Talk:Jackson Free Press

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Mississippi Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance).

Source work

JFP using its own wiki as source within its Wikipedia article is not within policy of Wikipedia. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And good job finding a 3rd party source for Mississippi Free Press/Hazel Brannon Smith. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation figures should be in the Editor & Publisher International Year Book (Part 2). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reliable source?

Our concern here is with self-published sources in general. To quote from the relevant guidelines, ...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources....

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Thus, such matters as circulation figures, which could be considered subject to self-interest, are not something that can be sourced to the JFP's own blog. The source of the name, on the other hand, seems to be an acceptable item. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dumbfounded that the info isn't on their own web site, in any form other than off in their own wiki. How does JFP present ad-rates without readership and circulation numbers? Having purchased advertising before, I know this is an essential part of ad-rate packaging so that the publication/station can justify its rates. Brian, if you all have this as part of an ad-rate package, maybed PDF it and upload it to JFP's site, then reference it? Honestly I don't think it's an important component of the article other than in relation to JFP's own-going "battle" with The Clarion-Ledger. From what I understand, readership/circulation numbers aren't included in most newspaper/magazine articles on Wikipedia - but that's not saying it can't/shouldn't be included. Just that maybe without a source, it isn't that big of a deal in the bigger scope of the article. I can attest to JFP's importance here in Jackson, Mississippi. That's not in question. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody can come up with a different verifiable third-party source, we have to use the most current figures available. If the figures at Ulrich's are several years out of date, then Ulrich's needs to be notified. This is a prime example of what we mean by reliable sources, vs. the JFP's unattested claims (printrun is not circulation; there's always spoilage, samples, etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, there seems to be some confusion here about the media world and advertising. The JFP has ample ways to prove our circulation to advertisers, most of which are local. Ulrich's is not a primary source of circulation figures for our paper, and it is one of many requests for information that newsweeklies get every year. Also, there has long been advertising information on the JFP site, which has included Media Audit figures (and includes the Jackson Market Study done by The Clarion-Ledger). These not *unattested* claims, at least nowhere but here. There has long been a Jackson Free Press FAQ that has included information right on the site that allstarecho has repeatedly challenged or deleted. To be honest, I was not aware that this information was appropriate to source, but it makes complete sense that the newspaper's site itself would be an acceptable primary source, as it is for circulation for other publications on Wikipedia.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/advertising.php

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=5061_0_21_0_C

Anyone who wants faxes of actual documents about any circulation/print figures, please call 601.362.6121 ext. 3. You can't get much more primary than that.

Thanks for all of your diligent efforts at accuracy. I'm learning a lot from you all. Cheers. User talk: jfpwebguy

I assume you've got some sort of non-disclosure agreement with Media Audit which precludes you from posting the actual documents anywhere? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (has written for his local AAN paper himself)[reply]

I'm not privy to the contracts, etc. (above my pay grade), but the point is that that information is shown via computer presentations to advertisers and such. We can share our results, which we do (including in our FAQ, etc.). But the companies that do audits don't want the publications audited publishing all the information on the Internet for obvious reasons. The funny thing is that the kinds of companies that just publish lists of circ figures aren't auditing. They're asking for it. See the issue here? And again, it's not like we're claiming 1.7 million. If we leave off our print run number, most people would think it's much bigger based on the JFP's footprint, so it's not like that number is live or die for us. We just want it to be accurate, and not be the wrong number. Fair enough? User talk: jfpwebguy

{{RFCecon | section=What is a "Reasonable Source" for circulation figures of a small newspaper!! reason=Subject of article wants us to use their figures, claiming published ones are inaccurate !! time=18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)}}

After reviewing all of the information, I am going to have to partly agree with OrangeMike. While I don't believe a 2,000 difference in the readership is an "unduly self-serving" amount, some people think it does. At this point, it will be best to revert back to the 15,000 figure, and source the Ulrich hardcopy, noting the date that the figure is from. This should stay in place until a neutral, verifiable, third party reliable source can be found. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do the honors, rjd? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just a comment: Ulrich's is normally a year or two out of date, but it looks like the difference is not significant. And audited figures reprinted in a publication are in my opinion very reliable--the rates for advertising depend on it, and given the availability of the figures to subscribers, it would be an obvious and fatal imposition for any publisher to misrepresent it. DGG (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 15,000 figure is inaccurate and would be misrepresenting JFP circulation even though we have stated otherwise repeatedly. If that is the decision, please remove the figure from the wiki page. That would be more ethical than insisting on inaccurate data appearing from a publication that the JFP does not submit to. Jfpwebguy (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question still unanswered is, if it's so easy to fax copies out, why can't a PDF copy be made and posted on JFP. Further I'd note that the Jackson Free Press FAQ web page mentioned above and stated to have "long been" there on their site, and used as source in this article itself, shows a creation date of November 19, 2007 at 9:49am by admin1. So I'd hardly call that page as having "long been" there. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why both could not be on there: "circulation is estimated to be between 15,000 and 17,000 weekly copies" and source both numbers. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jackson Free Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jackson Free Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]