This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abby Martin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Abby Martin has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The contents of the Abigail Martin page were merged into Abby Martin. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Cunard: @ Aircorn: please let us know what is going on with this reassessment. As of today 17 June 2019, the template at the top of the article says "The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)" That links here. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Recent changes seem helpful, but "9/11 conspiracy theorist" is still not Martin's Career - just like JFK/Grassy Knoll or Moon Landing Hoaxer is personal belief, not Career. Abby Martin is not even mentioned on the "9/11" page, but this is: "In 2008, 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a 'greatest conspiracy theory' list compiled by The Daily Telegraph. The list was ranked by following and traction." The article still makes it sound like Martin was a key figure in this movement, not a random adherent of a popular movement. If we are going to add "Grassy Knoll adherent" to every relevant Wikipedia biography, lot of work ahead. Also, no idea why 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and 9/11 Truth are separate articles. PLawrence99cx ( talk) 06:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
People are not "theorists". They maybe have theories or suscribe to theories. I suggest it is an infringement of neutrality to give such prominence to year old views a journalist has since relinquished in a living biography by denigrating them in the lead as a "conspiracy theorist". If we follow the guidelines for Biographies of living persons "...biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Mystichumwipe ( talk) 21:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard. [1] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lede describe her involvement in the 9/11 Truther movement? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the following text from Abby Martin#9/11 conspiracy theories: "A 2015 BuzzFeed News article stated that beside being active in the 9/11 truth movement, Martin "frequently showcased other conspiracy theories"." My notation was "the Buzzfeed article is about Martin's show which is covered in the next section." Snooganssnoogans reverted with the notation: "restore rs content. i'm fine with this being here. but it can also be moved to a section on her show." [3]
The source used says, "Martin, an antiwar activist and artist, has also been involved in the 9/11 truth movement, and her show has frequently showcased other conspiracy theories."
This information repeats what is already in the article. "9/11 conspiracy theories" already says that Martin, "was part of the 9/11 Truth movement, starting her own 9/11 Truther group...." The next section, Abby Martin#Breaking the Set and work for RT says her show "investigated conspiracy theories related to water fluoridation."
Basically, the text adds nothing to the article and is confusing. It implies Martin had a show when she was in the Truth movement. It's not clear why Buzzfeed should be mentioned in text.
TFD ( talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
AM is currently doing the rounds for her new film - 'Gaza Fights For Freedom'. This challenges the mainstream narrative that Israel is currently being attacked by an oppressive and violent regime from Palestine. Please bear this in mind with edits, as the more she tours and exposes what Palestine is having to endure, the more pro-Israeli / AIPAC lobbyists are going to be on here smearing her with impunity Apeholder ( talk) 22:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section has 8 references which is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This is overkill since all the sources refer back to an original source, a 2008 inteview of Martin included in a youtube video posted by the truther group WeAreChangeLA ( 9-11 Truth March 10-11-08 Santa Monica Part 3 FIREFIGHTERS.) I suggest we trim this back to the NYT blog post "Russia Today Host Has Roots in ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement" by Robert Mackey (Jan. 20, 2016 1:15 PM)), which uses the video as its source. The next sentence, which explains what Martin said in the interview, could be sourced to the youtube video. Also, we should mention that these stories were published in response to Martin's criticism of Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.
TFD ( talk) 03:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
In this section there was a quote from Martin apparently saying that she says RT gave her the greatest editorial freedom , ( can't imagine why ), but the reference was inaccurate, and useless, and how the hell is her saying how great RT is , anything to do with 'Reception'. Why has this article got a green mark saying its good. It looks rubbish. And why was the Liz Wahl quote removed from this section which was pertinent to how her work was being received, its 'Reception'. Bulldog Antz ( talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Pertaining to the Rolling Stone quotes, and the above "Reception" thread, please respect WP:BLP. It clearly states that the subject should be quoted in her own defense when attacks on her are posted in the article. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 14:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't just remove that, you first removed the paragraph addressing neoMcCarthyism and non-corporate journalism. Moreover, those quotes refer to subjects highlighted in the podcast introductory text: " the journalist discusses Hillary Clinton’s 'neoMcCarthyism'" and "on her experiences as an independent journalist in a culture that silences dissenting voices" GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Re
this edit, removing this content: On RT in February 2013, she commented that Israel uses "Hitler's methods" to sustain a "Jewish majority".
[1]
. Its premise is that the
Algemeiner Journal is not a reliable source for BLPs, per
WP:BLPRS. However, the only discussion on RSP considers it to be RS: see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_302#Algemeiner_Journal_&_The_Jewish_News_Syndicate
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.Algemeiner is tabloid journalism and has a well-known ideological bent when it comes to Israel. Even so, I don't see how the quote is relevant to Martin's career at RT. ImTheIP ( talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I have restored a large amount of text - some critical, some complimentary - removed for being from blogs or otherwise badly sourced. I'm not clear which sources are seen as problematic. Can we discuss case by case rather than delete en block? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Burrobert ( talk) 17:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Martin believes that Israel is a setter-colonial state; that its goal is, and has always been, to kill or expel the indigenous population, the Palestinians, so that Jewish colonizers can have an ethno-supremacist state. According to her, for non-Jews, Israel is an apartheid state: I think I flagged this as a primary source, presumably reliable for her views (though I did not verify it) but not in itself evidence of noteworthiness. It has since been deleted, to which I have no objection.
She believes that, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, Israel persecutes Palestinians similar to how Nazi Germany persecuted Jews.This has now been deleted, although I don't understand why. Her actual quote is
"Israel is the only country in the world that was paved for a specific group of people that experienced such horrific discrimination and genocide, and for that same group of people to now use Hitler's methods against another minority to maintain a Jewish majority, is insane."This has been reported by a number of sources, e.g. Jerusalem Post, [10] so I would strongly argue that it it noteworthy.
Martin herself is a 9/11 Truther, calling the government's version of the events "propaganda", and has accused Israel of using "Hitler's methods".It is from HP UK, which I believe is considered more reliable than its US sibling. I'd support inclusion.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[8] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..."BobFromBrockley ( talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abby Martin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Abby Martin has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The contents of the Abigail Martin page were merged into Abby Martin. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Cunard: @ Aircorn: please let us know what is going on with this reassessment. As of today 17 June 2019, the template at the top of the article says "The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)" That links here. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Recent changes seem helpful, but "9/11 conspiracy theorist" is still not Martin's Career - just like JFK/Grassy Knoll or Moon Landing Hoaxer is personal belief, not Career. Abby Martin is not even mentioned on the "9/11" page, but this is: "In 2008, 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a 'greatest conspiracy theory' list compiled by The Daily Telegraph. The list was ranked by following and traction." The article still makes it sound like Martin was a key figure in this movement, not a random adherent of a popular movement. If we are going to add "Grassy Knoll adherent" to every relevant Wikipedia biography, lot of work ahead. Also, no idea why 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and 9/11 Truth are separate articles. PLawrence99cx ( talk) 06:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
People are not "theorists". They maybe have theories or suscribe to theories. I suggest it is an infringement of neutrality to give such prominence to year old views a journalist has since relinquished in a living biography by denigrating them in the lead as a "conspiracy theorist". If we follow the guidelines for Biographies of living persons "...biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Mystichumwipe ( talk) 21:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard. [1] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lede describe her involvement in the 9/11 Truther movement? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the following text from Abby Martin#9/11 conspiracy theories: "A 2015 BuzzFeed News article stated that beside being active in the 9/11 truth movement, Martin "frequently showcased other conspiracy theories"." My notation was "the Buzzfeed article is about Martin's show which is covered in the next section." Snooganssnoogans reverted with the notation: "restore rs content. i'm fine with this being here. but it can also be moved to a section on her show." [3]
The source used says, "Martin, an antiwar activist and artist, has also been involved in the 9/11 truth movement, and her show has frequently showcased other conspiracy theories."
This information repeats what is already in the article. "9/11 conspiracy theories" already says that Martin, "was part of the 9/11 Truth movement, starting her own 9/11 Truther group...." The next section, Abby Martin#Breaking the Set and work for RT says her show "investigated conspiracy theories related to water fluoridation."
Basically, the text adds nothing to the article and is confusing. It implies Martin had a show when she was in the Truth movement. It's not clear why Buzzfeed should be mentioned in text.
TFD ( talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
AM is currently doing the rounds for her new film - 'Gaza Fights For Freedom'. This challenges the mainstream narrative that Israel is currently being attacked by an oppressive and violent regime from Palestine. Please bear this in mind with edits, as the more she tours and exposes what Palestine is having to endure, the more pro-Israeli / AIPAC lobbyists are going to be on here smearing her with impunity Apeholder ( talk) 22:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section has 8 references which is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This is overkill since all the sources refer back to an original source, a 2008 inteview of Martin included in a youtube video posted by the truther group WeAreChangeLA ( 9-11 Truth March 10-11-08 Santa Monica Part 3 FIREFIGHTERS.) I suggest we trim this back to the NYT blog post "Russia Today Host Has Roots in ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement" by Robert Mackey (Jan. 20, 2016 1:15 PM)), which uses the video as its source. The next sentence, which explains what Martin said in the interview, could be sourced to the youtube video. Also, we should mention that these stories were published in response to Martin's criticism of Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.
TFD ( talk) 03:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
In this section there was a quote from Martin apparently saying that she says RT gave her the greatest editorial freedom , ( can't imagine why ), but the reference was inaccurate, and useless, and how the hell is her saying how great RT is , anything to do with 'Reception'. Why has this article got a green mark saying its good. It looks rubbish. And why was the Liz Wahl quote removed from this section which was pertinent to how her work was being received, its 'Reception'. Bulldog Antz ( talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Pertaining to the Rolling Stone quotes, and the above "Reception" thread, please respect WP:BLP. It clearly states that the subject should be quoted in her own defense when attacks on her are posted in the article. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 14:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't just remove that, you first removed the paragraph addressing neoMcCarthyism and non-corporate journalism. Moreover, those quotes refer to subjects highlighted in the podcast introductory text: " the journalist discusses Hillary Clinton’s 'neoMcCarthyism'" and "on her experiences as an independent journalist in a culture that silences dissenting voices" GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Re
this edit, removing this content: On RT in February 2013, she commented that Israel uses "Hitler's methods" to sustain a "Jewish majority".
[1]
. Its premise is that the
Algemeiner Journal is not a reliable source for BLPs, per
WP:BLPRS. However, the only discussion on RSP considers it to be RS: see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_302#Algemeiner_Journal_&_The_Jewish_News_Syndicate
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.Algemeiner is tabloid journalism and has a well-known ideological bent when it comes to Israel. Even so, I don't see how the quote is relevant to Martin's career at RT. ImTheIP ( talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I have restored a large amount of text - some critical, some complimentary - removed for being from blogs or otherwise badly sourced. I'm not clear which sources are seen as problematic. Can we discuss case by case rather than delete en block? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Burrobert ( talk) 17:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Martin believes that Israel is a setter-colonial state; that its goal is, and has always been, to kill or expel the indigenous population, the Palestinians, so that Jewish colonizers can have an ethno-supremacist state. According to her, for non-Jews, Israel is an apartheid state: I think I flagged this as a primary source, presumably reliable for her views (though I did not verify it) but not in itself evidence of noteworthiness. It has since been deleted, to which I have no objection.
She believes that, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, Israel persecutes Palestinians similar to how Nazi Germany persecuted Jews.This has now been deleted, although I don't understand why. Her actual quote is
"Israel is the only country in the world that was paved for a specific group of people that experienced such horrific discrimination and genocide, and for that same group of people to now use Hitler's methods against another minority to maintain a Jewish majority, is insane."This has been reported by a number of sources, e.g. Jerusalem Post, [10] so I would strongly argue that it it noteworthy.
Martin herself is a 9/11 Truther, calling the government's version of the events "propaganda", and has accused Israel of using "Hitler's methods".It is from HP UK, which I believe is considered more reliable than its US sibling. I'd support inclusion.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[8] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..."BobFromBrockley ( talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)