Talk:Ekstra Bladet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Denmark (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Neutrality dispute[edit]

This article, especially the last part, is not neutral.

I have conducted an legnthy assesment of the article and concluded that it is strikingly nuetral. Smith Jones (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is far from neutral. The claims made aren't backed up by any citations and paint the paper as a paragon of virtue. I'm honestly a bit surprised that anyone who performed a "lengthy assessment" could find this article "strikingly neutral." AniMate 02:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I admit that its lacking in mulitple sources for many of its rather freewheeling allegatons, however i according to my sreaearch the best thing that I have detected with regards to reasonable proeduction of the claims entered into regarding this article, most of the issues with it ar edue to a lack of sources rther than due to an open bias either pro or against this articles good and bad sides and popular criticisms thereof. the tag, while not completely wrong, fails to illustrate thje eky objections and stipulations that readers should come into being with when entering and reading this articel. many of the unsourced claims that you and others noted are not praise or critism bt instead broad statements of fact that require sourcing in the form of a print or electronic source in order to be cosndiered valid. furthermore, this article relies very heavily on its own subjects website for support and details. this can create the ipression among certain less-experienced users is that this subject is of a fairly new and not entrieyl prominent publication, which of course rexperienced users like yourslef and I have encountered before previously in the past. Therefore, my view is that if we cinue to update this article we can reach a point in the near future whereas any tag, no matter how esoteric and seemingl off-the-topic of the issues specificallyrelating to this article, can be removed as unnecessary. Smith Jones (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Lack of sources is just one part of the problem. The phrase "Ekstra Bladet has always strived on being there for the people and that has proven to be a successful path" is editorialising. It's difficult to see how this could be supported by a source unless the statement is rephrased to be attributed to someone other than the editor who wrote it. It's kind of like writing "Wikipedia Editor x says that Ekstra Bladet does its best to report the news", except at least there we'd have an attribution - albeit a fairly unsuitable one.
The "ever-shrinking market" comment doesn't fit in the context of the sentence it's in. The overall market is not relevant to Ekstra Bladet outselling B.T. unless one of them is bucking the market trend or Ekstra is just not doing as badly as B.T. in comparison to the market as a whole. Probably worth removing that unless there's a decent source to explain why it's make this comparison to B.T. and the market. The mention of their site being popular is a relatively direct statement but has been lacking a source now for around three-years. Seems better to strip these things out (the rest of the article appears pretty much okay) I'll remove those sections, or rephrase where possible. -Concernedresident's butler Not butter or putter 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is...[edit]

It gets a share of its income from sex ads.[3] Since 1979 it has always had a partly or completely naked woman on page nine which is referred to as Side 9 Pigen ("The Page 9 Girl"),[4][5] a Danish equivalent of the English Page Three girl. ...VERY alike to our German tabloid, Bild. However, the naked girl is on the front page over here. -andy 77.190.3.148 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's incredible...[edit]

how WikiPedia wastes space over some trashy obscure newspaper in Denmark, but finds the Canadian rock group Feeding Like Butterflies to be "irrelevant" and not worthy of an article. To me, this is undisputable proof that Wikipedia is written by Wikipidiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.138.250.91 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • That's quite a stretch. If you think Feeding Like Butterflies merits an article, create one. Put references in it. Let me know when you do, because 2 minutes tells me they could have an article if a competent editor created one.--Milowenthasspoken 05:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)