This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if it warrants inclusion in the article, but as a early 1990's DI reader, a bit of trivia is that we used to give the paper the derisive term of "Daily Death", It was referred in that manner due to the relatively low editorial standards in the paper (probably a common issue with other college papers as well, I do not know). In the end, though, it was our paper, and so we loved it.
Reporters, photographers and other student workers don't actually get paid as much as intern. It's very small pay.
This Middle East section is about a too-recent controversy to include in an encyclopedia article. It isn't needed to balance any other information in the article. It seems to be thrown in just to say, see, the paper isn't perfect (no one will assume it is).
Also, don't cap every "university." Might be DI style but it isn't here.
I agree, the "controversy" is not notable. I will delete soon if no one raises an objection. Thesquire 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have an objection. I think it is very notable to have the controversy with Israel-Palestine. It is something that was covered very heavily and has been repeated a number of times throughout the history of the paper. To delete such an integral "news" item for the paper is revisionism. In addition it makes the post seem current and all-encompassing of the news around the paper. -- UofIMedStudent 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Is Mariam Sobh really a notable alum? Also, University refers to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, not just any university. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Superdosh ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article states: No evidence has been identified to demonstrate systemic bias within the newspaper itself. Is that phrase a conclusion of the original research of one of the contributors to the article? gidonb 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There is very little notable biographical info available on Chuck Prochaska or Acton Gorton. Most of their bios are the same, using text taken from this article. Relevant biographical details are so few that we can inclue them in passing ("..., who served as a journalist in Iraq"...). - Will Beback 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's now been three months since the last comments about the of merging Chuck Prochaska and Acton Gorton to this article, and nothing seems to have come of either of them. Should we merge?-- Chaser T 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the proper tags. I'll merge them in a week if I don't get any comments here.-- Chaser T 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree to either merge or delete. There is a lot of incomplete information in their articles. For example, they were not fired due to their decision to print the cartoons. At least not officially, officially they were suspended for advertizing irregularities or some such rubbish. I consider them significant because, the actual act of firing them just after the publishing, meant that it might be construed that they were fired for exercising the freedom of the media. They were heavily covered by the tv, radio and print media, both individually and together, nationally and internationally. The daily illini has enough controversies every few years to keep it a seperate article. From the looks of it, Acton Gorton at least (who is suing the daily illini with the ACLU) is not going to be out of the limelight any time soon. -Arvind Badrinarayanan (Reporter for the daily illini 2003-2006)
I listed this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to see if outside editors would have any thoughts. No hurry, after all. Arvind, I couldn't find anything on the internet about Gorton suing with the ACLU. Do you have any weblinks indicating that? I didn't find anything on Lexis, either. Finally, I should note that mergers are not permanent. If he becomes individually notable later, we can always de-merge.-- Chaser T 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking carefully at the articles for both Gorton and Prochaska, it's hard to see anything worth merging. Should we nominate both for deletion via AfD?-- Chaser T 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Several IP's have been edit warring over the inclusion of an email allegedly written by the University's Chancellor. I am removing that line from this article, as no one has been able to provide an actual source, just a promise that verification will be coming. If that is true, then the respective sentence can be included when that verification comes, in the form of a newspaper article, a press release, or some other published source. It need not be on the web, but it must be published, and a citation must appear in this article, so that the reader can verify the information, not in the edit summary as has happened before. This is in keeping in compliance with wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.-- Chaser T 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Let UIUC publish it themselves or wait for an actual newspaper to print it. Your comment about blogs is not an acceptable answer and posting a phone number is also unacceptable. Wait for it to be published. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Your addition is original research and is unverifiable by others. Please wait until a reliable source publishes this material. -- Dual Freq 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The editor persists in adding in the portion about the Chancellor's letter despite the fact that several others have noted the lack of evidence. Is there anything that can be done to ensure that the unsubstantiated report does not continue to be written into the article until incontrovertible evidence emerges? - vagrant829
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Daily Illini →
The Daily Illini – The newspaper should be referred to as The Daily Illini as a noun and Daily Illini as an adjective. The title of the page should reflect the noun usage. –
MrWhiteEye (
talk)
05:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if it warrants inclusion in the article, but as a early 1990's DI reader, a bit of trivia is that we used to give the paper the derisive term of "Daily Death", It was referred in that manner due to the relatively low editorial standards in the paper (probably a common issue with other college papers as well, I do not know). In the end, though, it was our paper, and so we loved it.
Reporters, photographers and other student workers don't actually get paid as much as intern. It's very small pay.
This Middle East section is about a too-recent controversy to include in an encyclopedia article. It isn't needed to balance any other information in the article. It seems to be thrown in just to say, see, the paper isn't perfect (no one will assume it is).
Also, don't cap every "university." Might be DI style but it isn't here.
I agree, the "controversy" is not notable. I will delete soon if no one raises an objection. Thesquire 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have an objection. I think it is very notable to have the controversy with Israel-Palestine. It is something that was covered very heavily and has been repeated a number of times throughout the history of the paper. To delete such an integral "news" item for the paper is revisionism. In addition it makes the post seem current and all-encompassing of the news around the paper. -- UofIMedStudent 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Is Mariam Sobh really a notable alum? Also, University refers to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, not just any university. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Superdosh ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article states: No evidence has been identified to demonstrate systemic bias within the newspaper itself. Is that phrase a conclusion of the original research of one of the contributors to the article? gidonb 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There is very little notable biographical info available on Chuck Prochaska or Acton Gorton. Most of their bios are the same, using text taken from this article. Relevant biographical details are so few that we can inclue them in passing ("..., who served as a journalist in Iraq"...). - Will Beback 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's now been three months since the last comments about the of merging Chuck Prochaska and Acton Gorton to this article, and nothing seems to have come of either of them. Should we merge?-- Chaser T 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the proper tags. I'll merge them in a week if I don't get any comments here.-- Chaser T 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree to either merge or delete. There is a lot of incomplete information in their articles. For example, they were not fired due to their decision to print the cartoons. At least not officially, officially they were suspended for advertizing irregularities or some such rubbish. I consider them significant because, the actual act of firing them just after the publishing, meant that it might be construed that they were fired for exercising the freedom of the media. They were heavily covered by the tv, radio and print media, both individually and together, nationally and internationally. The daily illini has enough controversies every few years to keep it a seperate article. From the looks of it, Acton Gorton at least (who is suing the daily illini with the ACLU) is not going to be out of the limelight any time soon. -Arvind Badrinarayanan (Reporter for the daily illini 2003-2006)
I listed this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to see if outside editors would have any thoughts. No hurry, after all. Arvind, I couldn't find anything on the internet about Gorton suing with the ACLU. Do you have any weblinks indicating that? I didn't find anything on Lexis, either. Finally, I should note that mergers are not permanent. If he becomes individually notable later, we can always de-merge.-- Chaser T 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking carefully at the articles for both Gorton and Prochaska, it's hard to see anything worth merging. Should we nominate both for deletion via AfD?-- Chaser T 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Several IP's have been edit warring over the inclusion of an email allegedly written by the University's Chancellor. I am removing that line from this article, as no one has been able to provide an actual source, just a promise that verification will be coming. If that is true, then the respective sentence can be included when that verification comes, in the form of a newspaper article, a press release, or some other published source. It need not be on the web, but it must be published, and a citation must appear in this article, so that the reader can verify the information, not in the edit summary as has happened before. This is in keeping in compliance with wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.-- Chaser T 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Let UIUC publish it themselves or wait for an actual newspaper to print it. Your comment about blogs is not an acceptable answer and posting a phone number is also unacceptable. Wait for it to be published. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Your addition is original research and is unverifiable by others. Please wait until a reliable source publishes this material. -- Dual Freq 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The editor persists in adding in the portion about the Chancellor's letter despite the fact that several others have noted the lack of evidence. Is there anything that can be done to ensure that the unsubstantiated report does not continue to be written into the article until incontrovertible evidence emerges? - vagrant829
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Daily Illini →
The Daily Illini – The newspaper should be referred to as The Daily Illini as a noun and Daily Illini as an adjective. The title of the page should reflect the noun usage. –
MrWhiteEye (
talk)
05:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)