Talk:The Philadelphia Inquirer

Third Oldest Surviving?

I think the article should mention the other two that out date it. I'm interested in what is older and think it would enhance the article by giving a vantage point on similarly old surviving papers.

None of the sources mentioned what the older papers are. Medvedenko (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Current politics

The section on the paper's politics is NOT current, and is IMO somewhat deceptive in that most of that section is dedicated the paper's bias towards Republicans. This hasn't been the case at least since I arrived in the area in the mid 80's, by which time the paper had clearly tilted Left.

The problem is, when I wrote it I couldn't find any references about the political leanings of the paper in the Knight Ridder era. Its original research without references, especially when its has to do with touchy subjects like politics. I'm stilll looking for references and I posted the section unfinished in hope others might be able to update it also. Do you know any sources to update the section? Medvedenko 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought as I was reading it...Should there be a mention of any famous pieces that the article has sponsored? For example Mark Bowden's Blackhawk Down was a series of articles sponsored by the Inquirer before they became a book [1]. I know the paper has also run many other influential pieces that might be worth mentioning. Just a thought anyway. Cheers--Looper5920 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of brief mentions of particular articles throughout the papers history and politics sections. I'd prefer not to create a special section on them, afraid it would become to listy. The reports on Three Mile Island were also notable, but I could never fit it logically in. Blackhawk Down might be able to be fit in in a reasonable spot. --Medvedenko 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a left-wing bias today. [2] [3] The lead should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to discussion of article at Wikipedia talk:Lead section

This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird sentence

The sentence "When Philadelphia banks began to close, that news was relegated to the back of the financial section" seems very awkward to me. I changed it to "Information about Philadelphia banks closing was relegated to the back of the financial section." but I'm not 100% that's better. Anyone else have any thoughts? Bassg☢☢nist^Talk/_Contribs 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ownership changes

Different articles in Wikipedia contradict over the year that Cyrus Curtis purchased the paper. It seems it was either 1913 or 1930. Do you have a reliable reference that can resolve this? ike9898 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An online source is here The History of the Philadelphia Inquirer, its also mentioned in Legacy: A Biography of Moses and Walter Annenberg. Medvedenko (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

proposal to create a separate Elverson Building article

When the Inquirer was in the Elverson Building, its longtime home at Broad and Callowhill, it was understandable for Wikipedia to have a single article covering both the newspaper and the building (though, in my opinion, it would also have been fine to have separate articles as, for instance Comcast and its building do). Now that the newspaper and the building have parted ways, it's time for the Wikipedia content to do likewise. This would allow these distinct (though related) topics to be covered independently and allow the geographic coordinates of the Philadelphia Inquirer article to show the location of the Philadelphia Inquirer, rather than that of the building that formerly housed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoBoy (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Good point, TypoBoy. Why not be bold and do it? --Thnidu (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've started working on it myself, at User:Thnidu/sandbox/Inquirer Building --Thnidu (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Layout

Per MOS:LAYOUT, Further reading is usually a separate section rather than a subsection of References, since these entries are not cited sources. Is there a particular reason not to do that in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If no reason can be provided why using a different layout is "better", we default to following the MOS guidance - and per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, lack of response to a talk-page post indicates consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, if no consensus can be determined here for your edit, we default to the status quo ante, since MOS is not a policy, and is not mandatory. BMK (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS is a consensus-based style guide, and thus far no valid rationale has been presented for why it shouldn't be implemented here, so until there is it's assumed to have consensus. Would you like to present an argument not to follow it, other than "is not mandatory"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, having "Further reading" as a separate section unnecessarily multiples hierarchical sections in the TOC, so that the "back of the book", i.e. those sections which are not content, begins to overwhelm the content sections. This is neither necessary nor desireable. All references can be subsumed under one "References" section with no problem: Explanatory notes, citations, sources, bibliography, and titles that the reader is referred to to get additional information. Additionally, having the "Further reading" be in its own section puts too much authority into it, since these titles aren't the result of consensus discussions, but are generally added by individual editors and simply left there by others.

Logically, once we hit "References" the article is over, except for "External links" which is the pointer to off-Wiki. To have a bold separate "Further reading" is disconcerting, as it breaks the feeling of closure brought about by the "References" section. Finally, having "Further resding" be a sub-section of "References" simply looks better than having it as its own section. For these reasons, authorized by WP:IAR, which is policy not a simple guideline, it's best to have "Further reading" be inside "References". BMK (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting arguments, thank you. But why subsume "Further reading" under References but not do the same with "External links", or why not subsume "Further reading" under "See also", or why not subsume "External links" under "Further reading" - why is this configuration optimal, in your view? One could make a similar argument that one is "referred to" the links or to other articles to get additional information, and both Further reading and External links (and even References) point off-wiki. And if the contents of the Further reading section are not the result of consensus discussion, (a) shouldn't they be?, and (b) one could say the same about External links, or See also, or even References to a certain extent - I'm certainly not seeing that each of those entries has been discussed and agreed upon here, and if in your view the current Further reading entry doesn't merit authority perhaps it should simply be removed (in my view, putting it under References gives it more semblance of authority rather than less). Finally, if having Further reading under References "simply looks better", why not seek to have the MOS changed to reflect that view rather than make your arguments on an article-by-article basis? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Because "Further reading" is of the same nature as the rest of the stuff in "References" -- that is, it is source material, if someone would simply use it as such. True, some of the material in EL could also be used as a source, but EL is specifically allowed to contain links to places that would not be acceptable as a source in the article (the classical example is IMDB in every film article). So EL is a mix of things, which makes it fundamentally different from what's in "References". BMK (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! A neat solution! Well done. Thanks, BMK (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This is a dated FA that has not been maintained to standard. There is considerable uncited text, and text that was cited to a dead search. The links in See also (eg Gold Seal Novel) indicate that the article might no longer be comprehensive and up to date. There is also text cited to very old sources, (eg, It has the 18th largest average weekday U.S. newspaper circulation and has won 20 Pulitzer Prizes.[4]) and a lack of "as of dates". The lead is not an up-to-date summary of the article, and I have removed external jumps from the text. Also, see WP:NOTPRICE, and I have corrected multiple layout issues. Updating and correcting is needed so that the article will not need to be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)