User talk:Jeandré du Toit/2008Archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Yedioth Ahronoth a reliable source for BLPs?
Re [1]
- Yediot is the most important, most established newspaper in Israel, by miles. It has 10% penetration of the entire Israeli population on a daily basis, compared to 0.3% for the NYT in the USA. There is no translation to explain the prominence of this paper in the Israeli news and political scene. The only comparison might be the BBC in the UK. Almost all major Israeli journalists have worked for the paper, it carries daily columns from major establishment figures in Israel. The Israeli government has a contract with them to print death notices and tenders and so on, not a week goes by without a Yediot story setting the new agenda in Israel, sometimes it seems like all the news stories on TV are sourced in Yediot.The Google news archive gives 25,000 results for "Yediot" almost all of them discussing the Israeli paper of record or its daily stories. As if to make this point the major Israeli story of the past few days is the interview that Yediot did with one George W. Bush, which became a news story around the world, (NYT article on the Yediot interview), and that is only picking yesterday. The importance of this paper eclipses that of any other in Israel or the Jewish World i general, I simply cannot see how this could not pass RS. If Yediot is not a reliable source, there are no Jewish/Israeli reliable sources.
[Jaffe] After it has been clearly established that News of the World is not a reliable source and Yedidot was mixed with those supporting saying that it would be on a case by case basis. And in this case it is merely quoting an unreliable source, Lobojo has added back this section[2]. In truth, the entire local controversies section on that page does not belong there, for the same reason why if a Priest was accused of going to a prostitute, then it won't belong in a controversies of Christianity article. I am therefore removing that entire section as well now. Chocolatepizza (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Goldberg.
Re
- Correcting death date per Globe article of 2008-01-09 by same author as NYT article, and from NYT service, and add Globe ref to "age 14" along with NYT 2008-01-04 article.
- Modernist changes the NYT ref to be named "glueck2008", which is valid since they were both written by her in 2008.
- Removing NYT source since it's registration only and the Glose article has the "age 14" info. Fix sentence that's referencing UKY but contradicts the UKY article.
- Modernist moves the Cedar mention from being reffed by the UKY, but leaves other info not in the ref.
-
- The University of Kentucky reference actually does mention the club. Scroll down to the Michael Goldberg section. [3]. Grace Glueck wrote the NYTimes obituary that is reprinted in the Boston Globe. In The Times she says he died Sunday (the 30th), and in The Globe she says Dec. 31st. Thanks. Modernist (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The UKY source [4] mentions "the Eighth Street Club", not "The Club, a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street in New York".
- Re Glueck, I know. The Globe article had a date of the 9th, so I removed the earlier NYT article with what was probably a wrong death date. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15t10:26z
-
- I noticed your input - and thanks for you help there Jeandré, using those templates isn't my long suit... I appreciated your consolidating the Sandler references. Thanks Modernist (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tingari.
Re [5]
- Many thanks for working over the reference formatting. I had followed a recommended convention in Wikipedia:Citing Sources, but clearly it isn't well supported. I have also added the missing ref (well spotted, it really was a separate ref and not a typo). Thanks again. -- LloydGraham (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of the verified oldest people sortable?
- As my edit said, the merging of the cells was based on a consensus on the talk page. The consensus was that no one found the sortable table to be of much use, so we restored the preferred style while retaining the sortability (in theory) so that it could be quickly restored if a reason was found to have a sortable table. Please read the article's talk page for full details. Cheers, CP 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bruce McMahan controversy.
Please see my entry at Talk:Bruce_McMahan. Basically, if Linda confirms the [redacted] on a video, would that stop the dicussion about whether this is true or not? My entry repeated here: "So, let's say if there would be a video of Linda McMahan on which she details the whole [redacted] episode, would that be then reason to NOT doubt the veracity of the [redacted]? If the video would be in a, let's say grand-jury setting, on which she would explicitly state that she had [redacted]? In other words, what would it take? The word of the NYT/L.A times? Or the words of Linda herself? Just curious here."--TheSteelGeneral (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleveland Museum of Art.
[huh?] What do you mean by this diff? The editor who works for the museum has contacted me via email, so she's obviously at least able to receive my replies. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I see. Like I said, she's able to receive my replies because she contacted me outside of OTRS, so I've been in touch with her. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
