Talk:The Daily Princetonian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)