Jump to content

Talk:Ted Rall

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

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Narrowly a B, needs citations, and perhaps a picture of the man.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The link for "An Army of Scum" needs to be fixed...the website in question doesn't mention it. This site has it:

http://www.visartsmedia.org/sources/rall.html DesScorp 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasianet

[edit]

Eurasianet contains his cartoons. Is it worth being mentionned?

Numerous publications carry his cartoons. If someone wants to create (and maintain) a list of them then that's fine. But if we do so it should be reasonably comprehensive. -Will Beback 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

factual dispute

[edit]

There's an apparent factual dispute here between the above user & someone else. I have revereted to the version with the citation and marked as a disputed item. To resolve the dispute, the editor should provide some other citation that contradicts the previous one. C00kiemons 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC) I've removed the dispute tag as there no longer appears to be a dispute as to the number of counts dismissed in Rall v. Hellman (4 of 5). C00kiemons 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Magazine

[edit]

Didn't Ted Rall create the "Fantabulaman" and "7 Periods Until Death" comics in Mad Magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.60.183 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

[edit]

The long "Controversies" section contains many entries which on't give any indication of a controversy. For there to be a controversy ther have to be voices who argue over the matter. A link to an outrageous statement is not proof of a controversy. I'm going to delete the entries that have no indication of an actual controversy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless a third party comments, there is no controversy, just Rall did another cartoon someone doesn't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the section should be labeled "Rall's attacks on other people." It can include plenty of Democrats too, including President-elect Obama ...http://www.gocomics.com/tedrall/2008/11/27/ IMHO, Rall's attacks on people who do not agree with him are beyond what is necessary for anything resembling civil discourse of any kind. And here we have President Obama portrayed as a 1930s or 1940s Fascist http://www.gocomics.com/tedrall/2008/12/04/ Rall lacks taste, to put it mildly.

Editorial cartoonists attack public figures; it's what they do. For many such cartoonists, every single cartoon they've ever made has attacked one or another public figure. Rall doesn't seem remarkable in that regard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, absolutely granted. There is, IMHO, a wide gulf between the attacks of Pat Oliphant on other people and the attacks of Ted Rall. Rall's attacks are not even based on Obama policies. He has Obama running death camps and decked out in Generalissimo outfits BEFORE the man is inaugurated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a reliable source who says that we should add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We can't have this article be the forum for anyone aggrieved by a Rall cartoon. Needs to be a third party source.

It is not a matter of being aggrieved. It is more a matter of proportion in mockery. Rall's attacks are excessive, even by the standards of cartoonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Be Added to Controversies Section Probably

[edit]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/msnbc-guest-suggest-violent-revolution/

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan drew the ire of conservatives after he asked political cartoonist Ted Rall to explain why a violent revolution is necessary.

Rall joined Ratigan to discuss his new book The Anti-American Manifesto which makes the case for revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.155.34 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Ted Rall Calls for Radical Change

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#40076926 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.208.254 (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Widows

[edit]

"Terror Widows" is definitely one of Rall's most controversial cartoons -- the New York Times apologized for it and discontinued his strip because of it.

Rall also defended it in his book, "America Gone Wild," in an introduction that you can preview on Amazon.com. --Nbauman (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why isn't this in the controversies section?74.96.220.27 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing of Ted Rall article

[edit]

An editor should have edited the Ted Rall's page instead of completely removing the notable information. Rall lied about getting thrown against a wall by a LAPD officer while getting ticketed for jaywalking and the LAPD provided a tape of the incident and the tape has been reviewed by the LA Times. The Times concluded that Rall lied about the incident and the Times has removed him as one their cartoonists. Now, you might not like what happened. You might not like how I presented it. That is fine that is your prerogative. However, you do not have the prerogative to remove notable information from the article. The fact that he was removed as a cartoonist by the LA Times is a notable incident. That is a fact and you should not have removed that information. Also Project 21 was falsely described in the article as an organization that is a conservative organization that some black people or something to that effect. That description borders on racism itself. I am going to re-insert the notable information. You can edit it as you see fit but whitewashing the article is really not an option.--ML (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The version you inserted [1] and then re-inserted [2] contained serious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, since it relied on a partisan, non-reliable source (PJ Media) and on a self-interested source (the Times itself) in order to assert in Wikipedia's voice that Rall had "made a false accusation" and that the conclusions stated in the Times editorial note are factually true -- even though Rall has denied this.[3][4][5] There may be room to include the Times incident in this article, but to do so it must be worded neutrally, using reliable sources to properly attribute claims, and identify material disputes. In addition, your removal of the description of Project 21 as "conservative" was problematic, given that the organization calls itself "The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives" [6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The days of editors just blindly deciding what is a reliable source and what isn't a reliable source are long dead. I will edit your one-sided attempt to re-introduce the information again. Once again, there is no debate about whether the, as you say, "Times incident" belongs in the article or not. It is notable when a cartoonist gets fired by a big city daily. That is not in debate. Also, the previous description of Project 21 was racist itself. Previously the article stated that Project 21 is a "conservative" organization that has some "black" people in it. It was racist and I fixed it--just like Rall's cartoon about Condi Rice. You are welcome.--ML (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be explained in the article, but Arxiloxos is correct, the original mention was inappropriately handled, and included editorializing which was way outside of NPOV and BLP guidelines. BLP concerns are a very high priority, and content which violates BLP can and should be removed immediately. Editors absolutely do have the prerogative to remove that content, per WP:BLP.
Project 21 is, by their own description, a black conservative organization, and the press release itself uses the term "black group". Rall's cartoon (personal opinions aside) doesn't invalidate BLP concerns, especially not for an unrelated issue like the jaywalking thing. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you out, Grayfell. The description of Project 21 was written in a racist manner and no manner of explaining is going to make the previous version acceptable. It was described as a "conservative" organization that had a couple of black people, implying that the main point of the organization is it conservatism and not the FACT that the vast majority of members are African American. So I fixed that and Arxiloxos reverted that change. It was not right and your explanation for him does not change the fact that description was incorrect, racist and obviously biased. The description was racist and Rall's cartoon of Condi Rice was racist. Your comment does not change these facts. Also, there was no BLP concerns. You are just unsuccessfully attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill to justify the whitewash of the article. The fact that he was fired is notable and it is supported by reliable sources so therefore it belongs in the article.--ML (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observer coverage of the audiotape.

[edit]

Since it seems there's some disagreement about how to paraphrase this source... it says the following. From the headline and first sentence: "‘Cleaned-Up’ Audiotape of Political Cartoonist’s Clash With LAPD Bolsters His Story" "The freelance cartoonist who was essentially fired by the Los Angeles Times last week has marshaled audiotape evidence that boosts his side of the story in the dispute" That means that the article says, as a fact, that the tape bolsters his story; paraphrasing this as "he said it bolstered his story" is misusing the source and violating NPOV -- the source explicitly says that it bolsters his story as a matter of fact, so we have to report it that way. Likewise, the source later says: "A “cleaned-up” version of the audiotape, posted online by the cartoonist Monday after he said he brought it to sound engineers, does include the noise of a crowd disputing his treatment by the officer, including the sound of one woman calling out “you need to take off the [sound muffled],” referring to, presumably, the handcuffs Mr. Rall said he was put in." Again, this is stated as fact in a reputable source; paraphrasing it to "Rall claimed..." is not acceptable, since that's taking a fact stated in the source and falsely presenting it as if it is only his opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One secondary source does say that the audio supports him, but I don't think we have enough weight to over-sell this. From the Observer source: "Mr. Rall says that these voices, along with other discernible comments from presumable bystanders ought to exonerate him." "Support" and "Exonerate" are different enough that they shouldn't be confused here. The source does say that there are comments by others disputing his treatment by the officer, but it seems like a stretch to claim this is a settled issue. The Guardian and Poynter sources both pretty clearly avoid making any calls, describing it as Rall's claims, not as fact. Even the Observer source is careful to point out that the line about handcuffs is muffled, and the other sources all describe it as Rall's interpretation. At no point do we have a secondary source objectively characterizing the bystanders as being outraged, (unless I missed something) so this seems like editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grayfell, especially given that the Times has today issued a lengthy recapitulation of its position, stating that Times-hired experts dispute Rall's interpretation of the tape, and re-affirming its original conclusion that Rall's original blog post shouldn't have run. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of NPOV, I added a few simple words to the sentence about Rall's cleaned up recording to indicate it might support his claims. I did this because whether or not it does is in dispute (see this very topic). As for whether they do, the main claim is that it indicates there was a crowd calling for him to be freed, when in fact, Rall's audio expert-provided transcript of the crowd's support includes such bizarre non-sequiturs as, "Don't forget to ride his asshole," "Let's go murder some widows," and - easily most bizarre of all - "I'm just a big girly-boy, give or take." In the two cited links on this article, the New York Observer transcribes a crucial line as, "You need to take off his (muffled)," which it then concludes is referring to Rall's handcuffs, but one of the questions in dispute is whether Rall was handcuffed at all, and the Observer article presupposes he was. As for the other source, if the LA Times should be - and I agree it should - considered an interested party, aNewDomain.net is Rall's current employer and takes as most of its sources articles written for that same site written by... Ted Rall. It should, in all fairness, therefore also be treated as an interested party and not taken at face value. True objectivity therefore demands we take both sides' claims with a grain of salt until further information is available. -- JCaesar (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ted Rall. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Lawsuit

[edit]

Just as a friendly reminder, the two main sources of information about Rall's suit against the Los Angeles Times at this point are the LAT and aNewDomain.net - which is Rall's current employer. Neither is an objective source, and nothing should be taken as read except that there is a lawsuit pending. -- JCaesar (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ted Rall/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Biography assessment rating comment ==

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Narrowly a B, needs citations, and perhaps a picture of the man.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Rall&oldid=1207892391"