Talk:Jeff Randall (journalist)

Sky News
I'm opening a dialogue here because someone keeps deleting information from the article about his appearance on Sky News. Not sure what the problem is with having that particular information there. After all he is a Sky presenter and host of Jeff Randall Live. Any thoughts on this? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Randall Live
Apparenly Jeff Randall Live is going twice weekly from January 2010 due to poor ratings. Anyone got a reference for that. I've just been Googling, but couldn't find anything to support this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeff Randall (journalist). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916203048/http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/Resources/showarticle.asp?id=3012 to http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/Resources/showarticle.asp?id=3012
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221202117/http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/AboutUs/biography.asp?id=168 to http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/AboutUs/biography.asp?id=168

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail source
The daily mail source I have used has a direct quote from Randall - this is the part that has been put into the article, and is as reliable as any reliable source, being a direct quote. --1.136.109.50 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the quote is genuine and notable it will appear in multiple reliable sources and should not be hard to cite, in fact in the article in question it is not a direct quote but an apparent paraphrasing of an unnamed (unattributed) executive about an unnamed ‘leaked’ document, in other words hearsay from a disgruntled ex employee. Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source so please find another one to support the information. Mramoeba (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For other editors I will also point out that the link “We are biased admits BBC” contains a browser hijack redirect to “congratulation! Your reward is (1) google gift”. Mramoeba (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * according to Tiptoethrutheminefield on WP:Daily Mail, "There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source." --1.136.106.97 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * this article has a citation from the guardian. What make the guardian permissible and the daily mail not permissible, accordingly to Wikipedia? --1.136.106.97 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. The foundation on which Wikipedia is built as an encyclopedia is that we should only permit reliable sources, eg. newspapers whose journalistic integrity is high, where journalists are accountable to editors and which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as per WP:RS. Another cornerstone of Wikipedia is that when we run into dispute, we aim to come together to reach a consensus. The subject of DM’s reliability has been broached on multiple occasions and in January 2017 editors came together at RfC to discuss whether Daily Mail was a reliable source or not, and consensus was reached that it “is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles”, with multiple examples of unreliability given throughout the discussion. The archive of the discussion is here which includes the comment you mention. If an incident or quote is newsworthy and reliable it will appear in muliple reliable sources and can be cited from those. As far as this article is concerned, I think it is also worth pointing out that as an encyclopedia the content should be encyclopedic with a summary of his work and career, and whilst his opinions are of course relevant to his position as a journalist there are already many quotes and instances of his opinion on various news media outlets and adding more is straying from presenting a neutral point of view as per WP:NPOV which is particularly important for biographies, see WP:BLP. I have left the mention of his problem with multiculturalism with a tag for better source, but I think it should be removed if none is found as it could be said to portray him in a negative light. Mramoeba (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for your in depth and informative response. I have gone and cited non-daily mail sources. I was going to use the guardian as a source but was not sure. What is Wikipedia policy on that news source? It looks biased to me. --1.136.107.218 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent. There is no problem with the Guardian, if you personally find it biased you are under no obligation to use it however it is accepted as reliable by the Wikipedia community. Mramoeba (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC) *Edit the Evening Standard you may notice is identical, it is a syndicated piece and is essentially the same article, I will restore the citation needed tag for now. Mramoeba (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there any WP links you could point me to where they discuss the guardian, similar to WP:Daily Mail? I'd be interested in taking a look. --1.152.109.231 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Try the search function (advanced tab). Mramoeba (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Filling in a gap
After his time doing a postgraduate qualification in the States which you mention, he did some research in the Economics Department of what was then Wolverhampton Polytechnic, under Dr John Trudgill. I know this because I was doing a masters degree in the Social Studies Department and shared an office with him at the time, I believe the dates were September 1980 - September 1981. However, I have no way to verify this and I'd rather not add an unsourced reference to it! Do any of you have any idea how I can independently verify this? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)