Talk:The Daily Princetonian

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Asian racism controversy[edit]

There is no reason that this belongs in a circumspect article on the paper's 120 year history; this is not anywhere near the biggest thing that's happened to the Daily Princetonian in its history. I'm deleting the section unless someone wants to give an explanation here.Mjl0509 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would have done so myself had it not been for the conflict of interst of me being a former employee of the Prince. Sirmob 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I'm a CURRENT employee, so I'm even worse. If anyone who feels otherwise wants to weigh in, please do. I've got no issue with people knowing about this (my personal feelings aren't really relevant here), but I just want to be careful putting something down that, in the larger scheme of things, is not that important to the long, long history of the Daily Princetonian. Mjl0509 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI issues aside, the Jian Li may or may not be the biggest thing in the Daily Princetonian's history, but the average reader of the article doesn't know that. It was the only thing in the article which was supported by citation to multiple instances of coverage which is both:

non-trivial (more than once sentence in an article about something else), and
independent (not published by the Daily Princetonian Printing Company)

At this point, what's left of the article fails to assert any notability at all. If there's other bigger things in that 120-year history, you should write about them. But keep in mind that the only things that really get attention from the mainstream media are scandals anyway ... cheers, cab 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Daily Princetonian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty link in article[edit]

Hello fellow wikipedians,

I noticed a faulty link regarding Andrew Pollack under the journalists section of this article, and I have looked at edits made before February 2018 and they all also contain this name, so I fixed the link and disambiguated this person. 64222368Z260O (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]