Talk:James Reston Jr.

Untitled

Is he related to James Reston? Neither article mentions the other. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, he's James Reston's son. That should be mentioned. 72.227.154.95 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

JR has edited this page

James Reston Jr. has edited this page at least twice through an IP account that is now blocked by User:Yamla for as yet unknown reasons. He has identified himself as the subject of this page in two edit summaries here and here. He has also edited the page with two other accounts User:Restonj and User:James Reston, Jr.. This is my explanation for putting the neutrality tag on it. Kire1975 (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Found two more accounts used by someone who identifies himself as the subject: User:12.108.114.67 and User:71.191.91.244. Kire1975 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be adding the neutrality tag simply because the subject edited the article (though that's usually a bad idea). Has he made any inappropriate edits? EEng 06:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wait. Well, here's one: [1]. EEng 06:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the page is full of WP:PUFFERY like that and this and is really just a complete mess. Apparently, it was a relatively normal article 100 edits ago. Here he is ignoring a rollback.Kire1975 (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Isn't it sad. If the fellow edited just about any other page on Wikipedia, we'd be over the moon... BusterD (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't totally given up hope that he can learn what wikipedia is and what wikipedia is WP:NOT, but it does seem like it will be a challenge. Kire1975 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I put a lot of work in the restore this article to a non-puffery status and to find sources as there were essentially none. I know it is not perfect, but I felt it was to a point where I could remove the tags. If you disagree, please restore the tags.Rublamb (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly excellent work, Rublamb. Unfortunately, I think the usage of inline citations here, here and here are excessive WP:INLINECLUTTER. We don't need 20+ inline reused citations, especially not on every line in the list of publications. Furthermore, neither Encyclopedia.com nor Cengage are even on the list of perennial sources at WP:RSP. It looks user-generated to me. I've never seen it on another Wikipedia page and I've been doing this daily for years and years. Your bio says you're a librarian, so I will defer to your expertise before removing the source entirely. Please advise. Kire1975 (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Kire1975, Cengage is a company that provides textbooks and databases for schools and libraries. They are connected to Gale Publishing and their databases are expensive to subscribe to. Something that you typically don't have access to unless you are in middle or high school. However, it is the equivalent of EBSCO and JSTOR that we access via Wikipedia Library, except that those databases are aimed at high school and college audiences. Through corporate by-outs a while back, they are now connected to Encyclopedia.com which used to be HighBeam Encyclopedia. This is a legit encyclopedia that pulls from credible sources--all of which are listed with each article. Ironically, both Encyclopedia.com and Cengage have Wikipedia articles, if you want to know more. Cheers. Rublamb (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Fact or puffery

Editor Kire1975 recently removed content from popular culture section because they said it was 1)puffery and 2) probably added by Reston himself. Firstly, I am not Reston. Secondly, I had documented the removed content by sources from NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS. Now that the reliability of the content is our of the way, I would like some feedback as to whether or not this if puffery or fact.

When President Richard Nixon went to China, Reston also went to China where he tried acupuncture; his article about the experience was the first time most Americans had ever heard of acupuncture. (Source "The Alternative Fix - What Is Acupuncture? | FRONTLINE | PBS". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2022-06-04. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/altmed/themes/acupuncture.html

Reston developed a theory that Lee Harvey Oswald's target was Texas Governor John Connally, not President John F. Kennedy. (Source: Hensley, Scott (2011-01-14). "Author Sees Parallel In Giffords Shooting And JFK Assassination". NPR. Retrieved 2022-06-04. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/01/14/132937650/author-sees-parallel-in-giffords-shooting-and-jfk-assassination)

FYI: I agree that phrasing could be better here. For example, "most" in the the acupuncture sentence could be changed to "many". In addition, the JFK sentence could say that this was covered by NPR. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Rublamb (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you're talking about this edit? I don't recall what my motivations were a month ago, but rereading it now, it's clear that I made an assumption and was wrong. I would have no problem if the whole thing was restored as is. Thank you for pinging me with the feedback. Kire1975 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Jamestown

The lead paragraph mentions his writing about Jamestown but no details are provided in the rest of the article Wis2fan (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)