Talk:Dallas Express

Major revert

I have rolled back this article to a 2020 version that only talked about the historical newspaper. It appears that a new paper with the same name launched earlier this year and was shoehorned into this article. To be frank, it reads as an attempt to capitalize on the legitimacy of the old newspaper by keeping the name; whether or not that is true, the new paper should have its own article, not be jammed into this one. Happy to discuss further if anyone feels that this was not the right approach. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just histsplit out the changes, since I think the new paper is also notable. I'll be working on the article a bit more shortly. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I find the "Dallas Express" reference to be misleading to those who want to know about "The Dallas Express" that is functioning today. Somone should make changes, so accurate up to date information is available. 2601:6C1:0:C470:D8AA:ACC0:E028:1FB7 (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A number of third-party RS are noting the distinction, so it should be described prominently in this article and in any article about the new website, per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:PROPORTION. Llll5032 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted some recent removals. In my opinion, the RS content could be relocated to another article, but it should not be removed from this article until it is in another one. Llll5032 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032: There has been discussion of whether Steven Monacelli, specifically, can be deemed RS, based on his own claims that misstatements of facts in his reporting signified that he was actually just relaying opinions, retractions or corrections of Monacelli's statements by his publishers, and his apparent termination from a publication due to these issues. I believe there was consensus in a WP:RS discussions to exclude Monacelli as a source. BD2412 T 20:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, BD2412. Can you link to the discussion? Llll5032 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it was at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 402#Concern regarding independence of an editorializing reporter. As we do not need anything written by this specific reporter as a source to support the contentions made, I continue to think it prudent to steer clear of citing them. BD2412 T 20:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you cite any WP:GREL sources disputing Monacelli's work? Llll5032 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032: I don't think such a thing would exist, or would be expected to exist, for a single reporter with a fairly limited span of work. That being said, I think it raises the question of whether we should include contentious claims only reported by a single low-level source. If the claim is noteworthy, a better source should exist for it, and if a better source exists for it, that is the only source we need to cite. BD2412 T 21:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

He wrote this year for Wired,[1] which is on the WP:GREL list, so perhaps he should not be ruled out. More sources could be cited to confirm WP:PROPORTION. Llll5032 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 and Slatersteven: Having participated in the WP:RS discussion, perhaps you have some thoughts. I think perhaps there are two issues intersecting here.

The first issue is that there seems to be a fixation on citing a particular reporter rather than citing towards the content at issue. I don't see how having a piece published in Wired lifts a reporter out of a prior incidence of presenting misinformation and defending that as having been "opinion" in a piece presented as factual news. Wikipedia is not this reporter's PR agency, and should not be searching for ways to promote their reporting over that of less problematic accounts. If there is some piece of information that only this reporter is asserting, and can not be found in any other source, I would question both the credibility and the noteworthiness of that piece of information. Things worth saying get said by more than one person.

Secondly, there is an issues as to whether we should give disproportionate attention to a relatively non-notable website as the endeavor for which the questionable source is employed. The Dallas Express that is the subject of this article was clearly an important Black newspaper, and the focus of the article by far should be on its significance. It is somewhat distasteful for nearly one third of the text to be shifting focus to a fledgling website with no such history to cover. I'm sure the owners of that website are thrilled to have this free advertising, which highlights various associations and positions that will resonate with their target audience. To me, this is almost a case of WP:DENY. I continue to think the website should be no more than a footnote, and that the work needed for this article is expanded and improved coverage of the historical newspaper. BD2412 T 16:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the second question, additions to the section on the historic Black newspaper (which mostly lacks citations) would be welcome. But current reliable sources have also noted the confusing title of the new publication, which should be noted in this article, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED regarding proportionate content from RS. Emphasizing such independent sources in proportion is necessary for neutrality. Llll5032 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well a lot depends on who says it, an expert's opinion can carry great weight. As to the issue of undue, that is harder to judge. It can be agued that the modern reader will want to know more about the new site than an out-of-print newspaper (not matter how important it may have been). Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The original Dallas Express was in existence for nearly 80 years, and was important to the Civil Rights movement and Black life in Dallas. The current one started up just two years ago, fails WP:NCORP, and providing any coverage at all seems like an exercise in WP:RECENTISM, and being duped by what amounts to a publicity stunt. BD2412 T 17:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

National RS have mentioned the new publication, [2][3][4] which justifies some description, even if it is not enough for its own article. Llll5032 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with that, I am just counseling caution that Wikipedia doesn't get duped using this article on a notable Black newspaper as a de facto advertisement for a cheap new website with inapposite goals. Mention of the fact that this non-notable entity is using the name can be accomplished in a footnote, and it deserved no more attention than that. BD2412 T 17:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The historical publication uncovered uncomfortable facts. The caution is appreciated, but if Wikipedia editors are concerned about its legacy, it may be honored best by succinctly and proportionately following independent sources that distinguish the new publication from the original. Llll5032 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, again, I am not disagreeing that we should do this, I am just concerned with how we do this. BD2412 T 17:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed quite a bit, more on the page of Monty Bennett, and a distinction was added here back in April. The rest would be using this page as WP:COAT simply because the name is the same. These are different publications and not a continuation of the other. I am reverting back for now but happy to discuss further. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be a coatrack if the connection was made only by Wikipedia editors. But in fact the connection is being made by multiple independent reliable sources, [5][6][7] which are necessary to emphasize (per WP:INDY) for a "balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind". At least four RS have been removed in recent edits. Llll5032 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think CNMall41 is on the right track, to the extent that we should not be adding content on the 2021 website's support for "protests against drag shows" or "pro-police groups", which goes way beyond commenting on any relationship to the historic newspaper. BD2412 T 18:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Which article would you add proportionate RS information about the current Express to instead? Llll5032 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This article. And the appropriate amount was already added based on discussion, rough consensus, and WEIGHT.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If, as you write, the correct place for such information is this article, then edits that remove at least a quarter of the cited independent reliable sources in the article would appear to be clearly in violation of WP:PROPORTION and associated policies such as MOS:LEADREL. The removed sources are an even larger proportion of cited sources (nearly half) if we count two additional deleted references to the reporter who is disputed. Llll5032 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Who says we need to add all the information about the current Dallas Express? COAT specifically says, in the first two lines, "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. Even the Real Deal article only connects the publications based on name. This doesn't open the door to turn this page into one on the current Dallas Express.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the coatrack essay (WP:WINAC), "Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack." (Emphasis mine.) The reliable sources (several of which were removed in recent edits) all discuss both the old and new publications, clearly making the distinction.[8][9][10] I agree that the historic publication should be kept more prominent than the new publication, but we need to follow the reliable sources. Llll5032 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The sentence you cite actually proves my contention. "Directly related" is the key term. What is directly related is the use of the name which is already on the page. Everything else you added is about the new publication. As stated, sharing a name does not open the door for putting anything cited in a reliable source about the new publication. That would indeed be coatracking. At this point, I do not see a case for inclusion of the material unless there is some other argument that can be made. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is directly related because the published reliable sources directly related them, with statements such as, "he runs the Dallas Express, an online news outlet that resurrected the name of a historic Black-owned paper and covers general interest stories through a conservative lens",[11] and "The newspaper once claimed to have the highest circulation of any Black-run newspaper in the South. Now a new owner is using the name."[12] There is no need for semantics; the RS directly relate them, and we follow the RS. Llll5032 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That is already sufficiently covered in the article as is. What does that have to do with drag show protests and pro-police groups? BD2412 T 00:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The new website requires either treatment here in proportion to RS or a prominent disambiguation to another article so it is not confused with this publication. Llll5032 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is sounding increasingly like a rather exploitative effort to promote the new website by trading on the name of the newspaper. Since the new entity doesn't pass WP:NCORP, you want to bypass notability requirements by constructing an entire article for it inside of an existing article, even though the new site obviously has no impact on the history of the old one (beyond reusing the name). BD2412 T 00:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an aspersion. Would you like to retract it? Do you really think that these deleted reliable sources [13][14][15] "promote the new website" when they contrast it with the historic publication in their own words? Llll5032 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily an intentional promotional effort on your part. I think you may well have fallen for an advertising trick not much different than when a politician says something scurrilous about an opponent on social media, and intentionally includes a misspelled word so that people trying to mock the spelling error in fact spread the scurrilous claim far and wide. At the end of the day, the effect is the same. The more Wikipedia (or other media, for that matter) expounds upon the new entity taking the old name, the more free publicity the new entity gets, and the more the previous entity is unfairly diminished. This is particularly the case if we end up including in this article all the popular "red meat" positions taken by the new entity—which have nothing to do with the old one. BD2412 T 01:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside your aspersion of me, it is a fact that a number of RS including D Magazine, The Real Deal, and Bloomberg Law have contrasted the new publication with the historical newspaper in their own words, and some in detail. WP:NCORP does not rule out inclusion in an existing article. I don't see how we could exclude their analyses based on a fair reading of Wikipedia PAGs. Llll5032 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I expect we can keep talking in circles about this indefinitely. Per Wikipedia:Coatrack articles: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. The subject of this article is the Black-owned newspaper with a near 80-year history. The 2021 website is connected (solely because it used the same name), but tangential. It is not and should not be the subject of this article, and because it does not meet the standards for inclusion, it should not be the subject of any article. Again, the fact that it has the same name despite being unrelated should indeed be mentioned, and is mentioned. For anything else, imagine for a moment that the website did not have the same name. If that were the case, what would we say about the now-differently named website in this article? Everything you would not include if these things did not share a name is what is tangential to this article despite sharing the name. BD2412 T 03:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Answering your question: If the publication had a different name, then it could redirect to the Monty Bennett article. Would you agree? No editor is arguing that the new publication should be "the subject of this article", only that it should receive treatment proportionate to RS. Llll5032 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added a link to the hatnote and a shorter addition to the text. Perhaps it will receive more consensus, because there was a hatnote link to an article about the new website for about a year between November 2021 and 2022. The hatnote link provides clarity, and this article could be preserved and not overwhelmed with information about the new site. Llll5032 (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You added a hatnote which is not necessary. The publication is discussed in WEIGHT already. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The reference was discussed previously at RSN and the talk page of Monty Bennett. Not sure what else can be added. The reporter in this situation may have written for reliable publications, but that does not make his reporting reliable (especially based on the evidence of corrections and his previous firing because of his writing). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A recent reliable source said a judge ruled that "all the passages in question were protected statements of opinion or true".[16] Can you cite a generally reliable source for your claims? Llll5032 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether a statement is "protected" is not relevant. If someone wants to publish an opinion piece arguing that the Earth is flat, this is unquestionably protected speech under U.S. law. WP:RSEDITORIAL sharply limits our use of opinion pieces as sources, however. BD2412 T 18:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The RS does not say that they were opinion pieces, but only that the articles contained disputed statements that were legally protected as opinion. [17] Does any independent reliable source indicate a problem with the reporter, or is the reporter only being disputed by Bennett and Wikipedia editors? Llll5032 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There has never been a need for an RS to indicate a problem with a reporter, given that most reporters never receive any coverage themselves. Such a rule would have us stating as a fact that the Earth was flat if someone "reported" that, and we had no source reporting on that reporter. BD2412 T 19:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

At least two independent RS described the lawsuit by Bennett, but neither RS appears to say that the reporter erred. [18][19] (The WP:GEVAL and WP:FRIND policies address "Earth is flat" questions, but their relevance to this question is unclear.) Llll5032 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The court made no distinction in regards to which parts are true and which parts are opinion. Neither has the writer who was sued. As far as sources about my claim of being fired and corrections being run, those are in the link to the RSN and on the talk page of Monty Bennett. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: The defense that was offered in the defamation suit was that the statements were just opinion, and not assertions of fact. Therefore, "the writer who was sued" has indeed described whatever statements were contested as opinion. BD2412 T 19:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an incredibly sloppy and incorrect interpretation of the lawsuit. It's also disturbing to see Wikipedia editors repeating aspersions cast against a reporter that have no merit. If you're going to make claims about the lawsuit, you should read the court decisions that came out of it. None of the facts cited by Monacelli have ever been called into question. Instead, editors are making reference to vague "updates" and Monacelli being "fired" as if there are not multiple reasons why those events occurred—events that seem to have happened in response to pressure from subjects of his reporting.

In Bennett and the Express' lawsuit, they claimed they had no relationship to Metric Media, a company that runs hundreds of conservative partisan websites that masquerade as nonpartisan. The connection between Metric Media and the Dallas Express, first reported by D Magazine, was cited by Monacelli but never questioned by the court. If that fact had been wrong, we should reasonable expect a lawsuit from Dallas Express against D Magazine—something that did not happen. The use of the word "propaganda", which is also used by D Magazine to describe the Dallas Express, was deemed protected opinion because it is not a fact claim but rather a reasonable characterization based on fact. See: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2022/08/monty-bennett-loses-in-court-faces-possible-sanctions/

According to Monacelli, he was "fired" by the Dallas Observer after an editorial disagreement regarding the nature of a single sentence in one article: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/whos-behind-dallas-justice-nows-dont-send-white-kids-to-ivy-league-controversy-12098228

The original version of the above article: http://web.archive.org/web/20210728100835/https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/whos-behind-dallas-justice-nows-dont-send-white-kids-to-ivy-league-controversy-12098228

The sentence in question suggested there may be a deeper connection between two astroturf groups in Dallas that were both caught working with the same Republican PR firm. Monacelli discussed the fallout here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/special-update-55589249

Monacelli's reporting was widely fact checked and confirmed by outlets including CNN, VICE, the Independent, and others. Regardless, the article was edited without notifying Monacelli, adding in a statement that claims to prove a negative—which the provided evidence did not do.

Later, Bennett and the Express' threatened the Dallas Observer with a lawsuit, demanding removal of any mention of the Dallas Express from the Dallas Observer article. The Observer complied, despite none of the underlying facts of the article being disproven. Monacelli notes that in this article: https://www.texasobserver.org/the-dallas-express-your-go-to-source-for-right-wing-astroturf-news/

Several publications have since referenced Monacelli's reporting related to the Dallas Express.

Despite numerous claims in this thread that Monacelli's reports about Dallas Express are unreliable or that he's spread misinformation, no one has pointed specific instances outside of vague references to "updates."

It's deeply concerning that some Wikipedia editors appear to be uncritically adopting the position put forward by the Dallas Express, Bennett, and their legal team regarding Monacelli's reporting.

If the purpose of suing Monacelli was to discredit his work, it seems to have worked here, even if he ultimately prevailed in court. Correctlee (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: "According to Monacelli, he was "fired" by the Dallas Observer after an editorial disagreement regarding the nature of a single sentence in one article"; the cited article does not speak to the Observer's reason for firing Monacelli. Where is there a source for the proposition that it was over "an editorial disagreement regarding the nature of a single sentence"? It seems implausible that such a disagreement could serve as the entire grounds for termination. Also, re: "the article was edited without notifying Monacelli", what source says what Monacelli was notified about? I have not seen any contention in any public record of an article being edited without notification to Monacelli. BD2412 T 20:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Monacelli has written publicly about his disagreement with the Dallas Observer: https://www.patreon.com/posts/special-update-55589249

Beyond that, there doesn't appear to be any information regarding why his relationship with the Dallas Observer ended, and it has not stopped highly reputable outlets from publishing his work.

A careful reading of the web archived versions of the Dallas Observer article linked above shows that the underlying facts of his reporting were never challenged: most significantly, that a pro-police group and an ostensible BLM group were both caught working with the same Republican PR firm. The only things that were challenged was the suggestion that there could be a deeper reason for why those two groups were working together, and apparently any references to the Dallas Express.

But back to the point: the factual basis of the reporting by Monacelli and the reporting by D Magazine he referenced in the article that Bennett sued over has not been challenged. Despite a legal threat from Bennett causing D Magazine to slightly alter some wording, the reported linkage between the Dallas Express and Metric Media remained in the article: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/01/dallas-express-historic-black-owned-newspaper-has-become-dubious-news-site/

Given Bennett's history of legal threats as documented in the article published by The Real Deal, it is not a stretch to assume that Bennett would have easily sued and won in court. Had that claim truly been false. That has never happened, and subsequent reporting in the Columbia journalism review and the Texas Observer demonstrates further evidence supporting a connection between Dallas Express and metric media, at least up to a certain point in time. You don't have to rely on Monacelli's reporting to acknowledge that fact that fact. You just have to realize that just because "changes" are made to article after threatening legal letters were apparently sent do not necessarily mean that the articles are not factual or reliable. Correctlee (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote link for current website with the same name

I WP:BOLDly re-added a hatnote link to the owner of the same-name Dallas Express website that was begun in 2021, because a better consensus about it is needed after additions by two other editors were recently reverted. Can we compromise per WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:ROWN? Llll5032 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize as I think I removed too much. I was looking solely at the content and not the hatnote. I actually don't see an issue with the hatnote since it is discussed on the page of Monty Bennett. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to either the reversion of the added content, or the hatnote addition. The problem, in a nutshell, is that Wikipedia has high standards for the inclusion of business enterprises, both to prevent the owner of a hypothetical "Bob's Widgets" from using Wikipedia as a free advertising platform to boast about his non-notable widgets, and to prevent Bob's competitors and unsatisfied customers from using Wikipedia as a gripe site to disparage Bob's non-notable widgets. The newspaper, The Dallas Express, is itself not highly notable, but it is notable. Plugging in content on a non-notable much later user of the name is fairly the definition of WP:COATRACK; it's not about the historical newspaper, but an attempt to pivot to something unrelated. For comparison, there is an unaccredited university called "Lincoln University" in Louisiana, named for Abraham Lincoln, and using Lincoln's face as their logo. We do not have a section, or a paragraph, or even a mention of this institution in Abraham Lincoln. If we did include such content in such instances, we would be inviting every seller of every shoddy service to name their business after something notable to gain the same advantage. BD2412 T 05:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like much of the issue stemming from WP:COATRACK was resolved when GorillaWarfare created a separate article for the new Dallas Express. If there is agreement that the new Dallas Express is notable, even if not highly notable, why not create a new article? Correctlee (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The page was created, then deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. Now, the appropriate WP:WEIGHT for the publication has been included here. Absent significant coverage that has happened since that time, it would not meet notability guidelines. There has also been discussion that some of the sources that were used at the time of creation are questionable so I do not see a separate article being created. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, there has been more national news coverage that features the new Dallas Express, in NBC's recent podcast, Grapevine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/podcast/grapevine/grapevine-episode-3-transcript-harvest-coming-rcna118988

https://www.nbcnews.com/podcast/grapevine/grapevine-episode-5-transcript-open-floodgates-rcna120661 Correctlee (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

NBC is a good (WP:GREL) source, and although the series does not focus mostly on the new Dallas Express, it is more than a passing mention. So a citation and brief, proportionate, inclusion of information about the new Dallas Express would likely be DUE. Episode 3, which discusses Bennett, would be the episode to cite in Bennett's article. Llll5032 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

NBC is on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list and is in fact considered generally reliable. However, just because something is published by a reliable source does not mean it automatically gets included. Reliable publications also republish press releases. A podcast with people giving their opinions does not have the same editorial oversight as the something published in their news feed. As far as Bennett, that discussion should probably take place on that page so we do not mix anything up. As far as this page, you are correct with what you said about notability in your comment below. With that in mind, absent the current Dallas Express website being notable, I cannot see how anything else should be included about that publication on this page without violating WP:COAT. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

CNMall41, thanks for the discussion and your willingness to compromise about the hatnote.

WP:COAT is a good essay that should be followed, although its WP:WINAC ("what is not a coatrack") section lists some important exceptions to consider. Also, we should balance COAT essay considerations with the WP:PCR ("provide context") essay entry. Most of all, we probably agree that we should follow the policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:PROPORTION, which the COAT essay relates to. Llll5032 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree we need to take all policies and guidelines into account and also use essays which help guide us through those policies and guidelines. I do not believe WINAC would not be an exception in this case. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Correctlee, here was the deletion discussion for the new Dallas Express article in 2022. There are guidelines at WP:GNG about when a subject is notable enough for its own article. Information about the new Dallas Express can be included in other articles, such as Monty Bennett, as long as the cited reliable sources directly relate it to the subjects of those other articles and it is in WP:PROPORTION to what is said about the main subjects in reliable sources overall; the proportion should not be much more or or much less. Llll5032 (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

See my above reply to CNMall41 regarding recent national reporting on the new Dallas Express Correctlee (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Animalparty is correct here. A disambiguation page exists, and we therefore need not cram everything into a hatnote. If you disagree with the existence of the disambiguation page, by all means send it to AfD. BD2412 T 17:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:HATLENGTH says that a commonly misunderstood link can be featured in a hatnote: "Such an article may be linked if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question". In this article, might not a "significant number of readers" expect that the article is about the current publication with the same name rather than the historical publication, especially when a significant number of third-party RS are mentioning the current publication rather than the historical one? Llll5032 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This article literally averages eight views per day. The recent uptick in views is corresponds almost entirely due to the handful of editors going back and forth there. Readers who reach this page looking for any of the other meanings are one click away from a properly formatted disambiguation page presenting them. BD2412 T 20:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Because of the frequent mentions by third-party RS, and its own prominence, it is reasonable that a significant proportion of readers of this article are looking for information about the current publication rather than this publication. WP:HATLENGTH allows a specific link to reduce such confusion, and other sections of that page encourage various templates for this. Llll5032 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032 @BD2412: In fact, the only reason I came across the article to add what in hindsight was definitely a coatrack was that the original version of Fronton Island rested on two non-RS citations, one of which was from the newer publication and linked to this article, even though this article had a beefier hatnote at the time. It’s possible that the mere existence of this article influenced the editor’s choice to include the citation. I subsequently found at least one other article where editors found it necessary to put in a comment saying “not this one”. So I admit that my coatracking was as much for the benefit of Wikipedians as it was for the general public. I hope the disambiguation page I factored out does a decent job of clueing editors into the existence of multiple papers, but we’ll probably just have to stay vigilant about it. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and for adding the disambiguation page.

Because the hatnote is in dispute, do you (or any other editor) prefer the hatnote with 1 "other uses" link as of December 1, or the hatnote with 3 article links that was in the article from November 2 to December 1? Llll5032 (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that there's a disambiguation page, I'm not as sure we should inline its entire contents into this hatnote. Also, hoisting just the website into the hatnote would be problematic, since it's probably less notable than the airline or soccer club. I'm more concerned about editors inadvertently lending the older paper's credibility to the newer one than about readers mixing up the two by themselves. It sure would be nice if {{cite news}} could warn if |work= links here and |date= is too new. Or maybe there's some list of problematic sources that a bot can flag for review whenever it gets added to an article? Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the Dallas Express website should never, ever be used as a source for anything in Wikipedia. Prohibiting linkage to this article for such purposes is a good way to prevent such uses. BD2412 T 13:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)