Talk:San Diego Reader

Untitled

Wow. I check in on this page every now and then since I started it, and this addition sounds like a hit piece. Shall I put a link to a Reader article in the SD:U-T page about the 'generous' contributions of the Copley family to Mayor Sanders, and the downsizing of the news staff while David Copley throws lavish yacht parties? FireballX301 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I'm quite sure that the personal viewpoint of a newspaper's editor belongs on that editor's page, not the paper's page, since it's irrelevant. Going to remove the section and reference. FireballX301 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

-

Removed the following:

" Because of the weekly's success, editor and publisher Jim Holman, a conservative Catholic who also publishes the online California Catholic Daily, has spent more than $5 million of his own money on three separate ballot measures (Props. 73, 85 and 4) that would require a doctor to notify the parents of a minor female before performing an abortion. The most recent measure, Prop. 4, which would have amended the state constitution, was defeated 52 percent to 48 percent on Nov. 4, 2008. "

Belongs on a 'Jim Holman' page, not pertinent to the San Diego reader itself, as per my prior comment roughly a year ago FireballX301 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mutilation of this page by convicted Antifa felons and/or their associates.

Twelve members of Antifa have been recently convicted in San Diego for "conspiracy to riot", severely beating a number of innocent bystanders, including a 17-year old school boy, trying to burn down a police substation and other crimes. Because the San Diego Reader covered this story, Antifa or Antifa sympathizers have retaliated by mutilating the Reader's Wikipedia page. They defamed the victims of the attack by Antifa as "white supremacists" without any credible references showing that they are white supremacists, which they deny. The Antifa riot was in Pacific Beach, a neighborhood of San Diego, on Jan 9, 2021.

They also exposed the name of one of the Readers reporters who covered the Antifa trial. This Reporter has covered local crimes for many years, including many violent crimes. Antifa is using Wikipedia to "dox" her and expose her to retaliation by the violent criminals that she has covered over the years, as well as those recently convicted, violent Antifa members that she has more recently covered. Reportedly, she has received threats of violence for her coverage of the Antifa trial.

Whoever is making these changes is putting Wikipedia at great risk of multiple lawsuits for defamation and other reasons. I suggest that you reverse the changes and restore the page as it was on 18:10, 17 April 2022, before the page mutilation and the doxing of the Reporter occurred. Also suggest you not allow any other edits that reference this contentious, political Antifa trial or allow the name of this reporter to be exposed again. This page should be about the Reader, generally as a business, not a tool of retaliation for those angry about a couple of news articles out of the tens of thousands that the San Diego Reader has produced over the last 50 years.

Also, suggest that those who have been making these changes be blocked from editing this page again. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks Wikipedia is just summarizing what USA Today reported. I didn't add the content initially (and I'm neither San Diegan nor Antifan), but it looks ok to me according to Wikipedia policy. The article does look ugly with a largely negative paragraph taking up so much of the page, but the answer for that is to build out the rest of the article. If you have sources which talk about the San Diego Reader in some depth, please share them here. I'd be happy to take a look. Maybe we can make that line just one small piece in a larger article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

USA Today has published more than one article. Can you supply a reference? The statement in the article implies without any proof that the people Antifa fought with -- the victims, who testified against them -- are white supremacists. I don't recall any article by USA today claiming the victims of the violence were white supremacists. They may have claimed that white supremacists were at the rally. That would not be supported by fact either. Whoever you can't defame a crowd of more than 25 as I understand it. In this article the editor is defaming the 6-7 victims of the violent mob of up to 40 Antifa that attacked individuals. One of their victims was a father from the neighborhood trying to remove his daughter from the riot, another a 17-year-old school boy, a vulnerable woman, two senior ladies and several innocent bystanders and passersby. The Antifa felons were not brawling with a white supremacist mob. They were severely beating anyone whom they thought were not on their side and also reporters recording the event for news purposes. If you leave this defamation of the victims on this page I have heard that some of them are already discussing a lawsuit against Wikipedia. I am not that familiar with working with Wikipedia, but I will be trying to escalating this at some point higher up in Wikipedia. This will also be reported to the judge as a possible violation of the release agreement of the convicted Antifa members, some of whom will be sentenced in a few days. These Antifa were convicted by a jury in the most liberal jurisdiction in San Diego, downtown. They received a very fair trial. But they and their supporters are apparently angry about it and using Wikipedia a tool for retaliation against the San Diego Reader, which was the local newspaper of record in this case. It doesn't matter on this talk page, but I have no connection to the San Diego Reader, except I have been a long-term reader of the paper, which is generally regarded as a liberal newspaper. I have been following this case, however. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

the USA today articles are cited at the end of the paragraph. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to expand I little. Antifa did not clash with a crowd of Trump supporters that day. They were separated from the Trump supporters by a police line. There were about 40 people in Black Bloc who ganged up on mostly on 1-2 people at a time and beat the crap out of them. The victims were isolated individuals, one pair of senior woman or very small group of 4 persons, who happened to be on their side. This event took place on a popular boardwalk on the beach. Individual people who were walking on the board walk, who did not meet the approval of the Antifa mob were assaulted and beaten. The police had most the victims testify in court, except a couple that were never identified. You should have credible proof that some of these specific people were white supremacists to post that statement, that they fought with... white supremacists. They did not *fight* with them, either. They assaulted and beat these victims without any provocation at all, as has been proven to a (presumed mostly liberal) jury in court. They did not fight with an amorphous crowd of unknown and anonymous Trump supporters. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If these statements can be reliably sourced, then they can be included in the article. As it is now, this is attributed to USA Today inline, to indicate that it didn't originate with Wikipedia and qualifying it as one outlet's reportage, which might not be the whole truth. That's all we can do right now by our own policies. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• TBH, that whole paragraph is a bit borderline UNDUE. I can kinda understand the first sentence being included since it is about a reporter for the paper, but what the defendants were on trial for, or who they were fighting with is not relevant to the topic of this article, which is the paper itself. WP:AUDIENCE says we should provide context for the reader, but that is in relation to the subject of the article, again, the newspaper. If one wants to argue that this reporter and the details of the incident are relevant to the topic of this article, then we should also include the outcome of the trial, 11 defendants indicted, all convicted – nine by guilty pleas and two by jury verdict, to give our readers a better understanding and completeness to this incident, which apparently we think is DUE to include in an article about a newspaper.

Additionally, the most recent article from USA Today (and the same author), now describe these individuals as a group of assorted Trump supporters, Proud Boys and members of the extreme right in San Diego, including people with a history of violence at local protests. And another thing I believe that kinda adds UNDUENESS to this whole paragraph, is the fact that this reporter, Eva Knott, has been using that pseudonym for at least the last 14 years, and has used that byline for 450+ articles for the newspaper. The impression/implication I got when I first read that paragraph was this "false name" was concocted for the purposes of attending this trial, which appears to be not true, since the March 2023 USA Today article used as a reference for that paragraph makes it clear that she has used this pseudonym for years, but that detail is omitted from the paragraph in question. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I removed that entire paragraph per WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and for being misleading. As I stated above, what the defendants were on trial for, or who they were fighting with is not relevant to the topic of this article, which is a newspaper. Furthermore, after reviewing the source more closely, the first part of the paragraph is misleading because it combines different parts of the source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Specifically, this part:

• According to USA Today, in 2023 a reporter for the San Diego Reader's press pass was revoked by the San Diego Police Department after she used a false name, Eva Knott, on court documents to gain press access to a case against members of antifa,

—Source: USA Today date: March 17, 2023

According to the source, her "press pass was revoked by the San Diego Police Department in October", which would have been the previous year (2022), since the date of the source is March 2023, and the source does not state the reason(s) for the revocation in October. So we cannot say in 2023 her press pass was revoked for reasons not explicitly stated by the source (using a false name ... to gain press access to a case against members of antifa).

According to the source, the allegations about her "using a false name, etc." are related to a motion filed by a defense attorney in February 2023, to get her banned from covering the case entirely. So that specific passage highlighted above is WP:SYNTH – do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Hard to disagree with that. In an article that's hurting for content, and in a section that opens with talk of political leanings, there's something to be said for a line about a defense lawyer filing a motion to remove a reporter from court after that reporter collaborated with Andy Ngo to publicize photos of defendants, leading them to be harassed [according to the motion]. The USA Today coverage is probably enough for that much, but of course who knows what happened to that motion -- I can't find anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The motion was denied, the judge basically said he was used to motions for excluding "the media" in general, but you couldn't single out one reporter to be banned because you don't like their negative coverage of the defendants. When the issue of the false name/pseudonym was brought up, the judge seemed to be aware that she had been using that pseudonym for years on her press pass, asking the defense attorney if he knew "how many years" she had been using that name. I also don't think the February 2023 article that Knott co-authored with Andy Ngo that was published on WP:POSTMIL, which was the basis for the motion [photos of defendants, leading them to be harassed], would be DUE for this article about this particular newspaper. Apparently she is allowed to freelance with The Post Millennial, so we can't say definitively that the San Diego Reader was involved in any way with the story/photos of the defendants being published elsewhere.

It's also worth noting that Knott filed a lawsuit last month against the SDPD to regain her press pass, where she alleges with documentation, that the reason for the October 2022 revocation of her press pass, was because of an email sent to the SDPD in August 2022 by Will Carless, the author of the USA Today article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)