From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it the StarTribune?

This might be a bit of pedantic nonsense, but I'm almost sure it's officially the 'StarTribune' (no space). Look at the linked logo. Just from memory, but I think that the change happened right when they officially dropped the 'and'. -- abg Dec 31, 2005
I would have agreed, but taking a look around, there are plenty of Star[space]Tribune references also. This is linked from the front page: http://www.startribunecompany.com/company/ and uses a space in the title of the page and elsewhere. Rufus Sarsaparilla 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Strib as a nickname

I'm a local, and I've never heard anybody call it the strib. -- Benna 06:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am also a local, and "strib" is what everyone calls it. "Star and Tribune" is a long name! If it will help, here is a Google search for "Strib". You will see that most of the first page of refrences are to the Star Tribune. Their company owns stribstuff.com and stribmail.com, so even they call it that.
MicahMN | Talk 15:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hear "star trib" sometimes, but I can't remember ever hearing strib. Nobody calls it the "Star and Tribune," they call in the Star Tribune. Whatever, I just don't think its really worth a mention so prominent at the beginning of the article.
Huh? I've lived in the Twins for 20 years, and in the Strib's distribution area my whole life - and "Strib" is the primary nickname, far and away. Furthermore, the local/area media calls it the "Strib" when in doubt. I can't see any question that Strib should be included. Mitchberg 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Strib. ( SEWilco 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
I should point out, also, that I have two friends working at the Strib. THEY both call it the Strib. It's downright stribby in its stribness. Mitchberg 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Star and Sickle is another possible name, I am told.
Sign your comments, harpy. - 66.41.27.200 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
dmb- Strib as a formal nickname
This is funny, and a good example of mental induction, in that if me and my friends do it, think it, feel it, etc., then so does everybody else...
>> I'm a local, and I've never heard anybody call it the strib. --Benna 06:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
>> I am also a local, and "strib" is what everyone calls it.
everyone? anyway, everyone I know calls tacobell tacohell, and k-mart hellmart, and home depot the home despot, but does that mean it should be in wikipedia as, for example, BurgerKing as "also called BurgerDong"?
Also, just cause employees use a nickname, that doesn't make it general fodder either. I worked there, and sure, the intranet was called stribnet, the little internal newletter was stribnews, and employees were stribbers.
So, what's my point: oh, just cause people love or hate something doesn't mean it's good journalism, and there is always a crowd that insists on using nicknames for things with perfectly good if not long formal names. the question here is, is it a sidenote or a real part of the meaning of the StarTribune, as far as the wickedped is concerned?
------
if me and my friends do it, think it, feel it, etc., then so does everybody else
Well, that's a bit of a strawman. This has nothing to do with my friends/acquaintances and I; it's an observation that "Strib" is a very common nickname, especially among media people in (and out of) the Twin cities. I suspect that if you polled 1000 Twin Citians about their nicknames for the paper, "Strib" would be the most common nick (although I myself will not pay for the polling to prove it).
A better question might be "Is it an appropriate subject for Wikipedia?" Does the encyclopedia reader care about "strib" - a fairly innocuous nickname? (The "Star and Sickle" is much more interesting, BTW - it refers in part to the roots of the pre-Humphrey MN DFL party as apologists for Stalin in the '30's and '40's, and paper's perceived (whether you believe it or not) support of the DFL over the years).

Mitchberg 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

NPOV - "liberal" bashing

I deleted the paragraph on the "perceived liberal bias" until someone rewrites it in NPOV, which it was not because:

  • the whole paragraph used a "conservatives think..." addendum as a flimsy excuse to express a biased opinion;
  • the whole paragraph is devoted to purported views of conservatives with no mention of any competing views; and
  • endorsement of any Democrat/DFL candidates is described as "inexplicabl[e]".


64.12.116.202: Pointing out that people call the paper the Red Star is a slur on communism? Please explain how so. I put in a statement of fact -- many people do indeed refer to the paper that way. I don't necessarily agree with it myself, although I think it is kind of funny as a protest. I can think of many reasons why that factoid may not be appropriate for this article, but not because it is a communism slur, whatever that means. Rufus Sarsaparilla 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If it's a statement of fact, you need to supply an external reference that shows people calling it. It's a slur because no matter what you may think of the paper, saying it is a Communist paper is ridiculous. Anyone who has actually had to live under Communism and had to deal with state-controlled media and the lie-filled, reality-adverse newspapers so published, would be offended to hear the Star Tribune called a communist newspaper. It's an affront to the people who really had to struggle against real communism.
Well, let's see. Searching Google for star tribune and "red star" yields over 80,000 hits. Near the top is an entry at answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/minneapolis-star-tribune. I think there's a difference between calling it the "Red Star" in jest and in calling it a communist newspaper. That seems to be your interpretation that goes with the particular crusade you're on. My own interpretation would be that people who call it that are alluding to what they think of as its support for liberal polices that are more in line with socialism and communism (again, in their opinion). But you seem quite agitated and gee we'd hate to offend your sensibilities, so maybe we'll just let it be. Rufus Sarsaparilla 01:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The reference you cite is a false echo, another site that just copies Wikipedia content. (It's a copy of an older version of this article that had even more Star Tribune = Communism nonsense.) People looking into verifying Wikipedia articles often fall for false echoes. But looking at the other google hits, they are real and you are right, there are a lot of "Red Star" uses. They all seem to be from political blogs, where absurd name calling is the lingua franca. Bush is a Nazi, Hillary is a Communist, and so on. Yuck. I'm old enough to know that Nazi and Communist mean something, I guess these Moorites and O'Reillybrains don't. Yuck. I don't care, call the newspaper whatever you want, none of this means a goddam thing anymore. Sense is lost. Happy New Year. Signed, Anon and thankful for it.

Hatchet Job

I'm sorry, but this edit was in incredibly bad form.

For starters, the issues about the Strib's editorial bias, while a matter of conservative opinion, were originally stated using fairly detached language. The NPOV edit was done, I think, from a POV.

Second, the removal of the paragraph left a very awkward transition to the next paragraph, which provides an alternative ("...however...") to a statement that was erased.

Mitchberg 03:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I have no dog in this hunt, but the cite for "liberal bias" in the removed material was very lame. It was a long Powerline piece about how the Star Tribune's polls are always wrong. Well, lots of polls are wrong, so what? It's more art than science. Powerline then claims that Republicans won't vote in elections if polls say their candidates might lose. I doubt that's true, and if it were, it would speak more poorly of Republican voters than of pollsters. Basic tenets of personal responsibility say that you cast your vote, regardless of who's predicting what. Otherwise you deserve to have the candidate you don't like elected.
In any case, I restored the original text, minus the Powerline bit and minus the hyperbolic comparison of the paper with Communism. I also trimmed down the gay pride claim on the other side. What I would say is, if you don't like what a paper prints, don't buy it. Personal responsibility notions solve a lot of problems!
Which is why I haven't bought the Strib in years.

Good edits, generally.

Mitchberg 12:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

McClatchy sale

I've read a number of articles about the Star-Tribune sale and they all make a big deal about how it was sold for half of what McClatchy paid for it. Even if you read the entirety of this entry, you'll see an inconsistency to that statement. The purchase wasn't of the Star-Tribune, it was of Cowles Media which had, apparently, a number of magazine and holdings, which it sold off keeping only the Star-Tribune. I heard that McClatchy was able to pay off the debt of the original purchase in under two years, I recall reading somewhere. I'm sure part of that was from the sale of the other holdings. Also, the recent sale allowed for a recoup in taxes of about $160 million according to McClatchy's press release which makes the sale really worth about $690 million. To say that McClatchy sold the paper for half of what it bought it for seems somewhat misleading.

http://www.mcclatchy.com/176/story/1820.html

Style section

Could someone re-edit the "Style" section to make it intelligible? I'd do it myself, but I can neither begin to understand what the original writer was getting at, nor understand the run-on sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.171.6 ( talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Greetings. Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia. "Above the fold" is a term from newspaper design, applied here to Web design. Best I can do for you. Best wishes. - Susanlesch ( talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I added some more, and today the Vikings moved away from the top of the left down to the middle of the center column. No problem, it may have been a slow news week (I really have no way to know as I only check the Star Tribune site sometimes). Hope this helps. - Susanlesch ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't understand the purpose of the section either. All I see at pages like New York Times are similarly confusing edits you've made to those pages. Why is it relevant what the headline was on any specific day? I don't get it. It seems a "style" section would be better suited to a discussion of the paper's format i.e., broadsheet or whatever, and then maybe a discussion of the sytlistic cues that make the paper distinctive or used to in the past. I don't get the headline business at all. It's also bordering on Original Research in so far as its assembling facts to present an argument. -- Beaker342 ( talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding a specific day, that was my interest as a consumer of the paper on the Web (I rarely but sometimes see the paper in print). Of course you are welcome to say so if it doesn't interest you. Glad I checked back here to find your comment. Regarding "the paper's format broadsheet or whatever, and then maybe a discussion of the sytlistic cues that make the paper distinctive or used to in the past" I would say, "Good idea." and "Go for it." Do you happen to know if the Star Tribune uses any type of custom delivery on the Web? For say, advertising or content? I have for example seen custom interfaces elsewhere I believe. - Susanlesch ( talk) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I still don't understand your reasoning for discussing headlines, besides your "interest as a consumer." I'd suggest we move the discussion over to the talk page for the New York Times, where it would be more likely to get outside opinions. -- Beaker342 ( talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry but no deal from my point of view, as I have something else to do at the moment. Glad I check to find your reply here. I await your contributions here though if you have an interest in the Star Tribune. And an answer to any of my questions, because I believe I have answered your questions. Thank you though for your interest. Best wishes. - Susanlesch ( talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Frankly, that isn't how Wikipedia works. You don't get to say "no deal" and end the discussion when two editors have voiced concerns about your additions and haven't been satisfied with the reasoning, or rather the lack thereof, you have provided for them. See Wikipedia:Consensus. I remain very confused by your additions and simply don't understand why a discussion of headlines from different days is relevant for the purposes of this article. I'm becoming a little disturbed by your unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion on this central point. -- Beaker342 ( talk) 01:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me. I left a note on your talk page some time ago. I do not plan to reply to you again unless necessary. Sorry. - Susanlesch ( talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

On Thursday morning December 13 the top headlines were:

  • Study says fewer lack food, health care
  • Arctic front to bring little snow, but chilling winds
  • Carlton schools close; firefighting effort used too much water
  • Tough break (about accident stopping actor from appearing in "The Sound of Music" theater production)

The sports styling does not seem to be current. -- SEWilco ( talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Format

Hello. The above discussion brought up a good idea. I added a blank "Format" section, expecting some kind of collaboration on this article which for whatever reason did not happen today. Maybe later this will happen, I don't know. But for the moment the "Style and editorial focus" section of this article is incomplete. - Susanlesch ( talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Dispute

Sometimes when involved in an editing dispute matters can seem heavier than they are. The editors involved in this dispute are all doing the right thing. There is a disagreement about the right approach to editing the article, so the editors have started a dialogue, and have now asked for an independent opinion. The discussions are polite, with no personal attacks, and there are no edit wars taking place. So, first off, congratulations to everyone for doing the right thing - nobody need feel they have done anything wrong.

Having a section which discusses the editorial approach and the distinctive layout of a newspaper seems to me to be wholly appropriate for an encyclopedia article on an individual newspaper. Indeed, such topics are taught in English classes and at journalism schools. Having looked at a few other newspaper articles on Wiki, I note that there are sections which deal with this aspect of the newspaper - stance and format in The Guardian, image and format in The Times, editorial stance in The Daily Mail, etc. The names of the sections differ slightly, and approaches also differ - though the intention appears to be the same. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 10:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

People have raised concerns about the contents of the Style section in this article. It would be appropriate for people to offer a solution, either here on the talk page, or in an edit on the article itself. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 10:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd have to respectifully disagree that I or anyone else concerned about the section is obligated to offer a better alternative for the simple reason that I'm in no way qualified to write such a section. I know absolutely nothing about the stylistic practices of newspapers. I don't think that disqualifies me, however from coming to the sensible conclusion, as the anon above did, that the section doesn't make any sense as it exists right now. I don't need to be a historian to know that it wouldn't make much sense to add a random newspaper headline from 1942 to the article on World War II without any discussion of that headline's broader relevance or its relevance to historians. As I read the section in its current form, about the only thing I get from it is that for a week in December 2007 the paper favored sports coverage, and this coverage increased as the relevant team improved. In and of itself this would seem rather inconsequential. But to my eye, it also seems to be Original Research in that it assumes that the dates selected were in any way representative of the paper's general coverage. It also seems to be POV pushing (the paper favors sports coverage to other types of coverage). But really my problem is less with the content than with the editor's unwillingness to offer up any rationale for including the content and aggressive refusals to engage in discussion with her coeditors. Like User:Susanlesch I am busy in my personal life. A such I don't think that this needs to be resolved right this second or even in six hours. I'm more than happy to discuss things slowly. I do think it needs to be talked about, and I don't think being busy of itself absolves any of us of our duty here at Wikipedia to come to consensus, however long that takes.-- Beaker342 ( talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think you may have misunderstood my communication. This is not unusual, and is no reflection on you at all. If I may attempt to make my comment clearer: You, and other editors, are encouraged to edit the section in question, or to make comments on the section. You are also encouraged to enter into a discussion as to the relevance of a section within an article on a newspaper which discusses the editorial stance and format of that newspaper. But you are not obligated to do anything (other than be civil), and I apologise if my post gave that impression. Also, you have no need to feel that you have a duty to work on this or any other article on Wikipedia. Wiki editing is something that people do voluntarily.
What has happened here is that Susanlesc added a section to the article on Dec 9th which she titled Style. She then worked on shaping this section. She worked alone on this. On 11th Dec an IP account made a comment on the talkpage requesting that the section be made clearer. The next day you entered into a conversation with Susanlesc, also saying you found the section hard to follow. Susanlesc made an attempt to explain her thinking. You suggested moving the discussion elsewhere. She said she had felt she had explained what she could, that she wasn't interested in pursuing the conversation elsewhere and invited you to make a contribution to the article. Your next comment is that your understanding of Wikipedia is that if you are not happy with someone's contributions to an article that the person must explain the contribution to your satisfaction. (This, incidentally, is not the case.) And you then requested an independent view - myself - of the dispute. (Which was an appropriate move.)
I looked at the matter and felt that adding such a section to the article was appropriate, and was moving the article forward. However, like yourself, I found the content of the section wanting, and felt it appropriate that the section be edited. My comment was intended to encourage you or anyone else to edit the section, or to suggest ways of improving the section. I can see my wording was rather limp. I was at work and suddenly called upon to perform an urgent task so quickly finished writing. My apologies.
Anyway. Let's move forward on this and look to do the positive thing rather than the negative. Removing the section would be a backward step. Improving the section is the best way forward. And possibly out of this, entering into a discussion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism regarding an Article Structure Guideline in which advice is given on how best to present a section on Editorial Stance and Format.
My suggestion is that people interested in improving this article do some research on the editorial stance of the Star Tribune - take a look here, here, here, etc.
My final comment would be that I think Susanlesc has made it clear she doesn't want to be questioned any further on this topic. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your intervention. Please elaborate a little, for my own edification and perhaps for others as well, as to why editors are not required to defend their edits on talk pages, or at least can't be upset if they refuse to discuss their edits and others revert them. I base this on my reading of WP:Consensus and experiences at other articles, and so I am eager to hear about how I have been operating under mistaken understandings of policy. To be clear, I'm not under the impression that my opinions carry special weight and that all edits have to be signed off by me. I don't own the article any more than any other editor. But I was under the impression that consensus demands that those active on the article, which at the time happened only to be myself and Susan, do have to come to consensus, or at least comething vaguely resembling consensus. -- Beaker342 ( talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Certainly. Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which anyone is welcome to contribute voluntarily. The intention has long been that there should be no rules - the belief being that common sense would prevail. However, in order to ensure the smooth running of the project, and to help assist users to have as problem free and pleasant an experience as possible while editing the project (thus encouraging them to continue editing) certain guidelines to behaviour and editing have been drawn up. These are, however, mostly guidelines rather than rules. There are some policies for important matters, and these are worth looking at: Wikipedia:List of policies. Policies are what we are encouraged to follow. The important ones for this discussion are: Wikipedia:Editing policy (which is summed up as "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect."), and Wikipedia:Civility (which is summed up "Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally."). Which, to put it simply, means - don't hassle someone because you don't understand their edit. Try to improve the article. Try to engage in discussion. All these things are encouraged. But don't pursue someone to distraction when they have told you to leave them alone, especially when that person is not well. You have not been aware of it, so no real foul, and I should have made it more explicit, but your behaviour is bordering on harassment and as such is against Wiki policy. I think it is time I made it very clear: Please stop bothering Susanlesch. Your attention is unwanted and is clearly causing her some distress. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello, Beaker342, sorry to see continuing pressure coming from you. Apologies but I am out of time for this and cannot agree to "slowly" and I cannot reply to you, as explained on your talk page, on SilkTork's talk page's talk page, and here on Talk:Star Tribune. I am 1) not feeling well physically, and 2) have no dispute with you or with anyone else on Wikipedia, or for that matter Wikimedia at this time. Please leave me alone. Is there something about physical illness that bothers you? It is in my case simply out of my control. Where do you live, may I ask? - Susanlesch ( talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I take great offense at your repeated insinuations that I am either bothering you or refusing to leave you alone and that I am somehow taking great personal pleasure in doing so. This is not in any way personal and I hope you will apologize for implying that it is. -- Beaker342 ( talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh dear. Pardon me. I believe I already said sorry to you multiple times. No? Can you see that above? May I ask who you are? - Susanlesch ( talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I found your comment above "Is there something about physical illness that bothers you?" tremendously offensive. It implied that I am disputing your edits out of spite and that I take pleasure in doing so because you are ill.-- Beaker342 ( talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh, I see. Beaker342, I am not feeling well. Sorry for any confusion. - Susanlesch ( talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Removed style section and images

Hello. I am not sure I will ever recover from the above. I have removed the Style section entirely and the photos (one of which I added and was working on). What a terrible day for me. I may have to quit Wikipedia. - Susanlesch ( talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks SEWilco for restoring the images. I loved that photo of John Cowles. And Bobak's overhead view is almost unrepeatable. - Susanlesch ( talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
By the way, did you or anyone notice Cowles is the person Wendell Willkie is smiling at in his article? The image page explains this. - Susanlesch ( talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No; I looked at the image page but didn't chase link to the source because the Cowles image looks so much like a candid lone portrait. And I have access to two locations from which I think I could duplicate the Bobak STrib image, but it looks fine (certainly better than the aerial photos taken from the parking lot side of the building). -- SEWilco ( talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It seems to me that a "style" section would be appropriate, perhaps talking about color, font, size, and content - and how those things have changed over the years. I don't have a source related to this, but it seems like an interesting aspect of the paper.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Cool. Be careful to not say monkey though (Vikings -- yeah as I recall another maid temporary showed me their suite at the Radisson South and no they were not rich and Fran Tarkenton is shorter than me). But yes fonts are fascinating. - Susanlesch ( talk) 03:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:St. Paul Pioneer Press front page.jpg

Image:St. Paul Pioneer Press front page.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Herschel V. Jones Bio -- Beginning of list of links

I am working on a bio of Herschel V. Jones for wikipedia. It will be my first wiki-contribution. The bio is currently a work in progress at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JHBDC/Subpage

Jones bought the Minneapolis Journal in 1908 for $1,200,000. He was also a director of the Associated Press and one of a group of American newspaper editors who toured the European battlefields as guests of the British government after World War One.

He is best known as a book collector, and in particular for his collection of Americana -- 400 years worth of first-editions related to the history of the United States.

He was also an early trustee and benefactor of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. He also gave a collection of prints to MIA.

I have some original biographical sources of information on him, but I am looking for more. Connection to MIA: http://www.artsmia.org/press/view.cfm?PR_ID=120

JHBDC ( talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Star_Tribune&oldid=1209011423"