Talk:T. R. Reid

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

User:TRREID has asked for things to be corrected[edit]

User:TRREID(User Talk:TRREID) has raised objections at the BLP noticeboard. I don't know if TRREID is actually the real T.R. Reid, but that's no matter; so long as we stick to verifiable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sourcing issues[edit]

I am baffled by the removal of a verbatim quote sourced to CounterPunch, quotes which are patently real, as PBS responded to Reid's comments as noted here. Could user:Flowanda explain what is wrong with its inclusion? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion and for the additional links. WP:BLP requires strict sourcing per WP:RS for any potentially contentious edits, so I think the section needs more mainstream or industry sources before it's readded to the main article. Please also see WP:BLPN#T.R. Reid for a current discussion. Flowanda | Talk 12:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flowanda, I have removed it as it is contentious and the source is opionated, are there any more citations linking to this information? I think that if we have a complaint from the subject that we should search for strong duplicated citations to support anything contentious, is this some kind of association with obama's healthcare drive? Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In and out again. The issue is not whether or not the New York Times printed this material, it is whether it was verifiably said, and whether it was notable that it was said. Given that PBS responded to the comments, I think the answer to both points is "yes". Counterpunch has an editorial position, but that is not the same as Counterpunch making things up. Factually, it seems to be RS. As a comparison, The Economist has an explicit editorial position, yet is happily used as an RS where it states facts, not opinions. I think it is important to note that the user claiming to be T R Reid has edited out comments that asserted he had bias, not the quotes attribute to him.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no, this has nothing to do with Obama's health drive. T R Reid felt that PBS was inserting bias into material he had worked on. For a journalist, disputes with a major broadcaster are entirely due in an article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, have these comments been widely reported? So that is the relevance of the comments? He had a dispute with a major broadcaster? Has this dispute been reported by any major publications? Off2riorob (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the comments add little of real value, and as they are contentious and not widely reported that we should show a bit of caution and keep them out. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to reporting by Counterpunch, it has been reported by PBS itself here], by Current_(newspaper) here, which certainly seems to be RS, and by OpEdNews here (although I'm not sure of OpEdNews RS status). In fact, it would be appropriate not only to include the quotes by TR Reid, but the PBS response as well, as well as the response they carry from Reid. Surely you can see that this is a notable event.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does seem to have given some exposure as the day that this [[1]] piece appeared the articles viewing figures went from the tens to the hundreds, I would like to take a little time to look at these links to understand what actually happened and hopefully we will get a bit more input about this. At first glance all those links look a bit bloggy to me, is there a report in a mainstream publication? Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look to me like it is related to the current healthcare reforms, still lookig...what about this from the colorado independant [[2]] health insurance! They quote the CounterPunch.org story as their source. Off2riorob (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Counterpunch, PBS, or Current are blogs. What is your definition of a mainstream publication, if it doesn't include PBS and what PBS refers to as "The most widely read periodical in the field"? What is a proper topic for a BLP article if it does not include the subject resigning from a job in protest? I have no idea why you keep mentioning Obama; my edits are nothing to do with a campaign of any kind (I'm a Briton living in Japan). Are you sure you are operating under AGF? What is so suspicious about a broadcaster covering material that is the subject of public debate? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Conflict..Perhaps I could go for some kind of inclusion, it would need to be very neutrally portrayed, not sensationalist and both sides covered and with the strongest of the citations, the one from PBS looks good and another? Off2riorob (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to me that this is a coatrack thing, not here..at wiki but in the real world, this little spat has been used to aid positions as regards the present healthcare debate and this is exactly why the viewing figures jumped from tens to hundreds, I assure you I am showing good faith and the comments about the healthcare are in no way a reflection on you, they are just me attempting to find out why this is important.As for what I would consider a strong citation, the new york times, was this notable event mentioned at all in there? Off2riorob (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the article viewing figures [[3]] showing the sudden jump. Off2riorob (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An established journalist resigning from a major broadcaster over a topic that has given him particular notability is not important in that journalist's article? When we can give both sides of the dispute? Come off it. Page view stats are neither here nor there. Maybe you don't intend it, but suppressing verifiable information because of political concerns is POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations of POV and AGF are not very beneficial to discussion, I am here in regard to the BLP board and comments from the subject that lies and misreporting are in the article and I feel that for a subject to bother coming to correct the details is worth addressing. Your comments have altered my opinion little, is there a national newspaper that is covering these comments? Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You also are claiming that he resigned, is there a source to support that? Did he write a letter or did he resign verbally? Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on, I didn't accuse you of deliberate POV, and you were the one apparently insinuating that the material was being inserted in connection with Obama's health reforms. However, editing to avoid being of interest to a political debate is a form of bias, intentionally or not.
  • As for whether he resigned, the source independent of both PBS and Reid say that they have "parted ways" and that he "dropped out of the project". Could you explain why it's important if it was verbal or written? Such a question seems entirely irrelevant to the inclusion of the material.
  • As for the subject - if you check his edit, it was to remove a clear POV, and correct his job description. It was nothing to do with this publicly, RS-documented argument with PBS.
  • Finally, you haven't explained why Current and PBS are not RS. I'd be interested to hear your reasons.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you have again accused me of bias, albiet by editing to avoid being of interest to a political debate whatever that means, I have explained why I am here, would you do me the honour of explaining why this is important to an englishman in japan?
So there is no source to say he resigned as you were saying here.. they parted ways that is not a resignation, dropped out is also not a resignation, this is my issue, putting words into peoples mouth when actually there is no strong reliable citation, PBS is self published, you have still not presented a strong independant source , I gather it was not reported in the New York Times then? Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a balanced, sourced version, so you can see what it looks like.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would benefit from a rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, its tabloid and excessive weight to assuming what his thoughts were, its a poor edit. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Tabloid" would imply scurrilous, sensationalised, possibly untrue text - which is simply not the case. And would you care to specify where you think his thoughts have been misrepresented?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His thoughts?...we are not here to expound what people thought he was thinking, Tabloid implies, opinionated speculative thought portrayed as fact. IMO. There is no strong citation for this twaddle, it has not been widely reported by reliable sources at all.
Also it is starting to look like an attack piece, or at least a defence piece for this frontline organisation . Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frontline is not an organisation, it is a well-known flagship investigative TV programme for PBS. If you didn't know that, I have to question your confidence in knowing what in the US media is a reliable source and what is not. I also question what "speculation" there is in the edits I put in. I see you have yet to explain where you think Reid may have been misrepresented. What, in particular, do you consider "twaddle"?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beefing up the rest of the article[edit]

I've been adding things to his biography. Hopefully, we can start to have other sections apart from the frontline series. He's written a couple of books in Japanese (a remarkable thing in itself if he learnt Japanese that quickly), which I'll try to track down the titles of.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialing it back[edit]

Please stop with the language and comments. You all know what I mean. This talk page is twice as long as it needs to be; don't make editors who want to help wade through your stuff to get to the real issues. The article is much better than it was. The article needs better sources, but they probably can be found. The PBS controversy needs to be shorter. Wikification is needed. CounterPunch itself uses the term "muckraking" to describe itself. Frontline/PBS is an acceptable primary source. "Twaddle" was just plain mean. There needs be more evidence of mainstream notability for the author's other activities to support "beefing" up this article. Flowanda | Talk

He's a senior journalist on a major US paper, who has also worked for PBS and and still works for NPR, whose books are published by major international publishers. Isn't that notable enough for a bit more coverage? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the CounterPunch article: PBS reporting that as a genuine interview with Reid (and Reid not disputing it) makes it useable as a reliable account of what Reid said.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twaddle is not mean at all, you yourself say that, "The PBS controversy needs to be shorter". .. Just take out the excessive twaddle or tabloidese and it will be better. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try yourself and show by example what you mean by tabloidese?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline controversy[edit]

There is a growing number of news hits related to Reid's book and town hall appearances. I will keep an eye out for coverage of the Frontline controversy so we can add a stronger mainstream source to the section. I will also add sources to a separate section that can be used to source the expansion mentioned above. Flowanda | Talk 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sources[edit]

These reviews and articles also provide bio details:

Flowanda | Talk Flowanda | Talk 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(born 1946-1949)[edit]

Really? That's the best we can do? Almost better to have no DOB than that. Moncrief (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T._R._Reid&oldid=1200591464"