Talk:Jeff Jacoby (columnist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Since there is more than 1 Jeff Jacoby, there should be a disambiguation page.

items on contention in article[edit]

I'm new to editing this page, but looking at the history it appears there is contention among editors on two points.

The first is those who want the header of the article to include a statement that jacoby supports the current president and Israel. This in my mind is an attempt at POV and takes away from the intent of a neutral POV[1].

The second is the inclusion of a paragraph detailing the alleged result of an arbitration hearing for Jacoby against the Globe. Since I saw that, I have done a lot of research trying to find a source to back the claim but have not been able to. The last edit linked the American Arbitration Association as a source. This alone is not sufficient, to be included a reference must be made for verifiability must be included. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"[2] so suggestions that readers and editors email this organization if they don't believe does not meet the criteria.

Request for cite: I flagged this article pursuant to an inquiry left on my user talk page. This article has been flagged as requiring an additional citation. If you believe this requirement has already been met, please explain the supporting rationale here in talk.
In any event, please do not remove the flag on this article without explaining here or exercising any of the various dispute resolution options first, (see e.g., WP:dispute). Thanks for your help and constructive contributions to WP. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

note: further citation forthcoming, comment on introduction[edit]

According to an email I received, Jacoby has the documents himself and is working at the moment to get them into a PDF format. The arbitration and the result of it are a fact and can, I believe, be checked by calling the American Abritration Association. They can at least verify that there was an arbitrated agreement, although they may not be able to publicly release all terms of the agreement without permission from one or perhaps both sides. Therefore, I propose that the article stand, with the citation flag, while Jacoby has time to verify the facts. He does not wish to release the full context of the arbitration, from what I understand, only portions relevant to this particular citation.

I agree with Dreftymac that the first sentence should remain as neutral as possible with regard to POV and that, as s/he mentioned, is one of only two real points of contention I have had with the entry. The inflammatory remarks and the fact that it be on the record that Jacoby was reimbursed for wages.

I do not know when or even IF Jacoby will ultimately make the PDF file (or equivalent) available but I would ask that you give him time as he has been alerted to the situation. I am not Jeff; he *is* on here and *has* contributed to his own bio, yes, but he is not the main editor of it by a long stretch; I am merely an acquaintance and am privy to the facts surrounding the 2000 suspension. However I do ask that you allow him time to produce documents since there has been no evidence that what I have posted is contrary to the truth, and the American Abritration Association *can* be contacted.

I understand the dispute over the citation and, as I said, will leave the citeflag on the article. The fact does remain, however, that the AAA can be contacted. The arbitration *is* a matter of fact.

Other than that I would appreciate it if the vandalism of the initial neutral POV would stop. That is actually my main concern. Jacoby is a conservative but I reject the inflammatory mentions of "reactionary" opinions and the insinuation that somehow he is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

paragraph in dispute removed but citeflag still left[edit]

Come on, PushaPop, if you're going to delete the only reference on here that's in dispute, you could at least delete the citecheck flag, since that was the only footnote that was being questioned. Since this article is locked, I cannot edit it anymore. I would respectfully request that either someone return the information about the arbitration and leave the citecheck or REMOVE THE CITECHECK.

Barnicle and Smith & "observers" comment removed[edit]

As there is no reference/citation backing up the comment that Jacoby received "less harsh" treatment than Barnicle & Smith -- whose violations were not plagiarism-related but actual fabrication of stories and sources -- I have removed that. If someone wishes to reintroduce the comment with a sourced reference to an article, I have no problem, although I do think that it should be noted, again, that while Jacoby was charged with plagiarism, Barnicle and Smith were charged with whole-cloth fabrication of stories and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerouac2k (talkcontribs) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of the article is on controversy??[edit]

Isn't there something around here called undue weight? Any takers on rewrite?? --Tom 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Jacoby (columnist). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)