Talk:Ted Rall

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
Narrowly a B, needs citations, and perhaps a picture of the man.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: The link for "An Army of Scum" needs to be fixed...the website in question doesn't mention it. This site has it:
http://www.visartsmedia.org/sources/rall.html DesScorp 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Eurasianet contains his cartoons.
Is it worth being mentionned?
:Numerous publications carry his cartoons. If someone wants to create (and maintain) a list of them then that's fine. But if we do so it should be reasonably comprehensive. -Will Beback 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurasianet 

message: There's an apparent factual dispute here between the above user & someone else. I have revereted to the version with the citation and marked as a disputed item. To resolve the dispute, the editor should provide some other citation that contradicts the previous one. C00kiemons 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: factual dispute

message: Didn't Ted Rall create the "Fantabulaman" and "7 Periods Until Death" comics in Mad Magazine?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.60.183 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mad Magazine

message: The long "Controversies" section contains many entries which on't give any indication of a controversy. For there to be a controversy ther have to be voices who argue over the matter. A link to an outrageous statement is not proof of a controversy. I'm going to delete the entries that have no indication of an actual controversy.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Unless a third party comments, there is no controversy, just Rall did another cartoon someone doesn't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Editorial cartoonists attack public figures; it's what they do. For many such cartoonists, every single cartoon they've ever made has attacked one or another public figure. Rall doesn't seem remarkable in that regard.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If we can find a reliable source who says that we should add it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/msnbc-guest-suggest-violent-revolution/
MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan drew the ire of conservatives after he asked political cartoonist Ted Rall to explain why a violent revolution is necessary.
Rall joined Ratigan to discuss his new book The Anti-American Manifesto which makes the case for revolution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.155.34 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Be Added to Controversies Section Probably 

message: Ted Rall Calls for Radical Change
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#40076926  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.208.254 (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to msnbc Dylan Ratigan show cited above 

message: "Terror Widows" is definitely one of Rall's most controversial cartoons -- the New York Times apologized for it and discontinued his strip because of it. 
Rall also defended it in his book, "America Gone Wild," in an introduction that you can preview on Amazon.com. --Nbauman (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: why isn't this in the controversies section?74.96.220.27 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terror Widows 

message: Since it seems there's some disagreement about how to paraphrase this source... it says the following.  From the headline and first sentence:  "‘Cleaned-Up’ Audiotape of Political Cartoonist’s Clash With LAPD Bolsters His Story" "The freelance cartoonist who was essentially fired by the Los Angeles Times last week has marshaled audiotape evidence that boosts his side of the story in the dispute"  That means that the article says, as a fact, that the tape bolsters his story; paraphrasing this as "he said it bolstered his story" is misusing the source and violating NPOV -- the source explicitly says that it bolsters his story as a matter of fact, so we have to report it that way.  Likewise, the source later says:  "A “cleaned-up” version of the audiotape, posted online by the cartoonist Monday after he said he brought it to sound engineers, does include the noise of a crowd disputing his treatment by the officer, including the sound of one woman calling out “you need to take off the [sound muffled],” referring to, presumably, the handcuffs Mr. Rall said he was put in."  Again, this is stated as fact in a reputable source; paraphrasing it to "Rall claimed..." is not acceptable, since that's taking a fact stated in the source and falsely presenting it as if it is only his opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One secondary source does say that the audio supports him, but I don't think we have enough weight to over-sell this. From the Observer source:  "Support" and "Exonerate" are different enough that they shouldn't be confused here. The source does say that there are comments by others disputing his treatment by the officer, but it seems like a stretch to claim this is a settled issue. The Guardian and Poynter sources both pretty clearly avoid making any calls, describing it as Rall's claims, not as fact. Even the Observer source is careful to point out that the line about handcuffs is muffled, and the other sources all describe it as Rall's interpretation. At no point do we have a secondary source objectively characterizing the bystanders as being outraged, (unless I missed something) so this seems like editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Grayfell, especially given that the Times has today issued a lengthy recapitulation of its position, stating that Times-hired experts dispute Rall's interpretation of the tape, and re-affirming its original conclusion that Rall's original blog post shouldn't have run.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observer coverage of the audiotape. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ted Rall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060505022554/http://www.tcj.com/236/n_danse.html to http://www.tcj.com/236/n_danse.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060523195212/http://www.boston.com:80/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/02/attacking_liberals_is_high_on_his_list?mode=PF to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/02/attacking_liberals_is_high_on_his_list?mode=PF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060228002956/http://www.editorandpublisher.com:80/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001995932 to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001995932
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just as a friendly reminder, the two main sources of information about Rall's suit against the Los Angeles Times at this point are the LAT and aNewDomain.net - which is Rall's current employer. Neither is an objective source, and nothing should be taken as read except that there is a lawsuit pending. -- JCaesar (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: Substituted at 07:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment