Jump to content

Talk:Leah McGrath Goodman

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

Untitled

[edit]

are we allowed an inaccuracy in reports section? she said that we weren't allowed books and claimed that the states was just a front for feudal lords she also miscalculated the size of the Island by a mile (Fdsdh1 (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Quoting the author on her wikipedia page IS NOT libel, Rubby Murray. Do you have an agenda by protecting Leah McGrath Goodman from facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.160.252 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that both your IP address and the article are unlocked, I'll reply. You were adding rather more than a quote from the author, and some of the assertions made were libellous. One claim was apparently only made in error: you've accused her of writing "Fortune 500 companies are all based in the U.S." in this article, as if that were a glaring error, demonstrating incompetence. In fact the Fortune 500 index is, by definition, a ranking of U.S. corporations. You may be confusing this with the Fortune Global 500, a ranking of corporations worldwide. Like most Newsweek articles, that one you quoted by Goodman is sensationalist and shallow, but that doesn't give anyone the right to turn this Wikipedia article into an attack page. Ruby Murray 11:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitisation

[edit]

Why are neutrally phrased, directly relevant edits being reverted? Are we to be prevented from adding anything, no matter how consistent, fact based, and neutrally phrased? 93.96.89.131 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any valid reason to not summarise in what manner the article "revealed the alleged identity" given that that phrase seems non-contentious? 93.96.89.131 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sanitization going on. You, and other IP address based users, have been repeatedly adding facts and details about Satoshi Nakamoto to the biography of the reporter who wrote an article about him. Those facts and how private they are perceived to be are irrelevant to Ms. Goodman and should be discussed and potentially added to the article on Satoshi Nakomoto, not here. GregChant (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked an earlier editor's input you struck for more neutral tone. I added no detail whatsoever about SN - the specific text was: "including his full name, his hobbies, photos of his person and his home, and where he was located." That all pertains directly to the article and the author, not the subject. I will re-introduce this content unless you or another editor can provide a reason it should be excluded. 93.96.89.131 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, you say "Those facts and how private they are perceived to be are irrelevant to Ms. Goodman". I cannot fathom your logic here. She is the journalist, and her subjects privacy and how he responds to her investigation is a MAJOR theme of her article.93.96.89.131 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need another source to say that, not just you. If you produce 5 reliable sources that say "Goodman has frequently been critiqued for exposing personal information of her subjects", then that's worth an add. However, it's borderline WP:OR to say "She wrote and article, and in that article she did something the subject didnt' want her to do", and focus on that one article - we need to wait to see what sources say about her doxxing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I believe pushes it firmly away from original research is that (unlike in arguably similar situations) it's NOT that in the article "she did something the subject didn't want her to do". It's that in large chunks of the article body are about her doing "something the subject didn't want her to do" and the subjects reaction to that. This is a major thrust of the article - not something that requires any analysis or research. It is not 'meta'. Regardless, I am confident more WP:RS will be along shortly. 93.96.89.131 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.o.b?

[edit]

Date-of-birth is a standard wiki feature. Valetude (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leah McGrath Goodman. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leah_McGrath_Goodman&oldid=1207325943"