Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miradre (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 9 August 2011 (→NPOV Dispute: Quotes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democracy Now! article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Democracy Now!. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Democracy Now! at the Reference desk.

To-do list for Democracy Now!: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-11-17 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : *Democracy_now#Notable guests, interviews, and on-air debates section: Add dates to all interviews (done), Create a table and (done) Add archive.org audio/video links to all the interviews. (Archive.org hosts all of the democracy now audio and video files)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democracy Now! article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Lannan Foundation, Ron Glaser & Air America

"At least $350,000 in grant money has been accepted by Democracy Now! since 2001 from the Lannan Foundation that was set up by the family of former ITT board member J. Peter Lannan. Over $100,000 in grants have also been given to Democracy Now! It's done by former Microsoft VP and Real Networks CEO Rob Glaser's Glaser Progress Foundation in recent years."

Can we have a reference for these numbers? -plaus

"Glaser was also a major investor in the financially ailing Air America radio network."

I've removed this bit, it's something for an article about Ron Glaser or Air America, it's unrelated to DN. -plaus

Theme Music

Does anyone know the title of the theme music? This may be interesting, at least to me. —Telofy (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please balance this article

This whole article reads like an advertisement for Democracy Now! I came here to find out what Democracy Now! is, but found only this sales brochure. I don't know enough to balance it, but plead with those who do for some help. At least add a "Criticisms of" paragraph to add some perspective.

NPOV Dispute: Quotes

First, it is wrong to have a supporting quote in the awards section. It is not an award. Second, self-congratulatory quotes are not a proper part of the background. They may be in Wikiquote or if they illustrate something else in the text. But a free hanging quote without context is not encyclopedic.Miradre (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to add WP:BALANCE by adding criticism or opposing points of view. Formatted quotations are well-used throughout Misplaced Pages; see MOS:QUOTE and WP:QUOTE. Additionally, please use help find sources or use citation-needed tags rather than removing material. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:QUOTE: "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." Also, quoteboxes are discouraged. I have added citation needed tags. However, unsourced material can be challenged and removed.Miradre (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You have also abruptly removed readily-sourced material; please consider adopting a less contentious and more courteous editing style. Per WP:V, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." Rostz (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rostz, the quotes are fine and not overdone.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:QUOTE quoteboxes should not be used and quotes should be worked into the text.Miradre (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting WP:QUOTE: "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." The current WP:CONSENSUS is that the placement of the quotes, at the beginning and to the side of sections, does not inhibit the article's pace, flow, or organization. Rostz (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For balance, should we include quotes like "Far left media outlets such as Democracy Now are not so much actual media outlets as they are pro Muslim propaganda machines for the spread of radical Islam"? I hope your are not arguing for only self-congratulatory adulations at the beginning? Miradre (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not, because that quote does not come from a reliable source. It comes from a website called the "Alternative News Report." The full quote reads:

It is a racialist rant. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Point being that one can find numerous critical quotes. Quotes by Democracy Now are from a self-published source and not more reliable than many of these critical views.Miradre (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why even mention a source which is almost as bad as Stormfront? It is clear that this kind of highly negative material causes a huge amount of offense and is obviously a major BLP violation to the living individuals who work for "Now Democaracy!" Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We can take Meretz instead who accuses Goodman of having of having an "extreme anti-Israel bias".Miradre (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

One person's opinion from a blog? BLP material can't be written using sources like that on wikipedia. Please read the BLP banner at the top of the page. Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source with the same view that we can quote: Miradre (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have the intention of adding material of that kind about Amy Goodman to wikipedia, the only place to discuss this is at WP:BLPN, where you could seek guidance. I couldn't see anything like that in her article at the moment. These things are taken extremely seriously on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article comments on Democracy Now also.Miradre (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an Op-Ed to me. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Press is certainly preferable as a source to self-published self-congratulations by Democracy Now.Miradre (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, you started out by reproducing part of an unacceptable racialist rant on this page. Now you propose adding negative information, by hook or by crook, about a small group of identifiable living individuals. That is against BLP policy and that is why there is a banner at the top of this page. Please go and read it! Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Religions are not races. Adding criticisms against a TV program is not against BLP.Miradre (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of that remark, Miradre? You've lost me there. Please spell out what you mean. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding a criticism against a TV program without even naming a specific person cannot violate BLP.Miradre (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct and that is why there is a banner at the top of this page which you seem set on violating. Since there is a doubt, please find a proper source and ask your questions at WP:BLPN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think that adding a criticism of a TV program without naming a person violates BLP, then please contact the appropriate noticeboard.Miradre (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I am not proposing to add material of that kind. Anything you add that violates WP:BLP will be reverted on sight as it says at the top of the page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not add anything violating BLP.Miradre (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that Miradre views this as a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Now he is scouring a range of racist sites and blogs trying to find any quote that shows DN in a negative light. However, all of these thus far violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. But NPOV certainly requires that also criticisms should be included and not just self-published self-congratulatory quotes.Miradre (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

First you need to provide information from a WP:RELIABLE source. Then if that information is inflammatory, you need to show that it does not violate WP:UNDUE by showing that the specific criticism is repeated often throughout the reliable media. Negative information about an organization has a higher threshold than their own mission statements etc. However, your recent attempts and sources show that your objectivity on this issue in highly suspect.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a reliable source: . Certainly at least as DUE as self-published, self-congratulatory quotes.Miradre (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) This article is not about Amy Goodman, it is about Democracy Now!. (2) An orthodox-Jewish weekly editorial declaring Goodman (who is Jewish, lived in Israel, had family die in the Holocaust etc) a "promoter of anti-Semites and anti-Zionists of nearly every stripe", and accusing her of "helping a terrorist … dedicated to the destruction of Israel" - can hardly be seen as a disinterested news source. Now if you can locate these allegations in several mainstream newspaper reports (not solely editorials), then perhaps they could be included.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article makes statements about the program also. I fail to see how the largest Jewish weekly is less reliable than self-congratulatory, self-published quotes? Miradre (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You started this particular line of discussion by suggesting the use of material from "Alternative News Report" (see the collapsed section above). You seem to be claiming that everything written there was reasonable. Is that correct? Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. But it is not more unreliable than the self-published, self-congratulatory material that are now in this article without opposing views.Miradre (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary it was hate-speech partially reproduced in your edit, possibly for some kind of shock-jock effect. I don't see what this has to do with reliability. Just edits in violation of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? What was the "hate speech"? Miradre (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If anybody of their own volition wrote on[REDACTED] what is in the collapsed section and defended it, they would be banned indefinitely. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Criticisms of Christianity and Criticisms of Islam articles with subarticles.Miradre (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wrote what is in the collapsed box as your own opinion on[REDACTED] and continued to assert it, you would be blocked.. In this context you would be straying not only onto WP:BLP violations but also would probably also be subject to WP:ARBPIA. Mathsci (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything an anonymous editors asserts on his own is not a WP:RS. You can find much, much worse than the statement above in the Criticisms article. BLP discussed above. What part of WP:ARBPIA would apply? 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Miradre (talk)

Anything you insert that is a BLP violation either here or on the article page will henceforth be reverted. WP:ARBPIA would apply not here but rather to unsubstantiated third-part allegations of being pro or anti Israeli/Palestinian. If you wish to include unsubstantiated negative information, even from hate-speech sites like "A;ternative News Report", please seek clarification at WP:BLPN. If you want to post potentially libellous attacks on small identified groups of individuals on the web, other websites are better adapted to that than wikipedia, where it is against policy. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing the The Jewish Press is posting libellous information? Miradre (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a biased Op-Ed, written in extreme language, which would not be permitted per WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that you removed the single critical material in the article: . But your claimed reason is wrong. The article is also about the show.Miradre (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Goodman is what the title says and indeed the article is about her and her work, with lots of biographical details (father, religion, etc). If you can find a non-partisan source describing DN! and its activities that would be fine. Already using the tax declaration was a flagrant violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy limiting sources to topic identical with the title. The article is also about the show.Miradre (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Making BLP violations cannot be justified by evasive wikilawyering. The last edit you made was a misuse of a BLP source. Please do not misrepresent sources like that. Also please don't add tags to the article just because your edits are not verifiable. They are just very poor quality edits. If you want to add additional commentary, please try to find appropriate sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

Take it the the BLP board if you claim there is any violation. Read the what the tag says. It should not be removed while there is an ongoing dispute.Miradre (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are evidently set on finding negative statements to include in the article, wherever you can dig them up. In the first place you reproduced something from a hate-speech website; then a blog; and then a partisan Op-Ed. If you want to include criticisms within[REDACTED] policies then you must find them in appropriate sources. An Op-ed whose sole purpose is to attack Amy Gordon is not acceptable. Why not look for a non-partisan secondary source reporting on DN! and use that? Surely the NYT has commented. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your descriptions are incorrect. Also, why would even a blog be less reliable than self-published, self-congratulatory quotes that are now in the article? There is nothing wrong with the Jewish Press. It criticizes the program which is what I cite. There is no requirement that title must be same as the article topcic.Miradre (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a published peer-reviewed academic article evaluating DN! (this is the first page which is publicly viewable). An early full version of a working version of the document is freely available here. This is the kind of source to use when writing articles like this. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See nothing there contradicting the criticism by The Jewish Press.Miradre (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That article evidently satisfies WP:RS. Exactly the kind of article responsible editors would use for writing this article. Indeed it is the first such article that has been produced so far. I don't quite understand why you are not leaping with joy to find such an article. The Op-Ed you produced is a polemic and attack-piece on Amy Gordon which is evidently unusable. Mathsci (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I may use your source also. But the Jewish Press is of course a WP:RS. Again, if you claim BLP, take it to BLP board.Miradre (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists