Talk:The Village Voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Village Voice article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

[edit] The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication

The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication. Here are a sample of some of the more prestigious awards that The Village Voice has been honored with:

  • 2007 Pulitzer Prize (L.A. Weekly is owned by Village Voice Media), Criticism - Jonathan Gold, the L.A. Weekly’s restaurant critic, has won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism. This is the first Pulitzer Prize for the L.A. Weekly and the first time a restaurant critic has won the distinguished award. -
LA Weekly - Eat+Drink - Jonathan Gold Wins Pulitzer Prize - The Essential Online Resource for Los Angeles. www.laweekly.com (2007-04-16). Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  • 2000 Pulitzer Prize, International Reporting - Awarded to Mark Schoofs of The Village Voice, a New York City weekly, for his provocative and enlightening series on the AIDS crisis in Africa.
2000 Pulitzer Prize Winners - INTERNATIONAL REPORTING, Citation. www.pulitzer.org. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  • 2001 National Press Foundation Award, The Village Voice, the nation’s largest alternative weekly newspaper, today announced that their website www.villagevoice.com will receive the prestigious Online Journalism Award from The National Press Foundation. This distinguished honor will be presented during a reception on February 21, 2002 at the Hilton in Washington D.C.
www.villagevoice.com Wins National Press Foundation Award. www.aan.org (2001-12-19). Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  • 1981 Pulitzer Prize, Feature Writing - Teresa Carpenter of Village Voice, New York City
The Pulitzer Prizes for 1981. www.pulitzer.org. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
The George Polk Awards for Journalism. www.brooklyn.liu.edu. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

Here is a more extensive list of awards that The Village Voice has been honored with over the years:

The Village Voice - About us - Editorial Awards. Village Voice Media. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

I will leave this notice here but unless someone can provide a third-party source that characterizes The Village Voice as a tabloid we should remove that characterization from this article. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that the publication's website characterizes itself as "tabloid" [1] - nevertheless I am sure that this simply refers to the medium and quality of the printed version of the publication, not the quality of the journalism itself, as evidenced by the above awards received. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material and blatant violations of WP:OR

This article is full of unsourced material and blatant violations of WP:OR. I will begin to remove that material from the article and move it here to the talk page. If an when WP:RS/WP:V sources are provided, material may of course be moved back into the article itself. Cirt (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New subsection

Started a new subsection for notable Awards and honors that The Village Voice has been recognized with over the years. Please note that all of the additions are sourced to third-party sources, none of them are sourced to The Village Voice itself. (I thought that proper to avoid sources to the publication itself, in the article directly about it.) Cirt (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So I would rather keep sources for this article to sources other than The Village Voice itself as this is the article about it, but if other disagree I'd be happy to discuss. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
While I think it would be ideal to cite everything from another source as well, the Voice has a pretty solid reputation for honesty, and I don't think there is anything actively problematic about using it as a source for this article. Certainly those citations should not be removed but it would be good if they were supplemented. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but at this point in time there are so few citations in the article to back up any of the unsourced material anyways that it is better to just concentrate on adding new citations from other sources, specifically for the article about the publication itself. Though of course they could be used. I will get to adding more citations and removing unsourced material and blatant violations of WP:OR soon. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, right now I see a lot of statements marked as "original research?" in the article that are obviously factual, and merely need a proper citation. Certainly it is not, "original research" in any bad sense to say who used to write for the paper. Yes, it would be better if this were cited, but it would be doing our readers a disservice to remove things like this if no one has time to fill in citations. And certainly, for example, bylines in back issues of the Voice itself are a perfectly valid source for the fact that someone wrote for the paper. Similarly, the masthead is a perfectly good source for who the editors are. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with your last bit, most certainly - the first part is a moot point for I will try to soon get to adding lots of sources/citations. However I still disagree that it is a disservice to the reader to remove unsourced information - regardless of how obviously factual it may be to someone who is an expert on the subject. Information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced/cited. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case, {{fact}} tags are more appropriate to your purpose than {{or}}.John Z (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are you honestly saying that we need to find an independent third-party source for the statement that the adult content in the Voice is at the back of the paper, and that we should remove that statement if we can't formally cite it? This seems to me to be fetishizing a policy. Please don't forget that Ignore All Rules is also a policy, and imagine what would happen if we comparably fetishized that one! - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yes, I am saying that. In the long run, trust me, it is best not to leave things uncited. I have seen this issue come up sometimes at GACs and FACs. Besides, it can't hurt to have cites to good secondary sources. But let's take a short break from discussing all this and I will soon just get to adding sources to the article itself, if that is okay. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let me know if there is anything for which you actually have difficulty finding a citation, and I'll do my best to help. I'm glad you are not simply waltzing in here and threatening to gut the article if someone else doesn't do a bunch of work tracking down citations. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No of course not. This is a common practice used on Wikipedia articles in WP:GA and WP:FA drives to make sure that articles have meticulous sourcing. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)