Jump to content

Talk:Michael Goldfarb (political writer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BJWeeks:

[edit]

There are more sources for the Rick Sanchez interview besides the Huffington Post. From Globe and Mail, a 163 year old news organization also has story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.WBwbStumped082120081031094305/WBStory/WBwbStumped0821

BJWeeks continues to censor this page and others to limit negative incidents involving Republicans - see BJWeek's edits of Norm Coleman, John McCain and "Joe the Plumber" entries.

Add the Rick Sanchez interview back.

Because Norm Coleman actually killed animals and stored them in his attic.[1] Every time I've removed the interview section it was only sourced by the video itself or The Huffington Post. Quoting from the Post article "...just pooped his pants on national television. The McCain campaign is making a last ditch effort to make SCARY MUSLIM NOISES at Barack Obama..." Honestly, that's a reliable source? BJTalk 03:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, no source is reliable enough.--Complete disolution (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a news article? BJTalk 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer your own question? How about a news article? News articles have been edited into the article and suggested on the talk page. Are any of them acceptable? Please help those of us who are much more ignorant about these things than you seemingly judge yourself to be. I've been reading Wikipedia policies like crazy, and I cannot understand your reasons for discounting CNN or The Globe and Mail. 209.145.88.41 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example: [2]. In this transcript, from CNN, they claim "hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube, more than 100 blogs" and Sanchez says, "in all my years in television, I have rarely been involved in something that has gotten so much attention as this interview that you are about to see." This is a followup to the original story, obviously, and I'm trying to figure out whether BJWeeks is complaining about verifiability, or sufficient significance for inclusion, or both. If we put the language back, with a cite to this CNN transcript, are you simply going to revert again? 209.145.88.41 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJWeeks:

[edit]

whats up witht he suppression of the CNN stuff? First huffington post was not 'reliable', then youtube, now CNN themselves?

Please discuss this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.138.78 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN interview

[edit]

it is widely known fact that goldfarb was on CNN and stated that Barack Obama "pals around with" anti Semites and when the host rick sanchez asked him to name one be could not. Watch it on YouTube and stop deleting the fact.

This needs to be sourced before inclusion. YouTube is not a reliable source. BJTalk 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my own reference, why is Youtube not considered reliable. It often is a video of the item in question (as in this case)?
So why was it removed after it was more properly sourced? --209.145.88.41 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Of course it's a reliable source.... It's a video. But if we can't use YouTube, how about this? Or this? I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia frequently links to YouTube. C Teng [talk] 02:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Videos of the interview are not coverage of the event, unless it was covered by a reliable secondary source it should not be included. He has given many interviews, why is this line relevant? I know the answer to that, but it needs to be sourced. Regardless, YouTube, Blogs, Huffington, Post nor Crooks and Liars are reliable sources. BJTalk 02:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how a video of the event, which allows the researcher to make their own conclusion is biased or somehow invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.138.78 (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the event significant compared to any other interview with Goldfarb? BJTalk 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there is an inherent bias against inclusion of anything, but now that this has been answered (above, talk page), could you explain what flaw you find in the reasoning for significance? 209.145.88.41 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is any event more important than another. Let the viewer decide. Dungeons and Dragons is more important than this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete disolution (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a cable news outlet, the purpose of a encyclopedia is not to report on everything and "let the viewer decide." This is a biography of a living person, sources need to show that the event has enough significance for inclusion, even more so when it is negative. BJTalk 06:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose? To deliver an agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete disolution (talk • contribs) 06:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". BJTalk 06:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←: OK, I see now. Thanks for the links and knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete disolution (talk • contribs) 06:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauchamps affair section

[edit]

Hi -- somebody want to take a look at this section and see if it's an accurate, balanced, and neutral description of events? I have my doubts, but don't want to spend time looking into it. In particular, the mention of the source's acting in a pornographic film seems to be gratuitous and likely to prejudice the reader, but then again, it might be relevant to the case in some unexplained way. RayTalk 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beauchamp affair section should include an update about the convictions of other people in his unit, for murder, which demonstrates that Goldfarb's judgement of Beauchamp's veracity was in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.230 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is properly covered in the article on the affair, not on the reporter's biography. The reporter's only connection with the story is that he broke it, after all. Reporters are responsible for getting the scoop, not ensuring that the allegations they quote are true. In this case, the scoop is that people in a position to know challenged Beauchamp's honesty. RayTalk 03:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Goldfarb (political writer). 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) 18:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Goldfarb_(political_writer)&oldid=1207296377"