Talk:JournoList

Looks much better! But, can we ditch the overly red wiki links, and just wiki link those we have articles on? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:21, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

I expanded the list of members by replacing it with the list I wrote up on Wikipedia, which was then deleted. -- JohnWBarber 22:21, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Censorship by Wikipedia is no surprise; we don't censor here. But what is your source for these names?--Andy Schlafly 22:31, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

List of 65 names from my original post [1] --Jpatt 01:08, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

I took the names mostly from various Daily Caller articles. My edit had footnotes citing each one and linking to an article, so each name can be verified. Nothing was unsourced. If you follow the links to the articles, you'll find each name. In addition to the Daily Caller articles, I also used a post by Ezra Klein stating that 41 members signed a public petition posted on another Web page that Klein linked to. I found the original set of 41 names on that Web page and added the ones not already on the list. I think that's reliable, but if not, those names can be removed. As far as I know, no one has ever disputed whether or not someone said to be part of JournoList is actually not a member, which makes the sources seem even more reliable. -- JohnWBarber 09:54, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

There were more names in the entry here, which seemed validated by links to sources but JohnWBarber hasn't yet responded to my request above. So more review might be helpful.--Andy Schlafly 01:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

I didn't count the names in the article before I replaced the list. I just assumed the "65" mentioned at the top of the list was correct, and I had more names than that. -- JohnWBarber 09:54, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

It's a long list. I did some spot-checking and found confirmation for every name I checked. But perhaps some further review would also be helpful. Do you feel the citations in the table back up the inclusion of every single name on the list?--Andy Schlafly 16:18, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

They do. I looked up each one myself. The full list would be much longer, of course, if it comes out (actually, I think that's inevitable). Eventually, I think this should be a stand-alone list on its own page, and I'd like to expand this article. -- JohnWBarber 20:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

As a matter of style, perhaps we could forgo that huge wall of text, and merely link to the purported members? Without that huge list, we still convey the meat of the story, and those researching can use the provided links if the entire membership list is needed. Just a thought..... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:48, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

As I say just above, I think the list shoule eventually be put on a separate page (It may be long enough now for that, but I'm not familiar with Conservapedia practices on that kind of decision.) I think being able to sort the table to look up which newspapers or magazines or other institutions had a number of members (or any members) is something that would really help readers interested in this topic. Each of the people on the list either wrote something that was considered important in some way by those writing news stories about the list, or they signed a public petition, putting their names out before the public in an attempt to exert influence about coverage of the 2008 campaign. I think anyone interested in this subject is going to want to know who those people are. At the very least, readers are going to want to know which names were with particular organizations. -- JohnWBarber 20:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)