Talk:The National Enquirer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we keep working on this article, one day it could become "featured". I just added a paragraph and corrected some spelling and syntax errors. I see real potential here. Hokeman 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the praise of the NE in this article, the NE is for whatever reason still not considered by many in Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. Either this article needs to be significantly modified in order to toe the party line, or some Wikipedians should read their own Wikipedia to learn more about sources before they prejudicially dismiss them. Turly-burly 06:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you Turly-burly. I would invite you to furthur elaborate about NE -- telling about its early history as a scandal sheet, and the large number of libel/defamation suits it has had. The authors who worked on it before weren't necessarily wrong, just incomplete. I would think you would agree, however, that Worthong and I have dramatically improved the article. Hokeman 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, yes. I wasn't trying to sound critical of the article. I'm in favor of leaving it the way it is, which is fair without being iconoclastic (i.e. by sounding as if the NE were so reliable as to be the NYTimes). I've noticed that certain people here editing at wikipedia, though, don't seem to want to give the NE any kind of credit, and there's never any good reason other than "The NE isn't a reputable source because I know it isn't". I think this article is correct, and that people would do well to read it (and the article at Slate) to take a fresh look at the facts. Turly-burly 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This page does have potential, but it needs more citations. There are numerous statements to the fact that the NE has become an established, responsible paper, etc., but there is no appropiate citations for them. I think a way to not only strengthen this article but make more people actually believe that the NE can be a valid news source is if these claims are properly cited. -Kraw Night 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] xmas tree info

Why was the information removed concerning the christmas tree? This most recent edit looks like vandalism to me...will rv later if no justification is forthcoming. Turly-burly 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I reverted back to your prior edition. That was vandalism.--Hokeman 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I believe that the editor made some substantial contributions to the text regarding current changes at the Enquirer, in addition to useful minor edits. The Christmas tree paragraph does interfere with the flow of the text, in that it is "off topic" from the preceding and subsequent paragraphs. While I wouldn't insist on leaving it out, I think it is incorrect to refer to those edits as vandalism. -Jmh123 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• • The Christmas Tree was a huge deal in Palm Beach County in the 70's and 80's and it fits right in there between the movement of the paper to Lantana in 1971 and the death of founder Pope in 1988. If people are going to screw around and delete large sections of the encyclopedia then they ought to do it after making meaningful contributions. That way their meaningful, legitimate edits can be left in there. Unfortunately, this editor did not choose to do that and chose to delete the paragraph first. (There was other stuff besides the Christmas Tree in that paragraph.) If they want to go back and re-add the meaningful edits, be my guest. --Hokeman 23:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I do see your logic for placing the tree paragraph as you did. I was only suggesting that the editor did not intend to vandalize the page. Take care. -Jmh123 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ETA: I retained the new edits while preserving the tree paragraph. I hope it is acceptable to you. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point also. I think those additions that were just added do improve the accuracy; the Enquirer did peak at over 6 million (not 4 million) in the 70s. I'm glad you see my point- about a month ago I went through the article and corrected syntax, grammar, punctuation, spelling - you name it; however, I really liked the content and was very careful not to delete anyones hard work.--Hokeman 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)