Talk:The Daily Cardinal
|WikiProject Wisconsin||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
In the first paragraph, it said The Daily Cardinal is financially independent. This is untrue as they are supported financially through the University of Wisconsin. So, I took out the “financially independent” phrase.
- That is not correct. Neither The Cardinal nor The Herald are financially supported by the University and both gain 100% of their revenue from advertising. The location of The Cardinal's office being within the University's property (in Vilas Hall) is a source of confusion, but it is explained by the fact that the land on which Vilas Hall sits was originally owned by The Cardinal, and part of the agreement to sell it to the University was that The Cardinal would be able to keep its office in the building, rent-free, indefinitely. I will be reverting your edit. --DanyaRomulus 00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is financially independent and always has been. It publishes out of Vilas, because the Cardinal owned the land Vilas is on and sold it to the University on the condition that they'd get office space within the building
Moved the Herald reference further down in paragraph. I originally had it earlier, and recognize that because the article in about the Cardinal, the Herald should not be in the second sentence.
Ideas about how to "clean up" the article? Probably needs history as well as current staff information.Kyle Andrew Brown 19:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Have removed the reference to the paper being a big contributor to the block party. It did publish notice about the party, but the paper and its staff did not directly plan the party. The community associated with the Mifland Coop gets that credit.Kyle Andrew Brown 04:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I did a little reorganization to highlight basic info in the lead and put the history sorta chronologically; also some rewording for clarity. See what you think and change anything you think is needed. HollyAm 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Baron- could you provide a url?Tryxchange 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the history section is adapted from the Cardinal's own history page at . It's not copied verbatim since that page is obviously not neutral, but the similarities are clear enough. I'm sending a request to the editor in chief for permission to use it; I don't expect any problems. I know the Cardinal's in-house stylebook has a much better history write-up than the one that's published online, so I'll try to get that incorporated, too. --Rob Kennedy 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, to whoever added the very hard to believe "Cardinal Firsts" section, can you show me some evidence of those claims? I'm removing it now, and unless you can provide sources, I don't think it should be restored. --DanyaRomulus 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- The list isn't entirely false. I think the Cardinal was indeed the first Wisconsin paper to have a Web site. The paper might have been the first in a certain region to be printed on an offset press, but probably not the first globally. I have my doubts about the Truman-victory claim. I'll try to get some more information. --Rob Kennedy 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the page to what it was before "126.96.36.199" edited it, as virtually all of their numerous edits were shameless attacks on the Cardinal. Please observe Wikipedia: POINT, sir/madam. --DanyaRomulus 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it proper to say the paper "employs" over 200 students when it doesn't pay the vast majority of its staff, including its editor in chief? Since most student papers do pay these days (the Cardinal apparently can't afford to), this comes off as awfully deceptive. Is there a number for how many people actually do get paid? It could read "The Cardinal employs XX students and has XX volunteers." Editor Emeritus 06:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there more information out there about the 1995 shutdown? "the paper’s stunned editors were informed that the Cardinal did not have the financial means to continue printing". It sounds like someone is trying to imply something without out and out making an accusation. I think there are two options:
- Provide some actual facts.
- If the actual facts are not relevant enough to appear on Wikipedia, change the sentence to something less loaded like: "Due to financial issues, the Cardinal was forced to stop printing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)