publicize her opposition to Scott, Duniway started her own paper, the New Northwest, in 1871 and was instrumental in the 1912 passage of voting rights for Oregon women. 

On anti-labor reputation: One strike is especially notable because it was long, bitter, and in the end hastened the diminishing power of the newspaper unions in Portland. The strike began in November 1959 against the Oregonian and Oregon Journal. The National Labor Relations Board ruled the strike illegal in November 1963. By the following April the last two remaining unions quit and declared both plants open shops. By that time the strike was over. Having run over five years, it was the third longest newspaper strike in the United States.

Rorybowman 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the New York Times article? I'm not seeing it. --Liface 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * NYT is a bit odd to search and the results move around but if you look within the NYT for "endorsement" "oregonian" and "clinton" you should get it, when I just searched the free preview was at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10611F7395C0C7A8DDDA90994DA494D81. Would you like to revert the edit and introduce the references? Rorybowman 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorsements- Uhh...they endorsed Kerry in 2004, not too mention refusing to endorse anyone in 1964


 * Searching in the Oregonian's paid archives brings up just the first 200 or so words but "October 18, 1992

CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT The Oregonian, the oldest daily newspaper west of the Mississippi River, has never before endorsed a Democrat for president of the United States. We break that 142-year tradition to urge the election of Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas. And it isn't a close call.. Northwesterners wanted the candidates to address many things that have been gnawing at them: - Wealth in this country has become more concentrated than at any time since the 1920s. The richest 1 percent of Americans" Rorybowman 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
VanTucky may want to read the policy (note, not guideline) on verifiability and see if the citation you provided regarding the omnbudman:
 * [allows so] that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

Then cross-reference with WP:OR and:
 * the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. (emphasis added)

Then read Avoid weasel words to understand why the statement as it is should not be in the article. What is "most" and what are "major newspapers"? Say how many out of how many and then define "major" as in "the top 50 by average daily circulation" or whatever the defintion is. I don't care how long you have been editing, you still have to follow the same policies and guidelines as everyone else. And when someone removes a FACT tag from an article w/o providing the needed source, they are not following the policies/guidelines. As I said, I'm sure it is true, but a source has to back it up. Same thing with another bit of info I tagged earlier on the same article in relations to a Pulitzer Prize. Provide a proper source or remove the info. Aboutmovies 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assumed the citation tag referred to the lack of an ombudsman, considering that it is not controversial to say that most papers with a large circulation considered reliable published sources have an ombudsman on staff. I can cite the numbers for papers with them as well if you so request, but I didnt remove the tag in an effort to obscure or disregard anything (most especially wikipedia policy). I simply assumed that whether or not the largest paper in the state of Oregon has anyone to advise them on ethics was the more important citation in the page concerning that paper. So when I cited it, I rm'd the tag like anyone would do. Concerning the verifiability of the source...To begin with, no one in their right mind thinks the governing body of ombudsmen is writing fake editorials for the Oregonian. To allude to that source as not reliable is preposterous. But, if you so choose, I can search the byzantine Oregonian website for the primary internet copy of the editorial. VanTucky 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The verifiability issue I was quoting (note policy quoted was verifiability not reliable sources) has to do with the sentence in the artilce being backed up by the source cited, not the source being reliable. The source cited does not back up the statement in the article. All it alludes to is that as of sometime in 2006 that particular person left The Oregonian and at that time the paper did not plan on replacing them. That is all the source verifies. Anything else delves into original research, and that is not allowed. Find a source(s) that backs up the statement and remove the weasel words to make it encyclopedic. Let the facts speak for themselves, say 14 out of 22 of the top papers in North America by average daily circulation...blah blah blah.
 * Also, and this goes for all editors here and at all articles, please be aware of the conflict of interest guideline and ask yourself, Do I work for this entity or a competitor? If the answer is yes, then you should not be editing this article or any article where that question is yes. Aboutmovies 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to my status as the performance editor for The Vancouver Voice. The Voice is not in any sense of the word a competitor with the Oregonian, or any daily paper for that matter. Not only is the content-focus and readership of a monthly alternative paper at the opposite end of the spectrum from a daily newspaper, we do not seek the same advertisers. This is especially true with the Oregonian. I think they would find the idea of a seven-month old monthly alternative paper as a compeititor simply laughable, if they've even heard of us at all. About the source...I see what you mean. Youre correct that it's pretty vague, I'll do some more research. I tried to find something more concrete in a cursory search before citing. But it is very difficult to find a published source confirming the abscence of a column in a paper (beyond scanningin the editorial page, which I dont think is correct). I have to say the while you technically right, I think youre obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit. It doesnt take a genius to figure out from the cite that when the link to the public editor column is dead, there are no archived articles for a new public editor (on the Oregonian or the Ombudsmen's site which keeps a catalouge of all the columns) that it means is there is no public editor on staff for the Oregonian. And more importantly, the passage is NPOV. I do not go on to allude to what this means or any actual affect it has. Beyond the fact that an ombudsman is to the everyday functioning of a paper as a whole, most effective as a symbol of their ethical standards. Saying they dont have an ombudsman doesnt actually say they are unethical, only that they dont feel they need oversight beyond their readership and competition (jesus, the willamette week rides them harder about ethics than any ombudsman ever would). VanTucky 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The COI is directed at all editors as company articles tend to get editors who work for the company. I have mentioned this at several other company pages within WP:ORE that have active editors. However, you may want to remember the COI in regards to your edits on The Vancouver Voice. The allusion that is in the sentence is that The Oregonian is in the minority when it comes to having an ombudsman. Like I have said many times before, this may be true, but the source does not say that. Perhaps the ombudsman have a site listing all the papers where they have members, then reference a site that lists the largest newspapers by circulation. Cite both and the sentence can be confirmed (this would still border on OR), but the wording still uses weasel words so it would need to change. Aboutmovies 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the paper for bias and Republicanism has a major flaw, as the paper was founded in 1850, where the Republican party was a far different entity. To suggest a paper founded in 1850 as a Republican paper would bring the same political issues to this day is folly. In 1850 such a paper would be more concerned with slavery rather than unionism.

Circulation issues #1 & #2
The Oregonian is the largest in the NW. See the other link to circulation numbers that is not only more of a reliable source that the second one, but better shows the facts. The second one you are using uses the numbers for the Sunday papers, and though the Seattle newspapers have a larger circulation than The Oregonian Sunday paper, that is two newspapers combined (do you see where it says Times/PI). Thus, The Oregonian is the largest paper. Both Seattle papers have smaller circulation, and are owned by different companies, but opperate under the JOA that the Times has been trying to get out of. If the Times finally convinces the Hearst company to sell out the PI to them, then The Times would become #1. Until then they are two seperate newspapers. Aboutmovies 05:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I thought the two papers had combined ownership a few years back. I must have been thinking of the JOA you mention. I defer to your better knowledge and sources -- I had thought I was correcting a simple error, not a considered decision. -Pete (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Pete Re:Revert
Oops I forgot about this conversation. That citation really needs to be footnoted to explain the above if more than one of us has made that mistake, because at first glance, the citation doesn't seem to back up the assertion. Also, it should say Northwestern United States and not Pacific Northwest unless we add the circulation figures for the Vancouver paper as well. I'm glad it's higher than Seattle though, because I'm tired of the argument in Afds that coverage in the Oregonian is "local", and I was working to frame a comment in one of the current Afds asserting that just because people aren't familiar with our region, doesn't mean our largest newspaper isn't worthy of consideration as a source. This came up previously here. Katr67 (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another source
This AJR story from 2000 concerns Rowe's leadership. -Pete (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OregonLive.com and the Oregonian are different
How can I create a OregonLive.com page separately from the Oregonian page? They are two different companies and therefore should be featured under different pages--PdxCobra (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)