Talk:Abby Martin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional coverage

I was going to criticize the recreation so soon after deletion and AfDs, but with [[1] it looks like the subject now has a valid claim. If there is any future coverage of the after-effects, I think Notability would be a slam dunk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say this tips the balance to clear notability. There has been continuing coverage of her, and this adds to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I support the unprotection of the target name so that the draft can be moved into article space. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also support the unprotection of the target name so that the draft can be moved into article space.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also support the unprotection of the target name so that the draft can be moved into article space. Mentions by both NBC[2] and Huffpost[3]—in combination with her existing presence in web culture and alternative media venues—seem to support Ms. Martin's encyclopedic notability.
Personally, I feel it would have been nice if readers of the NBC and Huffpost articles who desired to learn more about Ms. Martin had had a convenient centralized encyclopedic source of information about her to turn to—i.e. a Wikipedia article. I find it sad (ironic?) that such an opportunity had been declined[4] just days earlier.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
yes it is sad/ironic that the admin did not have a crystal ball to know that Russia would send troops to Ukraine and that Martin would use the event for a soapbox that would get picked up by NBC. The level of psychic aptitude among the admin class is sorely lacking and a pure disgrace to the mop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
She didn't use anything as a soapbox, and I don't believe NBC picked up the story first. As most of the sources make clear, she was already notable for her work before this story was published. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • TRPoD, Hasteur is not an admin.[5][6] Perhaps you meant "reviewer". Anyway, regardless, I find it sad that an article which appeared to me to be de facto notable—and most likely de jure notable as well—on 28 Feb. was glibly dismissed when had it instead been accepted at that time it would have been well poised to support inquiring readers when Ms. Martin received even further notoriety just days later in international media.
I greatly appreciate it when upon encountering names or terms which are new to me in both media and general life Wikipedia provides me with further details and associated links in an advert free openly referenced format. So much so that I'm inclined to prioritize sharing the experience with others.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also support unprotection of the target name. Even if I am incorrect that the recent coverage tips the balance to clear notability (thus adding to continuing coverage of her), still that discussion can occur following re-creation of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The protecting admin has lifted the protection. A new page move discussion appears at the bottom of this page. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Is there a way to facilitate a 'speedy inclusion'? Regarding Draft talk:Abby Martin#Additional coverage. It seems that administrative support is needed to free up the article name in mainspace. A reworked version of the article Abby Martin—with improved referencing—was declined 28 Feb. 2014 with little or no specific explanation. Then just days later Ms. Martin was featured in articles by both NBC and the Huffington Post. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please close this RFC? It is not necessary and is generally not used for this purpose. I am filing a requested move right now as the target has been unprotected. We need an admin to perform housekeeping by deleting the target to make way for the move. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I 'commented out' the RfC tag. It seems redundant to the move-to-mainspace proposal at this point and no longer particularly useful. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I restored the tag as per my comment in the following page section. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I 'commented out' the RfC tag, again, now that the page has been moved to mainspace. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the version currently in the draft is not much different from the version rejected by AfC on 28 Feb [7] the only substantive change being the inclusion of the 3 March on-air condemnation of Russia. If that's the basis of moving this, then it is a WP:ONEEVENT article, and the outburst could instead be covered in the RT article. WP:BLP1E. That 3 March addition also makes up the bulk of the Breaking the Set article, making that one potentially a 1E article as well. If the AfC review was wrong, why hasn't this been resubmitted with a rebuttal statement to AfC? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Nope. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there are multiple ways to get an article into mainspace. The AfC was reviewed for three seconds by a user who has been admonished by arbcom for their participation at AfC, and who said earlier this year that they would no longer involve themselves there. They do not appear to have read nor reviewed the article, as their AfC rationale was completely divorced from reality (the problems with the original version at AfD were addressed, and the article bears no similarity whatsoever to that version). As for the recent expansion of the Breaking the Set article, its creation and expansion are solely due to the former protection of the Abby Martin title, which has now been lifted. We certainly do not need two articles at this point, and most of the sources are about Abby Martin, not just her show, and she is notable for being an artist, filmmaker, and author, as well as a radio and television host. Furthermore, much of the 1E coverage you refer to actually talks about much more than this event, for example, the NYT coverage today, which talks about her involvement in the 9/11 truth movement, and the Greenwald coverage which talks about her role as a lone journalist who speaks truth to power surrounded by the corporate and government influenced U.S. and Russian media. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • To me, it seems clear that the additional news coverage in recent days establishes her notability. I thought that the redirect to the show was the best solution previously. I support a neutral, well-referenced biography now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 04 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moot. On 6 March, this page was moved from draft space by the RM nominator to Abby Martin (journalist). The main focus of this discussion was whether to move from draft to mainspace, and since that has been done, this discussion is superfluous. What's the point in opening an RM discussion and then acting boldly before the discussion is closed?
There was some secondary consideration of whether this article should be disambiguated, or treated as the primary topic. However, that issue was not the main focus of this discussion, so the comments here about that aspect do not amoint to a consensus for any course of action. There is also Abby Martin (disambiguation), while Abby Martin redirects to Abby Martin (journalist). Having the undisambiguated title as a redirect doesn't conform to our usual practice, so I will now open a new discussion on whether the journalist or the dab page should occupy that slot. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Draft:Abby Martin → Abby Martin – Per the above discussion noting new sources and a recent rewrite, there is a new consensus to move the draft version into article namespace to a now unprotected target currently existing as a redirect in order to preserve the page history, which should already be part of the draft version ready for moving. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: In either event, this talk page presumably needs to be merged with Talk:Abigail Martin. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this talk page already has a template at the top saying where the rest of the article history and talk page history can be found, and therefore a further move or merge is unnecessary. Moreover, this Requested Move is OBSOLETE; if you look at the source code, it is a proposal to do this: [[:Draft:Abby Martin]] → {{no redirect|Abby Martin}}. That proposal is now obsolete, because the draft has already been moved (on March 6) to "Abby Martin (journalist)" instead of to "Abby Martin".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I missed the template. Sorry about that. However, since Abby Martin redirects here, the page is still in line to be moved to the plain title when this is closed. Dekimasuよ! 21:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it depends. There's a hatnote on the article, pointing to a dab page. According to the pertinent guideline: "Sometimes, a disambiguated article title, such as Apostrophe (punctuation), may be moved to an unqualified title based on a consensus that this is the primary topic for the unqualified term. When such a page move is made, the redirect template {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} can be used to categorize the redirect that results from the move under Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation." So, this article "may be moved" but it doesn't have to be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. This article is much improved over the article that was the subject of the most recent AfD. That article had only four footnotes, and moreover was prior to extensive media coverage of the subject in relation to Crimea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, seems clear-cut; don't see any need to go through any extra bureaucratic rigmarole (e.g. resubmission to AfC). I would have voted to keep if I had been aware of the deletion discussion, which seems like a typical example of deletionist tomfoolery. -- Visviva (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Good draft, ready for mainspace, where work can continue. bd2412 T 02:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Article was already pretty decently sourced, but recent events have made it clear the subject is notable. —Torchiest talkedits 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Her notability is obvious, and has been for some time. The only valid reason for not giving her an article before, was poor sourcing, which has been rectified. --Rob (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Addition of (more) non-RT 3rd party mainstream references is now complete.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not reviewed all the sources, and while some are clearly self-published and would not themselves support notability, it appears that there is enough overall to support notability. So I would not have a problem restoring the article (although I reserve the right to change my mind if someone does a more thorough review of the sources than I have time for right now and convinces me that they are still deficient). Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. From a brief overview, I think the article has been improved to the point that it now demonstrates notability. It's not perfect (some weak citations), but in relative terms also does not warrant deletion. --gilgongo (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I ended up here because I looked up her name today (because if her little rant). I'm sure there are 100s more who want to know more than her name on a list. 174.19.174.204 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While taken individually some of the references may be of moderate quality I think that when they are taken in context in aggregate as a whole they more than suffice to demonstrate notability. Especially when bolstered by Ms. Martin's recent wave of increased notoriety in global media. However, unless a qualified admin suddenly 'swoops in to save-the-day' by making the technical changes required for a smooth transition from Draft to Mainspace, I think that at this point presenting a case for Deletion Review may be the best way to proceed. As per discussion below. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks perfectly fine to me to be moved to main space and improved from there. Optimale Gu 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Although I don't have a dog in this fight as far as the various arguments go, and I already found out who she is in a previous incarnation before it was (wrongfully IMHO) deleted, I don't want people like 174.19.174.204 to run into the information through some discussion back door or by groping around various other web sites. A simple, accurate and informative reference about someone like Martin is what Wikipedia is for. The Wikilawyering article is abundantly clear: "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy." Notability has never been a question in this case. LaurentianShield (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but preferably with (journalist) - people don't read books these days, but if they did The_Country_of_the_Pointed_Firs#Characters is a more discussed "Abby Martin" in print. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Recent coverage firmly establishes her notability, and I feel highly confident that she is the primary "Abby Martin" that people are searching for. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course. In my view, this article should not have become what appears to have been a political football here in the first place. My thanks to Viriditas. Jusdafax 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
How did politics affect this discussion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • NOTE "Abby Martin" has been removed twice at AfD [1][2], and the location is currently protected 04:05, 13 January 2014‎ John Reaves (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (40 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Abby Martin: repeated recreation ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite))) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Nope. Protection was lifted earlier today when the protecting admin was pointed to this discussion.[8] Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not "displacing" anything, as the page history has already been merged and all we need is for the target to be deleted so that the draft is properly moved with the page history intact. The version rejected by AfC is acceptable to most editors who've reviewed it. The AfC editor did not properly review it as their comments about it showed. As I've already made clear up above the first time you mentioned it, the Breaking the Set article was created by users who could not edit the protected article on Martin. We don't need it. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: upon closer examination, it does appear that some of the page history is missing. Perhaps this can be handled later. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
That was me, and I think it's not a problem, because I put a template above — here at talk:Abby Martin (journalist) — describing where that edit history can be found.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. I do not think the discussion belongs here. A debate over restoring a previously afd'd article belongs at Deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree. We certainly aren't trying to restore any of the last two versions, and while it is true it was recently rejected by AfC, I believe this was a mistake by the reviewer. Since this is a completely different article than the one that appeared at AfD, I don't necessarily see it going to deletion review, but of course, that is one option. What is wrong with moving the draft into mainspace? We aren't a bureaucracy, so we shouldn't have to follow some esoteric ruleset just to write articles. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A fairly extensive discussion is here now—de facto. It seems to me that at this point trying to port the conversation to another venue over a matter of bureaucratic protocol would be unnecessarily disruptive and/or tedious. If such could even be justified on de jure grounds in the first place. I concur with Viriditas in that, technically, the proposal is about publishing a fresh draft with it's own references rather than restoring a previous deleted page. And regardless, core 'statutes'—de jure—make it pretty clear that context and commonsense are—de jure—intended to trump pettifog and bureaucracy. To me, the most relevant question seems to be does the article as it stands here now in draft meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion? If the answer is "yes then what else is truly still relevant?
To me, presuming consensus continues to hold that the current incarnation is acceptable, it seems that the next logical step would be for someone with the ability to move the draft to mainspace while accommodating concerns for preservation of page histories and such do so after a pause to ensure interested editors have had a chance to observe and comment.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with DGG. Regardless of what you feel is common sense or where a conversation has begun to take shape, "bureaucratic protocol" is there for a reason. Reason number 1: people know about Deletion Review; there are mechanisms in place there that make it easier for people to find the discussion, to interact with other editors, to work with the article, etc. People don't know this conversation exists here except perhaps those of us who received a message. If you decide you don't need bureaucracy and just recreate it anyway, or that the AfC rejection was a mistake, you're just asking for another deletion -- and a steeper uphill battle next time. (I say this as someone who supports the idea of recreation -- just through proper channels). --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:PETTIFOGG, WP:IAR, and WP:NOTBUREAU are "there for a reason" as well?
As to inclusiveness, I was concerned about such as well and both posted a Request for Comment and a notice at the village pump[10] linking to this talk page.
As I noted previously, above, I went ahead and commented out the RfC tag. I, perhaps mistakenly, thought we'd already attracted broad enough input and that consensus was gelling towards the article in it's present form meeting Wikipedia standards. Leaving as I saw it simply technical issues of implementation to be addressed.
Please note the qualifiers I included in my previous post. e.g. "... presuming consensus continues ..." and "... after a pause to ensure interested editors have had a chance to observe and comment."
I'll restore the RfC tag as it seems I may have been hasty in removing it.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they're all there for a reason. Repeating accusations of pettifoggery, bureaucracy, and invoking ignore all rules while at the same time going through multiple alternative avenues and engaging in discussions elsewhere that each require effort and take more time (RfC lasts up to a month while deletion review is a week) makes me wonder if you're just concerned deletion review won't replicate the support visible on this page? --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with DGG and Rhododendrites that Deletion Review would be the best venue for this discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Just to clarify: while I agree Deletion Review would be the best venue, I don't think it's absolutely necessary in this instance. The Move Request seems valid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
At this point, while I may not agree that bringing this to Deletion Review is—de jure—necessary, I concur that it would be—de facto—pragmatic to do so. Some discussion and reflection on Rhododendrites talk page helped me 'come around'. I'd like to give Viriditas a chance to 'weigh-in' before doing so as he's responsible for much of the 'heavy lifting' that has brought the article to this point. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - DGG is right. This is not an acceptable way to recreate an article, especially not one that has been deleted 2 or 3 times already. Bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It is acceptable. If the target had not been protected, it would have been recreated like every other biographical article that's been recreated with better content and sources. We now have a better draft, and an admin has unprotected the target. The only reason this article isn't in mainspace right now is to preserve the page history per requested move practices. Nobody has done anything wrong here, and there is no good reason to use deletion review. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) From WP:Deletion review under Purpose: "Deletion Review may be used [...] 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." There are no explicit rules against recreating a page in such a situation that I know of, but as you may gather there's a great deal of skepticism people have when deleted pages are recreated (and for good reason). Especially after two deletions, a rejected AfC, and bypassing deletion review, I think you should just assume someone's going to nominate it or even speedy delete it once recreated. Say what you will about the bureaucracy of it all, but going through deletion review successfully avoids going on the defense like that again. --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone could always nominate it, but I doubt it would succeed at this point. And it would certainly not be a candidate for speedy deletion, given that this version is far different from the version that was deleted. Rlendog (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think this is a case for DRV. There is no attempt to restore the original deleted article, but rather a desire to move a new article on the subject that is vastly improved over the deleted versions and addresses the issues that were raised there. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But others think this is a case for DRV for the various reasons explained above. Adding some sources and expanding the article doesn't mean it's become "a completely different article" as Viriditas claimed. She is still the same Abby Martin, whom the Wikipedia community decided twice is not notable enough to have an article on English Wikipedia. If a few editors here are so confident the article will pass this time (and I agree the chances are much higher now), just bring it to WP:DRV. Bypassing the rules is a bad option. -Shalom11111 (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but nobody has bypassed the rules here. Do you agree that articles which have been deleted at AfD are often successfully recreated with different content and improved sourcing without ever ending up at DRV? It's never been a requirement. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why not request a speedy delete of Abby Martin, and then move this draft to that title? No significant page history would be deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Because you're not supposed to use that tag for controversial page moves. Use it yourself if you think it's appropriate, but I doubt any admin will delete it. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it looks like you have several options then. There's deletion review to review the second AfD of this article. Or there's Wikipedia:Deletion discussions to request deletion of the redirect. Or there's Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people to request deletion of the redirect. If you pick one, I'm sure you'll get lots of support.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not following you. There is already a request for move in progress. Is there any good reason that process is less valid or less appropriate at this juncture? The request for move has support and should be closed as successful with the target deleted to make way for the move. Why would I file a DRV to review the last AfD? That makes no sense to me, at least. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so we're just waiting for seven days to elapse from March 4? Fine with me, though a bit tedious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Now, that you mention it, I predict that no admin will move a draft that failed AfC twice into mainspace via a RfM. The narrowing of the tunnel of choices here seems to have emerged by "chance". The admins won't accept anything less than DRV at this point. I don't support that process, so I won't be participating. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well how about Wikipedia:Deletion discussions to request deletion of the redirect?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
So here's the deal. I have zero interest in bureaucratic procedures, none whatsoever. I put up with them to a point, and that point has been reached. I am not interesting in arguing over an argument concerning an argument about an argument. I'll leave that to those who are here for that reason, but that's not why I'm here. The basic processes exist to cut through this morass of bullshit, and I'm done with it. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well done, I would have done the same thing in your place as the lead author. Incidentally, I have created Abby Martin (disambiguation).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continued

I recently became aware that Rlendog has admin privileges (i.e. is an admin). I just left Viriditas a message on his talk page commenting on such.

Rlendog, looking back at your preceding input on this page I now see that you've already offered your assistance. But that's only in light of having learned that you have admin privileges. In retrospect (hindsight's 20/20, etc.), an explicit declaration may have helped folks clarify options at hand. Personally, I'd taken your comment

"So I would not have a problem restoring the article ..."

as

"So I would not have a problem [with] restoring the article ..."

i.e. "I would not have a problem with the article being restored".

I suspect others may have interpreted it in a similar manner.

Having a member of the ruling class—<wink-and-a-smile>—on board can tip the balance from pleading-a-case to empowered-to-make-change. I'd have felt a bit less tentative in some respects if I'd realized such was the case earlier.

All of which may be moot at this point as Viriditas has opted to 'be bold' and has simply moved "Draft:Abby Martin" to Mainspace as "Abby Martin (journalist)".[11].

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As a cranky old-timer, I just want to say that I commend Viriditas's act of boldness. That's the wiki way! -- Visviva (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Does serve the purpose. Though it's unfortunate that he (or anyone else for that matter) didn't think of re-titling—to avoid issues with the existing redirect/former page—earlier on. I suppose, in retrospect, Viriditas could have simply done so from the outset and curtailed this whole collective discussion saving a fair bit of time and attention.
BTW, I think he's given some indication of how he feels about the efforts of his fellow editors who've expressed their support here in this discussion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've done nothing of the kind. Kevinjonesin is extremely upset that I moved the page into mainspace without so much as receiving a floral-scented thank you note written in calligraphy, extolling the virtues of his gracious support. The lady doth protest too much me thinks. That, and he's terribly confused about what it means to support the existence of an article rather than the person making the proposal. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You are deviating from the ***** operating manual. You should be on ANI trying to get me blocked. It's a useful way of discrediting your perceived opponent and as a former "supporter", it adds a nice touch. Check p. 23 for more helpful tips. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I just looked at your block log. I think I see now. You brought up WP:ANI a few times and I got curious. Thanks actually. Was kind of cathartic for me to see it.
I certainly see no reason to take you to ANI just for a shortcoming in social graces (and perhaps a self-fulfilling persecution complex). I imagine you'll find your way back there on your own in due time.
Have fun and keep the lasagna flying,[12]
--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, although it seems to be moot at this point, my comment about "I would not have a problem restoring the article" was meant more as "I would not have a problem with the article being restored." I put it in those terms of not having a problem with it because I had been the one who had tagged the previous version for non-notability, and although I had not nominated it for deletion I had participated in that discussion with the suggestion that although I still did not think the subject was notable, a protected redirect was more appropriate than outright deletion. So I was (perhaps overly pithily) noting that my view on the subject had changed from what one might find in the prior AfD. While I would not have had an issue taking an admin action to restore the article on the merits once the move discussion had run its course, I would not have been the ideal candidate to do so once having participated in the discussion. Nor did I think that any admin action was actually required, since I understood the protection on the redirect to have already been removed. In any case, it seems like a moot point, since the article did get moved, which in my opinion was consistent with the consensus on the talk page. Rlendog (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hat not needed

A hat note is not needed, because the other Abby Martin is already described at Abby Martin (disambiguation).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And just how would people find that dab page if this is the primary topic? What does this say? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the previous hat that pointed to the Jewett article. Therefore I respectfully refuse to answer your questions.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the new disambiguation page is up for deletion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've improved the dab page (with help from an IP), and the deletion request has been withdrawn.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Source for her date of birth?

Evidence? Beingsshepherd (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

It should be removed. I don't understand why it keeps getting added without sources. Last time I checked, I think people were adding it from her Facebook page, but I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have access to the California Birth Records database and she is listed there. Abigail Suzanne Martin / Birth Date: 6 Sep 1984 / Gender: Female / Mother's Maiden Name (blanked by me) / Birth County: Santa Clara. --Milowent • hasspoken 13:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/abigail_suzanne_martin_born_1984_16426177 Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

9/11 Truthism

Let's not be bigoted:

' In recent decades the term [conspiracy theory] has acquired a derogatory meaning,... ' ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Further reading

I've restored the further reading section that was erroneously removed with the strange claim that they were external links which needed to be trimmed. These are works and publications by the subject of this article and are included per standard appendices in regards to publications or works by the subject. If the editor feels strongly about removing standard appendices, then they are invited to discuss it here rather than edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't further reading for sources about the topic? Her publications, unless she wrote an autobiography, should be under a different heading. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a certain flexibility with headings, but you're right, the question of the best header is open for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed them because they really don't belong. We have a guideline for those sorts of things: WP:EL. If they're things she wrote that aren't just an incomplete, indiscriminate link dump, we should add them to her section. If they're just random articles about her, make them part of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you are mistaken. These are her publications and we cite those in most of our GA/FA articles as examples of the work of the subject. You're confusing these sources with those the kind that require merging. There's nothing indiscriminate about these at all. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not mistaken. One is a radio show about her, two are entries in a book that belong above in her section of works, one is a podcast about her, and one is an op-ed from the same state news agency that she works for, not by her. Of those, only one, maybe two, are valid links period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason for these items not to just be worked into the article? She's not Barbara Walters such that she's done so many different, each notable things. Book chapters are absolutely undue unless the book chapter is notable. What does "Selected Works" mean when it includes no sources? A Wikipedia editor decided what was important? Just like with everything else, if it didn't get good third party coverage, it's not worth mentioning. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Not much of reason not to work them in except that the podcast and radio show might not even be considered reliable sources to use otherwise. There's also a question of the overall reliability of RT, but that's a separate discussion for a separate time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The further reading section should not be incorporated into the body of the article. Please see our guidelines on further reading and related appendices. WP:EL is not the guideline for this. The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:FURTHER is not a guideline, and a style manual is not a content one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You're persisting in this charade? Fine, tell me which part of WP:EL the links violate. Of course you can't, as you've been asked this many times with absolutely no response. Now, if you can't address the actual problem you claim exists, then there's nothing more to discuss. This is nothing but disruptive at this point. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, the books are notable and there is nothing undue about citing them as examples of her work in the context of a bibliography, which is exactly what the further reading section was used for here. We very often list bibliographic entries in the further reading section. Of course, they can be moved into the selected works list as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You filled Further reading with non-notable book chapters and articles and then cite policy about further reading sections? Notable is not something you just declare. The easiest way is if each item has its own Wikipedia page, but beyond that sources are needed. Otherwise let's include every blog post, title of every story she's covered, etc. Further reading is not a bibliography in the sense of a list of works by the subject of the article. --— Rhododendrites talk |  05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with providing a record of these book chapters she helped author, and providing the full citation somewhere is perfectly inline with policy. The books themselves are notable, and have received attention. We don't need to prove the notability of the chapter. The point here is not to link to her blog posts or to any trivial matter, but to select her major works. These two chapters represent her major work and it is perfectly acceptable to cite them in the article. Further reading sections often link to works like these so that readers can find out more about what the subject writes about, and when large enough they link to separate bibliographies. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Except it's now expanding even further. That's not what these sections are for at all, and it's becoming an indiscriminate list of external links as opposed to an actual valuable section. We should remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thargor, you've been reminded several times that WP:EL is not the guideline at work here. You've also been told in various discussions, including current ones on other talk pages, that your interpretation of the further reading guideline is in error. The section is indeed, being used appropriately and it is not an indiscriminate list of external links. If you have an argument to make for removal, please do so. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong with it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a CV/resume or list of works whose notability is based solely on the opinion of an editor. If those two chapters represent her major work, you're just demonstrating the points people had in arguing this subject is not notable. She is not notable as a book author, right? (In the Wikipedia sense of notability of course). So talk of that should be worked into the article. Regardless, stick to what reliable secondary sources say are important. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If she helped write books, she could be described as an author. Wikipedia:WORKS#Basic_list_style_.E2.80.93_examples asks us to list all of an author's books and Wikipedia:WORKS#List_styles asks us to use "Works" or "Publications" as the title of the section. —rybec 04:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct, although further reading sections in GA/FA articles often include these types of works as well, especially in full bibliographic citation while works or publications may contain annotated entries. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that you aren't using the section for that. You're instead using it for a number of bad references we'd never allow in an article overall, and you're using it as an external link dump in disguise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
No such thing is occurring here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You're merely attempting to distract from discussing the problem you claim exists. You need to explain what a "bad" reference is, and why anyone would "dump" them in a further reading section to "fool" other editors. This little conspiracy theory of yours sounds quite mad. Please specify which links you dislike and then explain why. That's how discussion works. But before you do that, you should read up on the links you've been given up above. Further reading sections are not external link sections, as you've already been informed several times. But, I'm willing to indulge you. What part of WP:EL are you claiming the links violate? Be specific and address the problematic links directly. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The only person talking about the word "fool" here is you. That's not my word. To answer your question, a radio broadcast is not "further reading." A podcast is not "further reading." An interview is not "further reading." An article about Martin is not one of her works as you've asserted above. Those, if you want to use them as references in the article, should be moved into the article. This isn't difficult. You want to make the section into a bunch of external links instead, which makes no sense as they violate a variety of WP:ELNO standards from requiring flash (#8) to not being unique resources (#1). Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Podcasts and interviews can most certainly be included in further reading sections, and literally interpreting "reading" as something you can only read is overly tendentious. What can be used in a further reading section and what can be moved into the article is certainly up for discussion. Perhaps you would like to pick a single source and focus on it instead of continuing to talk about many sources? Nobody is trying to make a further reading section into an external link section. Which source requires flash and which source is a unique resource? Again, I've asked you to stop speaking in generalities and to narrow your complaint to named problems with specific sources. This is the last time I'm going to remind you to do this. Again, you seem to be wasting a great deal of time. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You say "Nobody is trying to make a further reading section into an external link section," but that's exactly what you've done. It's not just a "single" source, it's all of them. I'm not speaking in generalities here, I assume you know what you've added to the article. If you want a further reading section, let's have it be a further reading section as opposed to a link dump. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has done any such thing. You have been repeatedly asked to address specific problems with specific citations in the further reading section. Please name the citation and link you think is "terrible" and "bad". Start with one, and we will go from there. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Rhodoendrites did a good job while I was away, and I endorse most of what has been said below. I'm not 100% against all of them as references in the article, but they're not reasonable for a "further reading" section as they don't really add anything as neutral reads on the subject of the article. At best, all but the DisInfo podcast and the interview are about the one situation she's notable for rather than about the actual subject, and the DisInfo podcast should probably be removed outright anyway. As for the questions about external links, you have four radio programs/podcasts and one television broadcast. All require some sort of flash or external player to access, clearly violating our external link guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad, because I refuted what he said below using the external links guideline. According to the external links guideline that you cite (even though it does not apply to the inclusion of these citations), the citations (and links to their published work) are acceptable since they contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, including meaningful, relevant content. In fact, there is nothing preventing us from adding these citations here at all. Rhododendrites' argument that self-published work cannot be included is wrong, as is the contention that interviews with the subject cannot be included because they are not "neutral", which is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't get any more neutral in an article about the subject to cite a reference that shows the subject of the article answering direct questions. Finally Rhododendrites claimed that the non-English source can't be used, but actually, it is perfectly acceptable to cite it per the relevant guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So are they external links or not? You argued earlier that "Nobody is trying to make a further reading section into an external link section," but now you're arguing for their inclusion based on the external link guideline? If you're using that guideline, none of them are appropriate due to their POV and because of the need to use outside resources to access them. If you're arguing they're further reading, the claims below are still valid. Which one is it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, we most certainly list the works of a subject, especially notable works like the Project Censored books. This has nothing to do with the opinion of an editor, it is standard best practice. I would invite you to look into this by reviewing our GA/FA articles which list such works, or consulting a relevant noticeboard. Nobody has argued that these works are not notable, so I have no idea where you are getting that from. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Responding about selected works below. Regarding further reading: Items on these lists should cover the work as a whole, be reliable, be balanced/neutral, and number of items limited.
"Simonyan, Margarita. (March 6, 2014). About Abby Martin, Liz Wahl and media wars. rt.com." - not neutral, published by her network
"Delavante, Michael. (October 4, 2012). Vissa journalister har genomskådat ridåerna. Sourze." - is WP:NONENGEL
"Garfield, Bob. Abby Martin. (March 7, 2014). RT Anchor Breaks the Rules. On the Media. WNYC." - good show, but an interview is not neutral
"Ledger, Scott. (May 26, 2012). Interview with Abby Martin. Dangerous Conversations. RadioIO." - also an interview and so not neutral
"Morgan, Piers. Abby Martin. (March 5, 2014). Abby Martin: Russia Today supports me. CNN." - also an interview and so not neutral
"Staggs, Matt. (December 19, 2012). Abby Martin, Breaking the Set. DisinfoCast 38. Disinfo." - also an interview and so not neutral
So you're left with a podcast. These are good sources, though, so why not work them into the article? --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree fully with Viriditas that the information is useful and appropriate in the article. Jusdafax 17:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What don't you find compelling about the arguments made by myself and Rhododendrites, specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • A map to the nearest Starbucks is useful, but useful doesn't mean encyclopedic. Why is it appropriate given all of the above? --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Your claims are simply incorrect:
        • Simonyan 2014 can be used per WP:SELFPUB and WP:FURTHER.
        • Delavante 2014 does not violate WP:NONENGEL and is acceptable per WP:FURTHER. This is the original language of the citation and perfectly acceptable per all relevant guidelines and policies concerning citations.
        • Garfield 2014 is a reliable source and is perfectly acceptable. Your claim that it is not neutral is not only unsubstantiated, it's ridiculous. And even if we entertain your bizarre POV and say that it is not neutral, it's still acceptable for use as a citation in the further reading section. However, it is neutral. Your implication that any interview or citation of the subject of the article is automatically non-neutral and disqualified is simply not supported anywhere on Wikipedia. It is considered a neutral and accurate source about the subject.
        • Ledger 2012 is also an interview with Martin. It is acceptable to include if it is necessary, as it gives insight into the subject under discussion. It is considered a neutral and accurate source about the subject.
        • Staggs 2012 is also an interview with Martin. It is acceptable to include if it is necessary, as it gives insight into the subject under discussion. It is considered a neutral and accurate source about the subject.
      • Per your own reasoning using the Wikipedia:External links guideline (which does not in fact apply here), "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. I hope that clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're saying I'm incorrect without addressing my points and still misrepresenting these policies. An interview is a primary source. Primary sources cannot be unbiased. This is pretty basic Wikipedia stuff. WP:NONENGEL doesn't say "if a source was published in another language it's ok" which would render that section moot other than linking to translations of English works; the point is it's ok to link if the subject is an original text not in English. For example, linking to the German version of Being and Time (an article about a German book). --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I directly addressed your points specifically and showed how the guideline you used did not apply. Your claims remain completely unsupported and have no substance. Per the guideline that you yourself cite, the links are acceptable. Furthermore, your arguments are absurd. How can you claim that a direct interview with the subject of the article by a respected and reliable news source is not neutral? Do you really expect anyone to buy this? WP:NONENGEL does not say this source cannot be used. Have you even read it? Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In this change, Viriditas undid my changes by moving links to a video and to an audio recording from the External links section to the Further reading section, saying they are not external links. I disagree because they are links non-Wikimedia sites and are not reading material. Relevant content guidelines are WP:FURTHER ("publications") and Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media. —rybec 05:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not something I feel strongly about, but links to video and audio can appear in further reading sections. Editors who place a higher value on precision will sometimes use headings such as "further reading and resources" if they wish, which are standard appendices in practice, but I don't do that. You are welcome to do so, but these are not links to "websites", but rather to recommended news sources which exist outside of their status as websites, which is why they do not neatly fall into the "external link" category. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Selected works (fork of above discussion)

@Viriditas: - It does seem that WP:WORKS has some pretty general wording that does not fit with some of the other policies. I started a thread on that talk page for clarification, but in the meantime I'd like to be point out that a style guideline is not sufficient to trump other basic policies like WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV. The section as it stands is a little ridiculous. Should we include every story a journalist has ever published? Every article and book chapter an academic has ever published? Turn articles into CVs? Every poem a poet has had published in an anthology? It's ludicrous and, most importantly, WP:UNDUE. Also, what does the lead say? Journalist and host because that's what she's notable for. Not illustrator. She is not an illustrator because she made a poster. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said that a style guideline trumps anything, and nobody has shown how the links you've questioned violate any policy whatsoever. Please dispense with the straw men. WP:FURTHER has always differentiated itself from external links and references, so the continued argument that you and Thargor are making is completely wrong. The further reading section is neither an external links section nor a references section. And yes, Abby Martin is a notable artist, and she's having a major art opening on March 15. I think it must be one of a dozen she's had so far. And yes, she is notable for her work, as she did the poster for the film The Crisis of Civilization (2011).[13] Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it's becoming clear this isn't going anywhere. As I am finding myself straining to AGF, I'll hang back and wait for others to weigh in. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, it's not going anywhere because nobody is attempting to negotiate. I am extremely flexible and open to adding/removing/modifying/changing/deleting pretty much anything. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This is hilarious. I'll ask again: you've gone back and forth between calling them "further reading" and "external links." Which one is it? Let's start there and we can figure out what belongs and what doesn't. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've said nothing of the sort. A "further reading" section is not an external links section no matter how many times you claim otherwise. At what point will you be doing actual research and writing articles? Or do you just troll articles to disrupt other editors from improving them? Which articles have you improved today? This week? This month? This year? Ever? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Then stop trying to argue for their inclusion that way. And cease the personal attacks. As it stands, your arguments for including these is low by any standard. Perhaps an RFC is in order? Are there even any links here you're willing to let go of or convert into references, since you claim that you're so flexible? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thargor Orlando please stop the disruption. See also and Further reading are common sections that are a part of the article, as has been explained to you previously. External links, has its own section, and its own guidelines which do not apply to See also or Further reading. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is not disruption. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Somehow you've managed to do both at the same time. And several editors have noted it specifically as disruptive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
For an update, Sportfan5000 has been blocked as a banned sockpuppet. At this point, we should really be finishing up this discussion as to how to proceed with this section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, starting with, why did you add a maintenance tag to this section when you've been repeatedly asked to stop? Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The section is under discussion. That's why the tag was added. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I think the tag was added because you are holding this article hostage. You'll keep adding the tag until you get your way. That's not how we use maintenance tags on Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the tag again unless you can show there's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Not holding the article hostage, it's more that the section does not conform to our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You're holding the article hostage because you personally believe that the section doesn't conform to our guidelines, but 1) there's nothing wrong with the section, 2) you haven't shown there is anything wrong with the section, and 3) a guideline is defined as "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice". You have taken this article hostage and you continue to add a maintenance tag "badge of shame" to it for no good reason. The tag has no place here. If you feel like actually doing research and writing an actual article, please feel free to do so. However, you cannot be allowed to continually disrupt articles by arguing over and over again over maintenance tags. The purpose of Wikipedia is to improve articles and write about subjects. It's not to waste our time with your maintenance tag shenanigans. A guideline exists to help us write articles. You seem to have forgotten that fact a long, long time ago. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If we're removing the tag, then the section is going too, as it doesn't conform to the guidelines. Your attacks on me don't matter one bit, it's about improving this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The section conforms to all known guidelines and policies, so you appear to hold an opinion that isn't supported. You're entire argument consisting of "if we're removing the tag, then the section is going too" is the very epitome of the WP:HOSTAGE taking mentality. You don't get to hold any article or section of any article to your demands. The tag will be removed and the section will remain. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how the items in the Further Reading section help the reader learn more about the subject, per WP:FURTHER. Assuming they're reliable sources these links would be suitable as references to statements in the text and the Further Reading section could be eliminated.

Regarding the External Links, I'm confused as to the inclusion of the Media Roots website as I don't understand what makes it a relevant website. Also, is there some reason why her own website is not included in the External Links? Ca2james (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Media Roots is a Martin project, so it makes sense to include it, and I agree her own site should be included and will do so. As for what's in further reading, however, I'm not seeing anyone outside of Viriditas seeing the section as valuable or within the realm of "further reading." Do we actually have a consensus for removal at this point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume her television experience (Breaking the Set and prior work as an RT correspondent) will be included as well. Those, and perhaps the movie she codirected are the only other items from the list that seem important enough to retain in such a section. Rlendog (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Thargor Orlando - I didn't realize that Media Roots was her project. I agree that her television experience and the movie she co-directed belong in the External Links section. Have enough editors weighed in on the Further Reading topic to say that we have consensus on removing it? Ca2james (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We have 6 people who have chimed in (7 if we count the indeffed sock). Five are in favor of removal, one (two if we count the sock) in favor of retention. Guideline is against the use as it stands, also confirmed by a number of uninvolved editors. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Consensus isn't determined by counting editors, it's determined by the quality of arguments, and the discussion up above about Media Roots and her film has no bearing on the fundamental issue of the further reading section, so once again you are confusing and distracting from the discussion at hand. You just don't get to hold article hostage to your POV. The tag will be removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Then we can remove the section, no problem. It doesn't fit in with our guidelines and you're literally the only person arguing for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You're disrupting this article again. Please see WP:IDHT and WP:HOSTAGE. You have erroneously claimed that the discussion above about external links to Media Roots and her film are about the further reading section. They are not. There are no media roots links or links to the films in the further reading section. Please try to pay attention and stop distracting and changing the subject. You have not presented any evidence that there is something wrong with the further reading section. You have simply tagged it, over and over and over again, for no reason. When you are told to stop holding this article hostage, you reply with "if we're removing the tag, then the section is going too". This is the very epitome of the WP:HOSTAGE taking mentality and it needs to stop. Just because you tag a section, doesn't mean we have to comply with your demands. You've been told to stop adding the tag and to stop removing the section without good reason. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FURTHER: " This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content. Any links to external websites included under Further reading are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links." The Media Roots belongs in external links as it's her site. I have not tagged anything for "no reason," I have tagged (and removed) because they are not compliant with the guideline, and no userspace essay you have can change that. Now, do you have an argument that meets the guideline, or do you not? If it's the latter, we remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You're engaging in WP:IDHT again. You have not presented any argument for tagging or removing the section, so you just disrupting the article. The further reading section in this article meets the guideline and is fully compliant. The fact that an archived broadcast on RadioIO is archived on the Media Roots site does not disqualify it from further reading. I have no object to moving it to the external links section, but that does not justify removing the entire section, so your argument makes no sense at all. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It also doesn't qualify for external links. Nothing in the further reading section meets the guideline for web links, as necessary to meet the guideline at WP:FURTHER. That is the reason for removing the section. It should be noted at this point that basically no one supports you on this or your reading of WP:FURTHER at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect and I've already addressed this several times, link by link.[14] There is support for including this section at this time, and you are the only one adding tags to it and removing it. All of these are reliable sources per WP:RS and acceptable to include in a further reading section. They also meet and exceed the external link guidelines. I'm sorry you disagree, but claiming an interview with Piers Morgan and Bob Garfield isn't acceptable to include simply makes you look silly. You are welcome to start an RfC on the subject, but repeatedly holding this article hostage to your demands isn't the way forward. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess we can do this again. The CNN, WNYC and Simonyan pieces are not "further reading," they're essentially articles/short interviews and do not add any sort of intrindic benefit beyond a reference. The Delvante source is not in english, so it's not really good for a further reading section although may be a decent reference. A podcast is never a good link in any form and should be pulled from this no matter where this discussion ends up. This leaves the RadioIO link which is also basically a podcast, same problem. So even if some of these are acceptable in the article, they simply aren't "further reading." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only person who wants the Further Reading section included is you, Viriditas. Every other person who has commented does not support keeping it and is in favour of removing it.

The links included in that section are appropriate references for the body of the article because each one has its own perspective. Why is it that you don't want to use these links as references or remove the Further Reading section? Ca2james (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Option A is agreed. Abby Martin (journalist) moved to Abby Martin, with the consensus that real person is the primary topic. Xoloz (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


OPTION A
OPTION B

It is not our usual practice to have the unqualified title as a redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated version of that title, so one of these two pages should be moved. The journalist has been much in the news in the last week or two, but in the discussion above on whether to move the journalist from draft space, one editor asserted[15] that the fictional character described in The Country of the Pointed Firs#Characters is more widely discussed in reliable sources. A Google Books search confirms this.
Before editors point out that the journalist is the only article bearing the title "Abby Martin", please remember that the policy is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not WP:PRIMARYARTICLE.
I have not assessed any evidence in support of treating the journalist as primary topic, so I remain neutral for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Option A; I think that as a matter of course, we should consider actual people to have greater historical significance than fictional characters, unless the fictional character is of unusually great importance. For example, the fictional Tom Sawyer and James Kirk, being well known, appearing in a large number of works, and being portrayed across a variety of widely distributed media, are primary over less notable actual people named "James Kirk" and "Tom Sawyer". However, a fictional character that was important enough to wrest a title away from a real person would need to be a far more prominent figure in literature, and should be expected to have a freestanding article, reflecting a substantial impact on the real world. Although a Google Books search reveals that there is some discussion of this character in literature about the author's works (possibly enough to build an article), the character itself only appears in a single short story. The story was adapted once as a single TV episode in an anthology series. The journalist, on the other hand, appears to be more broadly represented in radio, TV, books, and film. bd2412 T 17:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option B. I don't see any reason to discriminate against fictional people, and Option B will treat the two of them exactly alike. There is no "Option C" to move the fictional character to the disambiguated title, which is fine. That the fictional character appears in only one work of fiction rather than many seems much less relevant than the amount of coverage in reliable sources regarding that fictional character. So, what I'm supporting is like Zachary Smith.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Supposing that we don't "discriminate against fictional people", this is still a WP:TWODABS situation, since there are only two actual matches. Is there any evidence to suggest that the journalist is not the primary topic of the name? bd2412 T 22:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
      • If the research is showing more for the fictional character, yes, that's evidence. Not sure that's the case here yet, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I would point out that the article on the journalist was created only a week ago (having previously been created and deleted over article quality issues), and in that week it has already received over 5,000 views, compared to the article on the work containing the fictional character, which has received about 200 views in that time, and less than 2,500 views in the whole last 90 days. In other words, for the time that it has existed, the article on the journalist has gotten 96% of the views for this name. bd2412 T 22:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
          • A massive spike in page views is inevitable when someone is involved in a widely-reported and serially-rebroadcast on-air spat in this year's biggest international relations news story. We don't and can't know whether this has will carry through for another month, let alone whether it has any long-term significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't disagree with that assessment, but would note that even so, The Country of the Pointed Firs consistently gets a relatively low stream of views. The story of Abby Martin (which is available here, and is fairly clever), only occupies one chapter of that book, so it can't necessarily be counted as the reason why people are looking up the book. bd2412 T 19:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option A. I am striking out my !vote for Option B, because the comments of others have persuaded me that the journalist is primary, even if we don't discriminate against fictional people, and even if we focus on the amount of coverage in reliable sources about the fictional character (without regard to how many fictional works that character appeared in). I should have known that I was on the wrong track when I mentioned Zachary Smith.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option A as the primary topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option A until there is actually another Abby Martin article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The article The Country of the Pointed Firs was begun in 2006, but contained no mention of the Abby Martin character until five days ago, when a single sentence was added [16] by the same editor who provided the Google Books link five minutes later [17]. The character is not mentioned in the Sarah Orne Jewett article.
I saw 13 results on Jstor, all related to Sarah Orne Jewett but (judging only by the titles) probably not concerned mainly with the character [18].
The aforementioned Google Books search [19] shows "about 1,730 results", but of those, "about 264" also mention Breaking the Set [20]. I didn't look thoroughly, but didn't notice any books there that obviously cover either Abby Martin in depth.
A Google News search shows "about 8,000 results". The first few are all about the RT host. Some of the news stories have just brief mentions in connection with the resignation of Liz Wahl, but others are entirely about Martin and her commentary on the Crimean situation, for example stories in The Guardian, Newsday, France 24, The Telegraph and ABC News (the American ABC). Not only books and scholarly publications, but news stories are sometimes considered reliable sources. The statement that "the fictional character...is more widely discussed in reliable sources" may not have taken the news stories into account. —rybec 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article The Country of the Pointed Firs was begun in 2006, yes, I would imagine as someone's school project and they lost interest. But Wikipedia isn't a source for itself, of course in Wikipedia the entire works of Sarah Orne Jewett are less significant than the latest Japanese cartoon. Which is why we use Google Books. I'm still of the opinion that this journalist is a flash in the pan and "(journalist)" will help people identify a journalist as a journalist and find the journalist's article in 3 months time, but as long as there is a hatnote to the "Abby Martin" who gets near 100% of "Abby Martin" references in books, anyone looking for the Google Book "Abby Martin" (which is unlikely since it is old and not pop literature) can still find her. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
TLDR: more Google Books hits for the TV anchor than for the literary character
The Sarah Orne Jewett article was begun in 2004 and has had 273 edits by 139 authors [21]. The Country of the Pointed Firs article has had 37 authors. Among those Wikipedians who are interested in Jewett and her works, no one found the Abby Martin character worth mentioning (not even on the talk pages for those articles), until your edit. I see that as an indication that the character wasn't of interest to those who edit Wikipedia, which I take as a proxy for the interests of those who only read. By comparison the Tom Sawyer character is mentioned in the earliest extant revision of the Mark Twain article [22].
In your Google Books search, you excluded the terms Wikipedia and books, llc (why the latter?). Hence your results included books about the Jewett character, the television host and other Abby Martin uses. You determined, by inspection I suppose, that "near 100%" were about the fictional character. Okay, but we don't need to rely on inspection because we can do more specific searches. I tried adding the terms "Jewett", "Pointed Firs", "Breaking the Set" and "Russia Today":
  • My search for the Jewett character gets "about 279 results" [23].
  • My search for the RT host gets "about 494 results" [24].
  • My search for the other uses gets "about 541 results" [25]. I see Debunking 9/11 Myths along with books by Ralph Nader and Jesse Ventura so this query seems to include results about the living person.
Making the assumption that there's no overlap, that's roughly a 21%/38%/41% ratio. —rybec 12:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Rybec: Arguments based what Wikipedia editors do are self-referential, and pointless. WP:Systemic bias reminds us that about 90% of en.wp editors are male. The average wikipedians is a male, technically inclined, formally educated, English-speaking, 15–49yo from a majority-Christian developed nation in the Northern Hemisphere. That makes the preferences of en.wp editors about as representative of the state of knowledge as Count Dracula is of the inhabitants of Transylviania.
As to searching, "books, llc" is re-publisher of wikipedia articles. Excluding it from searches is necessary to avoid self-references ... and doing so is policy per WP:COMMONNAME.
There is something weird in your search results. I looked at hits for "about 494 results" "Abby Martin" "Russia today", and none of those I have checked actually appear to include the phrase "abby martin": e.g. "The Places In Between"m by Rory Stewart, "How Much is Enough?", by 2*Skidelskys, "The Manual of Ideas", by Mihaljevic, "Are You My Mother?", by Bechdel, "The Forbidden Book".
I can't see any flaw in the way the search was constructed, but the results don't make sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The two factors we're supposed to consider in determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are what readers are looking for and long-term significance. I think it's reasonable to look at the talk page comments to see what readers are looking for, and no commenter at Talk:The_Country_of_the_Pointed_Firs or Talk:Sarah_Orne_Jewett said anything about Abby Martin.
For my "494 results" query, Google Books shows Censored 2014 as the first result, that does mention Martin (also on [page 265). I do see that some of those books are unlikely to mention her: for example, the Rory Stewart book was published in 2004. When I use the link provided by In ictu oculi (after clearing cookies), the first four pages of results are mainly about the Jewett character, then those taper off and it's all about left-wing politics for a few pages, then a mixture of both with random books. It ends on page 42, suggesting Return of the Mummy and books by Michael Parenti, Helen Caldicott (from 2004) and John Grisham. Among these there seem to be a few more than 30 works mentioning the fictional character, whereas I only found the one mentioning the real person. —rybec 21:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option A. Option A appears to make the most sense. Wasn't the article until this title before its deletion? 18:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.175 (talk)
  • Comment. I appreciate the concerted effort to demonstrate what sourcing, and searching support content for the real, and fictional Abby Martin's. However, the fact remains there is no Abby Martin (fictional) article, it is a redirect to another article with one sentence, the sentence and redirect apparently added within the last week. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sportsfan5000, why do you consider that whether a topic has a Wikipedia article or not is relevant to this move proposal? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
As there is only one page under this title, the reader is served just fine with this article being at that title, and a hat note, For the fictional character of the same name see The Country of the Pointed Firs#Characters. The remainder of this entire exercise seems like a pointy exercise to demonstrate a dislike for Martin, and has every appearance of being an exercise in frustration. (I'll keep this opinion to myself, carry on with the rest.) Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sportsfan5000: a bit of AGF would be a good idea. As I pointed out in the nomination, the policy is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not WP:PRIMARYARTICLE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is relevant to the inquiry that there is no article on this particular topic, which one might expect if the topic itself were particularly notable, since something can be independently non-notable, and still merit mention in an article. Just a minute ago, I redirected Almira Todd there also, a more prominently featured character from the same book. Compare Veruca Salt, a fictional character appearing in a far more popular work, and far more prominently in that work. The title, Veruca Salt, goes to the band named for that character (although I grant that it is a particularly notable band), while the character itself only appears on List of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory characters. I can not find an example of a WP:TWODABS situation where one possible meaning is an ambiguously named fictional character that lacks an article of its own, but for whom the title is a disambiguation page. Such an example would be very helpful here. bd2412 T 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Rolling Stone article

On page 20 of the new issue. Hasn't hit newsstands just yet; online version is restricted to subscribers. Indexes won't pick it up for another few weeks. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception and criticism

' On February 2014, Martin devoted a segment to the history of American “false flag” operations, as she quoted from a website titled, “Israel Did 911” and characterized false-flags as “when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.” '

Isn't this section supposed to inform readers of others ' reception and criticism of Martin? The above quotation, in the context of anti-Israel accusations, seems as if the editor is building their own case against her.

If however, the next paragraph is a consequence of the aforementioned; then imo, that ought to be rendered clearer. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

It should be removed along with the quotes from the 9/11 march. It's undue weight and it's best paraphrased and summarized in the context of when and how it occurred. Several editors are using sources to make it look like she supports 9/11 conspiracy theories (she doesn't) and to make it look like she is anti-Israel (she isn't). Of course, the biggest conspiracy theory was the one that drew the US into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without the slightest bit of evidence, but you don't see anyone calling Bush and the mainstream media that promoted those meaningless wars "conspiracy theorists". I hear those weapons of mass destruction are gonna show up any day now... In any case, we don't use "reception and criticism" sections in biography articles. Further, we don't quote something someone might have said at a march out of context, in order to try and make them look bad. All of this is POV pushing from people who are deliberately targeting Martin because she won't follow the fake, scripted narrative. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content

  • In March 2014, Martin attracted media attention when she criticized Russia's air invasion on Ukraine.
    • This already appears in the Breaking the Set section. I've removed it because it was added again to the "reception" section. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In August 2012, US Senator Rand Paul tried to get Martin fired and arrested, after she allegedly asked him controversial questions.
    • I've temporarily removed this because it requires better sourcing than just Media Roots and WeAreChange. I believe there are more reliable secondary sources on this subject, so please find them. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • After accusations calling her an anti-semite, she defended herself using her Twitter account, saying "I'm not anti-semitic for being against Netanyahu's policies."
    • An informal fallacy that makes a controversial allegation sourced to a twitter account and In-A-Gist. Not acceptable. Removed. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On February 2014, Martin devoted a segment to the history of American “false flag” operations, as she quoted from a website titled, “Israel Did 911” and characterized false-flags as “when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.”
    • This controversial allegation is an outright attack opinion piece by James Kirchick, who is personally and intimately involved in a lengthy, protracted "beef" with RT, Abby Martin, and Truthdig. The inclusion of this material directly violates WP:BLP. Furthermore, the so-called "facts" cited here are in question and need to be verified for accuracy in a neutral source that is not authored by James Kirchick. Removed. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Martin was criticized by The Algemeiner for blaming Israeli forces of allegedly bombing the RT Offices in Gaza, while actually referring to an Israeli strike on an Islamic Jihad hideout situated on the second floor of a Gaza high rise that also housed members of the international media. "During the interview process, RT told me they wanted to report ‘the other side’ of the story, the one American mainstream media wasn’t reporting. What that really meant was finding the side of a story which is anti-American and anti-Israeli,” a former RT employee said. Martin also claims that the “U.S. corporate media” are “lackeys for U.S. Government.”
    • The Algemeiner source(s) are unsigned attack pieces intended solely to bait and attack Martin. They contain virtually nothing "factual" nor neutral meeting the WP:BLP policy. There may, however, be a case for talking about the bombing of the RT offices in Gaza (as I've previously suggested), but we do it in a factual, neutral manner, not like this. We need better sources and actual facts from disinterested parties if we do discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Martin has been sharply criticized for having bias against the State of Israel. Martin was first accused of being anti-Israel when she said in live TV that Israel uses “Hitler’s methods” to maintain a “Jewish majority".
    • Not a neutral BLP source or fair account of the incident. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • She was criticized for citing to her defense "such discredited anti-Israel activists as linguist Noam Chomsky and journalist Chris Hedges, as sources."
    • Neither a neutral source nor a factual, neutral statement. This doesn't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with these removals. WP:BLP dictates that we should be extremely conservative about adding material like this. Do not add it again without a consensus here or centrally that it is appropriate. --John (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

New source to expand art content

The deleted section

Comments on the updated content

Okay, let's break this down into numbers:

1-Journalist Nik Afanasjew of Der Tagesspiegel said Martin, who has attracted a growing American audience with Breaking the Set, looks like a model and acts like a punk. Writer Jeremy Koss describes her as "vibrant, artistic and outspoken"

  • There's nothing wrong with it and Viriditas left it as is.

2-Martin has been criticized for having bias against the State of Israel. Martin was first accused of being anti-Israel when she said in live TV that Israel uses “Hitler’s methods” to maintain a “Jewish majority".

  • Arutz 7, a major news company in Israel, IS a proper BLP source for such criticism

3-She was criticized for citing to her defense "such discredited anti-Israel activists as linguist Noam Chomsky and journalist Chris Hedges, as sources."

  • My response to Viriditas's false statement ("Neither a neutral source nor a factual, neutral statement. This doesn't belong here.") is that this is a reliable source that is critical of Martin. So yes, it does belong here.

4-In a 2012 article by The Algemeiner, Martin was criticized for blaming Israeli forces of bombing the RT Offices in Gaza, while (according to the the Algemeiner) "referring to an Israeli strike on an Islamic Jihad hideout situated on the second floor of a Gaza high rise that also housed members of the international media."[5] A former RT employee said "During the interview process, RT told me they wanted to report ‘the other side’ of the story, the one American mainstream media wasn’t reporting. What that really meant was finding the side of a story which is anti-American and anti-Israeli." Martin was criticized for her claims that the “U.S. corporate media” are “lackeys for U.S. Government.”

  • This source is factual, Viriditas, and it brings criticism about Martin. If any legitimate criticism is not "neutral" to you, then there'll be no criticism on Wikipedia at all.

5-On February 2014, an article on Tablet Magazine reported that "Martin devoted a segment to the history of American 'false flag' operations ... quoting from a website titled, 'Israel Did 911' and characterized false-flags as 'when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.”

  • Viridita's claim that this is a "controversial allegation/an attack opinion piece by James Kirchick" is NOT a sufficient reason to delete this, this criticism is notable.

6-After accusations calling her an anti-semite, she defended herself using her Twitter account, saying "I'm not anti-semitic for being against Netanyahu's policies."

  • This info is sourced to HER twitter account, what makes you think this is not notable?

7-When accused of being anti-West and anti-Russia, she twitted "I'm just against imperialism & military aggression".

  • There's nothing wrong with this as well, and Viridita didn't explain why he deleted it.

8-In August 2012, US Senator Rand Paul sought the arrest of Marin after she asked him uncomfortable questions

  • The examiner is used as a source now, it is reliable.

Shalom11111 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to the information I presented above, please discuss it here. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The Examiner source you cited is not reliable. The actual source you cited is Examiner.com (article found at [www.examiner.com/article/rand-paul-seeks-arrest-ofr-journalist-who-asked-uncomfortable-questions here]) not The Examiner you linked to above. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources and take it up with the blacklist filter as you cannot link to it on Wikipedia because is not acceptable as a RS. As for the rest of your claims up above, I've already addressed them, but you haven't exactly responded to them. You are trying to turn this into a hit piece against Martin, simply because she is critical of Israel. She is also critical of about 10,000 other things, but you don't seem to be discussing those at all, just focusing on her criticism of Israel in an undue manner, while citing unreliable sources and opinion pieces that attack her. I am willing to go into this in more detail after you admit that the Examiner is not acceptable. Then, we can go from there. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Her criticism of Israel has received very little coverage and so anything beyond point 2 (and possibly 3) is WP:UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I, Shalom11111, officially admit that the Examiner source used here is not reliable. Was that okay, Viriditas? I found this "dailypaul.com" source instead, which is probably affiliated with Rand Paul himself. Regarding the information sourced to Martin's Twitter account, I think it's notable enough to be given at least a slight mention. I've said what I think in response to your points, but your claim that "The inclusion of this material directly violates WP:BLP" or that "They contain virtually nothing 'factual' nor neutral meeting the WP:BLP policy" is pretty much used for nearly all the material there. Where can we go from here then? I disagree with those statements of yours. You see legitimate criticism as 'attack', and say that The Algemeiner sources can't be used, so what can possibly meet your standards, an official letter from Barack Obama that will mention criticism of Martin? I'm not turning this into any hit piece, and as I've explained to you on that other discussion board, I did bring other criticism of Martin by other sources (just take a look) - and it's not about the 10,000 other things she has criticized, but criticism about her. I tried hard to find even more criticism of her from different sources but found very little but anyone is welcome to try finding other reliable sources. I partially agree with Ca2james, and think that about 3 of the Israel-related points should be mentioned in the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please not that blogs are not generally allowed for claims of fact in any BLP, and the post by "Maeve" at the Paul site falls into that class. Collect (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, when I referred to points 2 (and possibly 3) above, I was referring to the enumerated list in this section of sentences removed from the article. In other words, I support including the first sentence about her views on Israel and possibly the second. I did not mean that I think three sentences about the her beliefs on Israel should be included. Quite frankly, I think that's too much. Ca2james (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I see. I suggest we add (in summary) points 2, 3, and 4 to the article. Do you agree? Shalom11111 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I don't agree. The half of point 4 that concerns the ex-employee has nothing to do with Abby Martin and doesn't belong in the article. Moreover, adding in quotes from the articles is WP:UNDUE. I'd support something like, "Jewish and Israeli news media have criticized Martin since 2012 for having a bias against the State of Israel." to replace points 2, 3, and 4, and using the references from those points to support that statement. Ca2james (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think that other half of point 4 is UNDUE, then let's remove it. But I really see no reason to remove the rest of the information. Well there's no doubt the three sources will be used, but I just think it's wrong to trim them all down to a meaningless 7-word sentence. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think adding quotes from the articles is WP:UNDUE and without those, the points need some wording changes. Personally, I thought the phrasing I suggested summed up the criticism quite succinctly, but I see that it could be too succinct. What do you propose instead? Ca2james (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There are dozens of other sources I just found, Viriditas, and there's no way they will be censored from this article, which currently looks more like a fan page than an encyclopedia article. The revised section is below. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason you are addressing me here? I would invite you to read WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:UNDUE as you are violating both. Keep in mind, these are not guidelines like the Manual of Style, they are policies, and you must follow them. Nothing in the current version reads like a "fan page" at all, so you evidently confused about how we write biographies. We certainly don't devote five paragraphs of cherry picked criticism from special interest groups and sources connected directly to the subject. Furthermore, the version you've just added below shows that you have listened to a word of anything anyone has told you. You've even included the same unreliable sources that you were told to avoid. At least one admin has told you that you could be blocked if you continue. I'm going to contact that admin now because you are engaging in WP:IDHT behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment at the bottom. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception and criticism

Journalist Nik Afanasjew of Der Tagesspiegel said Martin, who has attracted a growing American audience with Breaking the Set, looks like a model and acts like a punk.[1] Writer Jeremy Koss describes her as "vibrant, artistic and outspoken".[2]

Martin has been criticized for having bias against the State of Israel. Martin was first accused of being anti-Israel when she said in live TV that Israel uses “Hitler’s methods” to maintain a “Jewish majority".[3][4][5] The Algemeiner magazine claimed that "Martin has a history of spewing anti-Israel propaganda and of lashing out at the Magazine".[6] She was criticized for citing to her defense "such discredited anti-Israel activists as linguist Noam Chomsky and journalist Chris Hedges, as sources."[7] The Algemeiner accused Martin of blaming Israeli forces of bombing the RT Offices in Gaza, while "referring to an Israeli strike on an Islamic Jihad hideout situated on the second floor of a Gaza high rise that also housed members of the international media."[7]

On February 2014, an article on Tablet Magazine reported that "Martin devoted a segment to the history of American 'false flag' operations ... quoting from a website titled, 'Israel Did 911' and characterized false-flags as 'when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.'”[8]

In August 2012, US Senator Rand Paul sought the arrest of Marin after she asked him uncomfortable questions.[9] Former RT anchor Liz Wahl said: "RT’s Abby Martin says things the Kremlin likes.[10] Chez Pazienza, a journalist, author, and television producer, is also a sharp critic of Martin,[11] [12] calling her a "9/11 Truther",[13] a term also used in a Mediaite column.[14]

A New York Times criticized Martin's "animating obsession has been her conviction that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were part of a government conspiracy ... Since joining the Russian network’s American channel, Ms. Martin has returned again and again to the argument that the American government could have fabricated the terrorist attacks as a pretext for war." It continued "Martin also laid into Rachel Maddow of MSNBC for her discussion of a Wall Street Journal report that one of the Boston bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was influenced by “conspiratorial nonsense radicalism”.[15]

  1. ^ Afanasjew, Nik. (December 7, 2013). Putins Massenmedienwaffe. Der Tagesspiegel. Retrieved January 15, 2014.
  2. ^ Koss, Jeremy. (May/June 2013). Real Talk. SOMA Magazine, 27(3): 52-53. ISSN 0896-5005
  3. ^ "Russia Today Host Abby Martin Goes Spectacularly Off-Message In Ukraine Broadcast (VIDEO)". Huffington Post. 4 March 2014. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  4. ^ Hirshfeld, Rachel. "Russia Today Accuses Israel of Using 'Hitler Methods'". Arutz 7. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
  5. ^ "Meet an RT Anchor: Kremlin-Funded, Anti-Israel, 9/11 Truther". The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  6. ^ "Shocking: Russia Today Presenter Abby Martin Accuses Israel of Using 'Hitler's Methods'". The Algemeiner. 3 February 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
  7. ^ a b "Bizarre: Russia Today Host Abby Martin Lashes Out at The Algemeiner (VIDEO)". The Algemeiner. 25 November 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
  8. ^ Kirchick, James (March 4, 2014). "RT Anchor's Riff Not as 'Rogue' As It Seems". Tablet Magazine. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
  9. ^ "Rand Paul seeks arrest of journalist who asked uncomfortable questions". Examiner. 10 August 2012. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  10. ^ "Liz Wahl: RT 'whitewashes' Putin's actions". msnbc. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  11. ^ "The Truth(er) About Abby Martin". Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  12. ^ "Abby Martin and Amber Lyon: When Conspiracy Theories Collide". The Daily Banter. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  13. ^ "Well, This Sucks: Abby Martin Is a 9/11 Truther". 4 March 2014. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  14. ^ Wilstein, Matt. "RT Anchor Who Condemned Russian Invasion Is Also a 9/11 Truther". Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  15. ^ "March 4 Updates on Ukraine Crisis". New York Times. Retrieved 29 March 2014.

This has already been addressed several times now, the first time at Talk:Abby_Martin#Removal_of_content and the second time at Talk:Abby_Martin#Comments_on_the_updated_content. I don't know why you keep adding the same material, the same unproven allegations from unreliable sources, and the same outdated information (she's not a part of the 9/11 truth movement, and hasn't been since she lived in San Diego). Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

True. SaintAviator talk 06:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When I asked what your proposal was, I didn't expect it to be pretty much the same as your first proposal. Each of the listed criticisms is supported by only a single source and quote, which makes them all WP:UNDUE - especially when the views she espouses on her show and website aren't discussed. The whole section reads like a one-sided vendetta against her. I'm not convinced that her views are WP:NOTABLE; if they are, then reliable secondary sources describing those views in general should be easy to find, and the article would be better served with a detailed discussion of what them are before they're criticized. On a stylistic note, the section as you've written it is composed almost entirely of quotes. If criticisms of her views are eventually included in a longer section on those views, it would be better if you used used more paraphrasing and less quoting, per WP:QUOTE. Ca2james (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, thanks for your patience and understanding, and refraining for contacting an admin regarding WP:IDHT issues because I really think this is not justified. It's exhausting to argue about this over and over again because every side is locked up on their position. So I'm just going to agree with Ca2james's own suggestion - she said "I'd support something like, "Jewish and Israeli news media have criticized Martin since 2012 for having a bias against the State of Israel." to replace points 2, 3, and 4, and using the references from those points to support that statement." Then, we could decide how to introduce the The New York Times article source into this article. Do we agree on that? Shalom11111 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If the NYT covers her in a critical way, then it most assuredly belongs in Wikipedia and as an experienced editor you know this. You're trying to use original research to argue that the NYT doesn't matter and shouldn't be included. I have now put all criticism of her about Israel in just one single sentence. It's been a week and no one has responded. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The NYT criticism takes snippets of her audio and video from when she was a student and criticizes it today, in 2014. That's a bit disingenuous. In any case, I've merged it into the early life section. Criticism should be merged inline whenever possible. As for the anti-Israel bias stuff, I'm still waiting for a good, neutral, reliable source. I've removed the attack pieces that have been added to this BLP for all of the reasons I've mentioned above. As I've made clear, Martin criticizes many things, from "Monsanto, Nestle, the U.S. federal electoral system, the drone program, the NSA, Israel, Obama, and even water fluoridation". That's good enough for Wikipedia. We aren't going to include responses from all of those groups and organizations, as that's not our job as an encyclopedia. The sources focused on criticizing Martin for her views on Israel are all unreliable attack pieces pushing a POV. Surely, if her criticism of Israel was as notable as you say it is, you should be able to find a single, neutral piece on the subject? Kinda strange that you can't. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Viriditas, totally. Dont let WP be seen as small and petty by having unreliable POV attack pieces, this isn't the NYTs. We know there are lobbies who are alarmed by good digging investigative journalistic work like Abby Martins. These lobbies have no place in WP trying to limit or detract from Abby Martins work. SaintAviator lets talk 00:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

thank got she got her page

whats the fuss about her? if alex jones gets his wikipedia page then so should she get--Crossswords (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC), she even noted in her own show

Well its obvious, she makes the PTB very very uncomfortable. But Crossswords if that means she loses her page, then WP is corrupt. SaintAviator lets talk 00:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Stop making excuses for her.

She is totally anti-Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.188.193 (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Speech

She spoke at Z-Day ref Jonpatterns (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparison

Fox News compared her with Pat Buchanan, Peter Hitchens, Gerald Warner, and William Lind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.69.243 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this the institutional stance of the Fox News organization, or was this an opinion by a particular Fox News employee? What was the basis for this comparison? What similarities or differences were alleged? When did this event occur? Nadia Caraiani (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaking the Set

Due to recent announcements by Martin, I have added an end date to the show. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

merge Breaking the Set

  • Support the merge. the only content mentioning the show is all focused on Martin's rant. The show itself fails to have any significant coverage as required by WP:GNG
  • There is no reason for the tags and the discussion. The article should have been merged a long time ago but we had relative newbies refusing to do so. I'm going to remove the tags and redirect as I don't see any content worth merging. If someone does, it's in the page history. But in the future, please don't tag articles that are under a GAN. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Abby Martin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The article is clear and concise. No spelling and grammar errors that I've noticed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article mostly complies with MoS, but I am concerned about the list incorporation. GA criteria says it needs to comply with list incorporation, but the section Abby Martin#Selected work may not comply with list incorporation. The "Selected work" section is a list, not a prose. However, MoS guidelines say: Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context. I than read further down the page to find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines. It says that bulled list for works of a living person is usually formatted in the list, but the context of the list must be mentioned somewhere else in the article. After reading that, I decided 1b passed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Overall sources are reliable, but I do see one source to a YouTube channel description, about her show. The sentence that goes with the source says: and as a show that "cuts through the false Left/Right paradigm set by the establishment & reports the hard facts." although Wikipedia discourages YouTube as a source, I think for this sentence it's alright, since it's quoting something from the YouTube channel's description. However, I would recommend finding an official site to use as a reference instead of a YouTube channel.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research. Not as far as I can tell.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars recently, but a few reverts in the past 3 months, but nothing to due with edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Free image, perfect!
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. No other images are in the article, so no captions are needed.
7. Overall assessment. This article overall passes the 6 good criteria for a Good article.

CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


November 16 2016

Someone removed this from Reception:

Journalist Nik Afanasjew of Der Tagesspiegel said Martin "looks like a model and acts like a punk".[1]

Not only do I like it, but I think she and most of her audience would like it too. Her critics would probably agree. I don't see the problem. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ ". . . die wie ein Modell aussieht, sich wie ein Punk benimmt " Afanasjew, Nik. (December 7, 2013). Putins Massenmedienwaffe. Der Tagesspiegel. Retrieved January 15, 2014.

Replacing Media Roots podcast references

There are two citations that reference an unavailable podcast to show the date Martin moved to Washington DC. I found an interview that states she moved in 2012 (not 2010). Replacing references & date accordinginly. – gwendy (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Added Abby Martin vs Wikipedia

Abby Martin vs Wikipedia. Moscowamerican (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Journalist"

Are there any RS that substantiate that she is a journalist? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

An academic source describes her as a citizen journalist. I guess that's fair enough and doesn't violate NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you quote the source or post a screenshot of the page? As best I can tell, she almost exclusively uses the term "citizen journalist" to describe herself. I'd be curious if the source you cited simply uses Martin's self-description. In RS such as the NY Times, WaPo and CNN, she is exclusively referred to as a host, anchor and TV personality. Never as a journalist. Not a single time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I included a link above and in the citation I added for the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not have access to the source. As someone who frequently cites books and gated sources, I always quote sources for verification when asked by fellow editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Link came up fine for me. "Citizen journalist Abby Martin's tweet demands that Democrats who sanctioned torture be pursued:" PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Funded by the Venezuelan government

An IP number keeps removing text about funding from the Venezuelan government. There's nothing in the body that substantiates that the series continues to exist and that it is no longer funded by the Venezuelan government. Also, if the show still exists in the same format, then we still need to identify that it once obtained funding from the Venezuelan government. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

@C.J. Griffin: I think what I meant to include was that she was included in a Telesur segment about censoring conspiracy theories. Not attempting to violate any WP:BLP policies. You can check my recent edit if you like.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was the source wasn't sufficient enough to make the claim that "She has continued to defend the use of conspiracy theories." That's not at all what she was saying in her part of that video, as I mentioned in the summary of my revert. The previous contributor was right to remove it. BLP's must have impeccable sourcing for such accusations.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So I placed the Telesur source back but with more detailed wording regarding Martin's statements. Also, the Interpreter info was placed back after an unjustified removal.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of op-eds from bad sources

This article is full of rubbish. One particularly bad kind of content in this article is op-eds from bad sources. One editor justifies the inclusion of these sources with "they're opinions, take to talk"[26]. However, Wikipedia clearly does not just allow any published opinion to get thrown into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be attempting to purge the article of all pro-Martin opinion while leaving the anti-Martin opinions completely untouched which raises an eyebrow. Putting all that aside, how are they not worth putting in? They're sourced to individuals and news outlets who are notable enough to have wikipedia articles written about them.212.74.218.66 (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
If you paid any attention to what you reverted, you'd see that I also removed John Stossel's criticisms of Martin. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
You removed ALL pro-Martin opinion though, which is needed for balance. Regardless, you did not answer the question I asked.212.74.218.66 (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's what's called WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. If someone only receives criticism from RS and notable opinion sources, then that's the only thing we include. We don't go scouring fringe websites for random praise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
You keep saying they are not notable but have not even attempted to substantiate those claims. Could please answer the question which you have routinely ignored?212.74.218.66 (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abby_Martin/Archive_1&oldid=1136489418"