Talk:Norbert Pearlroth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Austria Low‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Robert Ripley

In my opinion, Robert Ripley treated Pearlroth unfairly.SuzieSingB (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rip-Off's Believe it or Not!

Norbert Pearlroth was, in my opinion one of the most hard-working researchers Mr. Ripley had. I should also mention that Ripley's Believe it or Not! has changed a great deal. If you submit a correction, nothing changes and you just get a postcard that says "Believe it or Not!". I have also noticed that all the museums have basically the same artifacts (if one can call them anything other than garbage) inside. Because of this, I have since stopped going to the museums.SuzieSingB (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Photo

There is no lead photo. It should really have one.SuzieSingB (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to locate only a few depictions of Pearlroth. The first is a (not very good) photograph from the Chicago Tribune dated 1979 that obscures most of his face [1], and the second on Ripley's website (under 1923) [2]. I've decided to instead use a low-quality illustration from his column that he wrote for The Jewish Post (from a 1961 issue), as all three are copyrighted and the illustration I feel is less likely to have trouble with non-free use issues. It can be argued that the Ripley's photograph dates to 1923, but it's not clear (it's just under a 1923 header) so I can't be sure that this image is in the public domain. More research would need to be done to make a true public domain determination in any case. —Jonathan Chang 00:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]