541
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + +
Talk:The New York Times (view source)
Revision as of 00:43, September 21, 2007
, 00:43, September 21, 2007→Removal of my edit?
*What you added, Jenkins, is ''spin'', worthy of a Times employee or a [[Deceit|Liberal]]. But it was an unsubstantiated conjecture as to their intent, eh? And please stop with fact templates on stuff that is a truism, such as the politics of the publisher. If you have time to run around inserting those, you have the time to find the appropriate citation to prove or disprove. That is the job of an editor. Not some other editor, YOUR job. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 20:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
*What you added, Jenkins, is ''spin'', worthy of a Times employee or a [[Deceit|Liberal]]. But it was an unsubstantiated conjecture as to their intent, eh? And please stop with fact templates on stuff that is a truism, such as the politics of the publisher. If you have time to run around inserting those, you have the time to find the appropriate citation to prove or disprove. That is the job of an editor. Not some other editor, YOUR job. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 20:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::What I added was a simple, sourced fact. "Spin" ''might'' have been if I had rephrased the first part of that entry to remove the "most vile hate speech" bit. And I still don't see the "controversy" - especially when sites like WikiScanner have been [http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22315991-5001031,00.html doubted] in the past. But thanks for the recommendation, I might apply for a NYT job later ;)
::And no, it would be the fact of the editor who MAKES THE CLAIM. I happen not to know that guy, and he doesn't seem to have an article. So to casual readers, it's not a truism, it's an unsourced claim. And from what I see, the claim becomes "true" with the reasoning "The NYT is liberal because the guy is liberal, and the guy is liberal because he's the chief of the NYT". But fine, I'll do the job of whoever made the claim and do his/her research. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)