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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 15/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Should there be a blurb about the walkout of ninety Christians from a performance, which included one person pouring water all over his notes? The video has been making rounds on the internet. Soonercary 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been noted that the incident was not entirely religiously-based. citation gharm 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Walkout incident has been notable (108,463 views on just on YouTube) and many press outlets have covered the incident and reaction. Anonymous user who removed this from the article needs to explain why. Until then, information is back. Soonercary 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved the glowing reviews out of the lede and into a reviews section. Having them in the lede makes the article read like Mr. Daisey's press kit. Ref: WP:LEAD WP:PEACOCK Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
Jrauser 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything except the new revelations about his misrepresentations reads like it was written by Mike Daisey or his publicist. This is not an article, this is a promotional bio that should not be on wikipedia in this form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.47.81 ( talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In you inexplicably angry zeal, fellow editors, you've made this article worthless and un-encyclopedic. This is one of the worst, and perhaps most emotionally fueled, articles I've read on Wikipedia, especially one about a currently popular person. I would try to fix it, but... I wont.
- L3334253 ( talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It is disgraceful that this story is being edited to obfuscate the simple facts that Daisey lied and was proven to have lied. repeatedly. on the record. In his Steve Jobs monologue. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
160.39.35.50 (
talk) 00:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How much of Mr. Daisey's monologue is fictional? I have grave doubts about the historical veracity of such events as "the on-ramp to nowhere" on which Daisey's taxi supposedly stopped inches from destruction. And traffic cones, while made by the millions in China, are seldom used in that country--a orange plastic post seems to be the standard. I've not seen even one in a decade of travel there. And did a mangled ex-Foxconn worker *really* fondle Mr. Daisey's iPad and mumble, "Magical!"? I would want to see the video for such an improbable event. In other words, is there any objective documentation of his trip in terms of contemporaneous notes, videos, etc.? Solarbuddy ( talk) 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I received this email from Ira Glass on March 16, 2012. I've updated a small blurb under the Agony & Ecstasy monologue section, but this topic should probably have a more prominent placement under a "Controversy" or similar heading:
had you bothered to look into it, you'd have seen I don't need such advice. Not really interested in this article and it's too big a story for the whatever was blocking the update to stand. Lycurgus ( talk) 10:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody in NYC changes a description of a monologue by Daisey from
to
with the edit summary
I imagine that the first question is merely rhetorical. If it's actually serious, see this for the answer.
Why does it keep being rewritten? Simply, to accord with each successive editor's understanding of either (A) the facts as they are presented in cited, reliable, sources, or (B) the truth as understood by the editor. (A) is right and (B) is wrong.
Let's look at this edit. It results in the implication that It purports to tell a true story about Daisy's [sic] by exploration of the exploitation of Chinese workers through personal interviews with Chinese workers [...] is said within a specific CNET story.
The CNET story does not say this. The edit (one of a series from the same IP number) made the article imply an untruth. And that's why I reverted it.
If you don't like the way the article is now written, find authoritative sources (see this) that say something else, and rewrite according to and citing those sources, of course avoiding bias. Other attempts to add alleged or actual truths will be reverted. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This supposedly is an article about Mike Daisey. Instead, it is entirely about two of his performances. I was looking for biographical information about the man as it appears in other Wikipedia articles about living persons, but there's nothing. You have not told us anything about his personal background other than how they relate to performances. 75.171.3.225 ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The list of his monologues is gone now, and although the information up top is clearly the most important, lacking citation isn't a good reason to blank information that could be very easily looked up and confirmed. 75.72.175.170 ( talk) 23:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at the discussion at talk:Mike Daisey#The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs in the lead first to weigh the arguments. It's currently stuck at a 3RR impasse.
Mike Daisey is a monologist whose recent work on Apple's manufacturing practices has generated significant coverage and reached outside the arts world.
I believe this piece belongs in the lead. Another user believes it should not. This is still a highly visible article and a blp, your opinions and vigilance would be welcome. - hahnch e n 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs is Mike Daisey's most popular/influential/notable work. This is even before the recent blow up regarding its veracity, which makes his it his most discussed work. You can see this on Google Insights, you can also search news archives. This piece belongs in the lead.
This is what Mike Daisey is best known for, not monologues about Nikola Tesla, L. Ron Hubbard, Steve Jobs and Apple's supply chain in China, the Department of Homeland Security, the history of the New York transit system, 9/11, the inventor of the neutron bomb, Wal-Mart and a variety of other topics.
I think the article would be more effective if it summarised his career into its most important points in prose form, following by a list of his works - as opposed to listing his entire list of works chronologically, which breaks up the article with very short disjointed sentences. I don't have time to undertake that though. I also think several of his works could be spun out into their own articles, TATESJ being the most obvious. - hahnch e n 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It's very likely that TATESJ was his best-known work before the very recent kerfuffle. (I for one first heard of his work a couple of weeks ago from the Guardian, in the context of a strangely excited article about how he was copylefting his script or notes or whatever for TATESJ.) Certainly the kerfuffle has been very big, by the standards of kerfuffles over monologues -- a large percentage of US and other infotainment sources have something to say. In view of this, I think it's reasonable to say something of this in the lead. On the other hand, it shouldn't go into detail (which can come later), it might not need sources (which must come later), and it shouldn't go overboard.
Yes, the TATESJ flap has been the aspect of his career that's been most assiduously covered by reliable sources. But it's also the one that's been most energetically covered by pundits/bloviators. It will be all too easy for editors to cherry-pick among these. I hope there'll be moderation here, and that the article will instead summarize the views of pundits who demonstrate hard thinking.
Change "sentences" in that to "sections" and I think so too, and I too don't have time to undertake it. One problem is that the job will require good judgement, and some of the comments on this talk page (not this section, but the sections above it) suggest that a sizable percentage of potential editors have already made up their minds about Daisey and would spin and cherry-pick accordingly. I'd wait until this TATESJ flap settles down a bit (one way or another) before inviting others to do this rewriting job.
Yes, this would be possible for TATESJ and Dog Years. But why? Nobody has yet demonstrated an energy to write more about Daisey's works than would comfortably fit in this single article. If the length of this article becomes excessive, yes; until then, proliferation of articles strikes me as merely troublesome, though I'm open to other reasoning for how it could help. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be in the lede at this point -- Daisey was making news long before he started telling this story. It's possible that with a little time and distance, it will fit in there, but at the moment, it's not clear that it's the sort of defining information that the lede should cover.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hahnchen and Gie99, I hope you can both agree that the best way forward for the lead is to focus on achieving consensus here at Talk instead of edit-warring at the article. Writegeist ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Gie99 is right in that I do not have a grounding in theatre. I do not have an intimate knowledge of his work, I might miss "patent, common knowledge in the theater world". But this is clearly beyond theatre, I might miss the bits that Gie99 knows, but it looks like I'm picking up the bits that he doesn't. But if you want to pull rank, and show how us how informed you are, some credentials beyond a single purpose account and a "trust me" label would help. I don't really buy the appeal to authority argument though, because "a layman authoring an encyclopedia article" is exactly what this is about. This is Wikipedia.
And if you have that knowledge that I lack, then do something with in other than needlessly reverting. I tried to add something to the article, so those readers coming in fresh could see why this subject was important. Instead of using your time and expertise to do something which would actually improve the article, you've chosen to block my attempts. If you're familiar with his body of work then you should do something about it.
And as for its importance. Your Chicago Tribune link, which mostly just reprints what Daisey says on his blog, also contains this passage, "The Washington Post reported that Daisey expressed regret that the radio scandal has become a national obsession and has eclipsed the substance of his stage play." Every Daisey piece reaches the theatre, it's covered in the arts pages. TATESJ clearly goes beyond that, it was covered in the tech press, and now has commentary from all sides regarding journalistic/artistic integrity. And it's not like these views are by little voices, these are by significant media commentators such as Michael Wolff, Jay Rosen, David Weigel, and many others. Does anyone seriously disagree with this? That it's his most prominent work?
As for my "simply un-authoritative and groundless" edits, and my "careless & uninformed propositions", the edit I made to the lead described TATESJ as containing "numerous fabrications" came straight from This American Life. I didn't side on either side of the journalism/art debate, merely stating that it generated debate. The two sources I linked, were the TAL Retration episode, and a blog post from Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company where this play debuted, careless and uninformed indeed. - hahnch e n 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
By far the most media attention around Mike Daisey, and how most people know him, is because of the exposure of his fabrications in the Apple monologue and public radio episode. He is not best known for his plays on L Ron Hubbard or whatever else. He became a public figure in the swarm of attention around the Apple issue, and an even bigger figure after the truth came out. Why hide this in the intro? Saying he is best known for a laundry list of plays is not accurate. Hammertime2005 ( talk) 07:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is now much improved. Hoary is correct that Wikipedia is not a news aggregation service, so the weight of news articles about Daisey (the overwhelming majority about the Apple issue) does not mean the rest of his cited career should be ignored. But until now the Wikipedia entry was written as if the Apple controversy was just a footnote to lauding his other works. The Apple controversy, like it or not for Daisey and his friends here, IS the most notable part of his career by any standard, press hits or otherwise. So it should have center stage in the article, which it does now.
By the way, calling it the "this american life controversy" is disingenuous. The truthfulness of the Apple work was being questioned even before "this american life" blew the whole thing open. Lets not call Watergate the "washington post controversy" or this one the "this american life" controversy. 41.220.116.75 ( talk) 07:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I just want to make note of the fact that the Apple/China/This American Life controversy is currently dealt with at some length in 2 separate sections. Not good. This needs to be rectified in some way: either keep it all in the monolog section, or summarize there and merge the bulk of the info into the controversy section (with a link to that section). Cgingold ( talk) 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Mike Daisey lied in the report, he said the factory guards have guns and that freeways ended at a drop-off only with orange traffic cones. It makes the show more dramatic but it is not true. And I do not think factory workers have ever go to Starbucks. We do not have the American orange cones here that he mention, and roads here are very safe and organised and a unfinished freeway could NEVER be allowed to be driven on. Its nonsense and he knows very little about China.
So why remove from the article that he lied and instead say he 'dramatised' his report. He lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.139.28.78 ( talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the article has been re-edited to read like a press kit... Seems obvious who is doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.200.252 ( talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the Themes section, using citations, this time. However, it was a little difficult for me to find relevant articles online, because Google is swamped with outraged bloggers, writing about the Agony/Ecstasy scandal. Eventually, in frustration, I gave up on getting anything useful at all from Google and just searched the archives of Slate.com, the Seattle PI, and the NYT. This results on somewhat homogeneous sources, as well as a potential overreliance on a single author (Jason Zinoman is cited quite a few times in this article). I tried to avoid synthesis and original research, but, since I had so much trouble finding usable sources, it was difficult. If someone takes exception to my writing, I won't be offended. If you do decide to try to rewrite this section, I recommend using Jason Zinoman's articles as a starting point, as they're well-written and in-depth, rather than the "fifth grade book report" style that even most professional critics use. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
All of these outraged Talk comments are based on the supposition that Daisey is an investigative reporter, a journalist, a nonfiction writer who FAILED us by LYING to us. Wrong. He's a fantasist. There were ample signs all along. Remember his manic ramble about Steve Jobs? Or the incident when 80 people walked out on one of his monologues, spilling water on his script? He immediately howled that it was his only copy, they had maliciously destroyed his art. His wife Jean-Michele calmly pointed out that there were other copies. He invents scenarios. It's just that we didn't know how extreme these can become until his China misinformation debacle. Daisey has apologized for that (sort of). And in my opinion he remains an entertainer of merit, as long as we don't expect from him what he cannot give: information and opinions grounded in reality. Younggoldchip ( talk) 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Somebody using successive IPs of Mid-Maine Communications, Inc. has a monomania about Daisey, as the article history will show. No reliable source is ever adduced. Since the warning given to the penultimate IP had no effect, I've awarded a week's vacation to the latest IP. If this recurs, award longer vacations. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Daisey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gothamist.com/2005/04/22/mike_daisey_monologuist.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.annextheatre.org/shows/moon_world/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Daisey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 15/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Should there be a blurb about the walkout of ninety Christians from a performance, which included one person pouring water all over his notes? The video has been making rounds on the internet. Soonercary 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been noted that the incident was not entirely religiously-based. citation gharm 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Walkout incident has been notable (108,463 views on just on YouTube) and many press outlets have covered the incident and reaction. Anonymous user who removed this from the article needs to explain why. Until then, information is back. Soonercary 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved the glowing reviews out of the lede and into a reviews section. Having them in the lede makes the article read like Mr. Daisey's press kit. Ref: WP:LEAD WP:PEACOCK Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
Jrauser 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything except the new revelations about his misrepresentations reads like it was written by Mike Daisey or his publicist. This is not an article, this is a promotional bio that should not be on wikipedia in this form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.47.81 ( talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In you inexplicably angry zeal, fellow editors, you've made this article worthless and un-encyclopedic. This is one of the worst, and perhaps most emotionally fueled, articles I've read on Wikipedia, especially one about a currently popular person. I would try to fix it, but... I wont.
- L3334253 ( talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It is disgraceful that this story is being edited to obfuscate the simple facts that Daisey lied and was proven to have lied. repeatedly. on the record. In his Steve Jobs monologue. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
160.39.35.50 (
talk) 00:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How much of Mr. Daisey's monologue is fictional? I have grave doubts about the historical veracity of such events as "the on-ramp to nowhere" on which Daisey's taxi supposedly stopped inches from destruction. And traffic cones, while made by the millions in China, are seldom used in that country--a orange plastic post seems to be the standard. I've not seen even one in a decade of travel there. And did a mangled ex-Foxconn worker *really* fondle Mr. Daisey's iPad and mumble, "Magical!"? I would want to see the video for such an improbable event. In other words, is there any objective documentation of his trip in terms of contemporaneous notes, videos, etc.? Solarbuddy ( talk) 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I received this email from Ira Glass on March 16, 2012. I've updated a small blurb under the Agony & Ecstasy monologue section, but this topic should probably have a more prominent placement under a "Controversy" or similar heading:
had you bothered to look into it, you'd have seen I don't need such advice. Not really interested in this article and it's too big a story for the whatever was blocking the update to stand. Lycurgus ( talk) 10:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody in NYC changes a description of a monologue by Daisey from
to
with the edit summary
I imagine that the first question is merely rhetorical. If it's actually serious, see this for the answer.
Why does it keep being rewritten? Simply, to accord with each successive editor's understanding of either (A) the facts as they are presented in cited, reliable, sources, or (B) the truth as understood by the editor. (A) is right and (B) is wrong.
Let's look at this edit. It results in the implication that It purports to tell a true story about Daisy's [sic] by exploration of the exploitation of Chinese workers through personal interviews with Chinese workers [...] is said within a specific CNET story.
The CNET story does not say this. The edit (one of a series from the same IP number) made the article imply an untruth. And that's why I reverted it.
If you don't like the way the article is now written, find authoritative sources (see this) that say something else, and rewrite according to and citing those sources, of course avoiding bias. Other attempts to add alleged or actual truths will be reverted. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This supposedly is an article about Mike Daisey. Instead, it is entirely about two of his performances. I was looking for biographical information about the man as it appears in other Wikipedia articles about living persons, but there's nothing. You have not told us anything about his personal background other than how they relate to performances. 75.171.3.225 ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The list of his monologues is gone now, and although the information up top is clearly the most important, lacking citation isn't a good reason to blank information that could be very easily looked up and confirmed. 75.72.175.170 ( talk) 23:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at the discussion at talk:Mike Daisey#The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs in the lead first to weigh the arguments. It's currently stuck at a 3RR impasse.
Mike Daisey is a monologist whose recent work on Apple's manufacturing practices has generated significant coverage and reached outside the arts world.
I believe this piece belongs in the lead. Another user believes it should not. This is still a highly visible article and a blp, your opinions and vigilance would be welcome. - hahnch e n 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs is Mike Daisey's most popular/influential/notable work. This is even before the recent blow up regarding its veracity, which makes his it his most discussed work. You can see this on Google Insights, you can also search news archives. This piece belongs in the lead.
This is what Mike Daisey is best known for, not monologues about Nikola Tesla, L. Ron Hubbard, Steve Jobs and Apple's supply chain in China, the Department of Homeland Security, the history of the New York transit system, 9/11, the inventor of the neutron bomb, Wal-Mart and a variety of other topics.
I think the article would be more effective if it summarised his career into its most important points in prose form, following by a list of his works - as opposed to listing his entire list of works chronologically, which breaks up the article with very short disjointed sentences. I don't have time to undertake that though. I also think several of his works could be spun out into their own articles, TATESJ being the most obvious. - hahnch e n 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It's very likely that TATESJ was his best-known work before the very recent kerfuffle. (I for one first heard of his work a couple of weeks ago from the Guardian, in the context of a strangely excited article about how he was copylefting his script or notes or whatever for TATESJ.) Certainly the kerfuffle has been very big, by the standards of kerfuffles over monologues -- a large percentage of US and other infotainment sources have something to say. In view of this, I think it's reasonable to say something of this in the lead. On the other hand, it shouldn't go into detail (which can come later), it might not need sources (which must come later), and it shouldn't go overboard.
Yes, the TATESJ flap has been the aspect of his career that's been most assiduously covered by reliable sources. But it's also the one that's been most energetically covered by pundits/bloviators. It will be all too easy for editors to cherry-pick among these. I hope there'll be moderation here, and that the article will instead summarize the views of pundits who demonstrate hard thinking.
Change "sentences" in that to "sections" and I think so too, and I too don't have time to undertake it. One problem is that the job will require good judgement, and some of the comments on this talk page (not this section, but the sections above it) suggest that a sizable percentage of potential editors have already made up their minds about Daisey and would spin and cherry-pick accordingly. I'd wait until this TATESJ flap settles down a bit (one way or another) before inviting others to do this rewriting job.
Yes, this would be possible for TATESJ and Dog Years. But why? Nobody has yet demonstrated an energy to write more about Daisey's works than would comfortably fit in this single article. If the length of this article becomes excessive, yes; until then, proliferation of articles strikes me as merely troublesome, though I'm open to other reasoning for how it could help. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be in the lede at this point -- Daisey was making news long before he started telling this story. It's possible that with a little time and distance, it will fit in there, but at the moment, it's not clear that it's the sort of defining information that the lede should cover.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hahnchen and Gie99, I hope you can both agree that the best way forward for the lead is to focus on achieving consensus here at Talk instead of edit-warring at the article. Writegeist ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Gie99 is right in that I do not have a grounding in theatre. I do not have an intimate knowledge of his work, I might miss "patent, common knowledge in the theater world". But this is clearly beyond theatre, I might miss the bits that Gie99 knows, but it looks like I'm picking up the bits that he doesn't. But if you want to pull rank, and show how us how informed you are, some credentials beyond a single purpose account and a "trust me" label would help. I don't really buy the appeal to authority argument though, because "a layman authoring an encyclopedia article" is exactly what this is about. This is Wikipedia.
And if you have that knowledge that I lack, then do something with in other than needlessly reverting. I tried to add something to the article, so those readers coming in fresh could see why this subject was important. Instead of using your time and expertise to do something which would actually improve the article, you've chosen to block my attempts. If you're familiar with his body of work then you should do something about it.
And as for its importance. Your Chicago Tribune link, which mostly just reprints what Daisey says on his blog, also contains this passage, "The Washington Post reported that Daisey expressed regret that the radio scandal has become a national obsession and has eclipsed the substance of his stage play." Every Daisey piece reaches the theatre, it's covered in the arts pages. TATESJ clearly goes beyond that, it was covered in the tech press, and now has commentary from all sides regarding journalistic/artistic integrity. And it's not like these views are by little voices, these are by significant media commentators such as Michael Wolff, Jay Rosen, David Weigel, and many others. Does anyone seriously disagree with this? That it's his most prominent work?
As for my "simply un-authoritative and groundless" edits, and my "careless & uninformed propositions", the edit I made to the lead described TATESJ as containing "numerous fabrications" came straight from This American Life. I didn't side on either side of the journalism/art debate, merely stating that it generated debate. The two sources I linked, were the TAL Retration episode, and a blog post from Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company where this play debuted, careless and uninformed indeed. - hahnch e n 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
By far the most media attention around Mike Daisey, and how most people know him, is because of the exposure of his fabrications in the Apple monologue and public radio episode. He is not best known for his plays on L Ron Hubbard or whatever else. He became a public figure in the swarm of attention around the Apple issue, and an even bigger figure after the truth came out. Why hide this in the intro? Saying he is best known for a laundry list of plays is not accurate. Hammertime2005 ( talk) 07:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is now much improved. Hoary is correct that Wikipedia is not a news aggregation service, so the weight of news articles about Daisey (the overwhelming majority about the Apple issue) does not mean the rest of his cited career should be ignored. But until now the Wikipedia entry was written as if the Apple controversy was just a footnote to lauding his other works. The Apple controversy, like it or not for Daisey and his friends here, IS the most notable part of his career by any standard, press hits or otherwise. So it should have center stage in the article, which it does now.
By the way, calling it the "this american life controversy" is disingenuous. The truthfulness of the Apple work was being questioned even before "this american life" blew the whole thing open. Lets not call Watergate the "washington post controversy" or this one the "this american life" controversy. 41.220.116.75 ( talk) 07:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I just want to make note of the fact that the Apple/China/This American Life controversy is currently dealt with at some length in 2 separate sections. Not good. This needs to be rectified in some way: either keep it all in the monolog section, or summarize there and merge the bulk of the info into the controversy section (with a link to that section). Cgingold ( talk) 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Mike Daisey lied in the report, he said the factory guards have guns and that freeways ended at a drop-off only with orange traffic cones. It makes the show more dramatic but it is not true. And I do not think factory workers have ever go to Starbucks. We do not have the American orange cones here that he mention, and roads here are very safe and organised and a unfinished freeway could NEVER be allowed to be driven on. Its nonsense and he knows very little about China.
So why remove from the article that he lied and instead say he 'dramatised' his report. He lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.139.28.78 ( talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the article has been re-edited to read like a press kit... Seems obvious who is doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.200.252 ( talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the Themes section, using citations, this time. However, it was a little difficult for me to find relevant articles online, because Google is swamped with outraged bloggers, writing about the Agony/Ecstasy scandal. Eventually, in frustration, I gave up on getting anything useful at all from Google and just searched the archives of Slate.com, the Seattle PI, and the NYT. This results on somewhat homogeneous sources, as well as a potential overreliance on a single author (Jason Zinoman is cited quite a few times in this article). I tried to avoid synthesis and original research, but, since I had so much trouble finding usable sources, it was difficult. If someone takes exception to my writing, I won't be offended. If you do decide to try to rewrite this section, I recommend using Jason Zinoman's articles as a starting point, as they're well-written and in-depth, rather than the "fifth grade book report" style that even most professional critics use. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
All of these outraged Talk comments are based on the supposition that Daisey is an investigative reporter, a journalist, a nonfiction writer who FAILED us by LYING to us. Wrong. He's a fantasist. There were ample signs all along. Remember his manic ramble about Steve Jobs? Or the incident when 80 people walked out on one of his monologues, spilling water on his script? He immediately howled that it was his only copy, they had maliciously destroyed his art. His wife Jean-Michele calmly pointed out that there were other copies. He invents scenarios. It's just that we didn't know how extreme these can become until his China misinformation debacle. Daisey has apologized for that (sort of). And in my opinion he remains an entertainer of merit, as long as we don't expect from him what he cannot give: information and opinions grounded in reality. Younggoldchip ( talk) 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Somebody using successive IPs of Mid-Maine Communications, Inc. has a monomania about Daisey, as the article history will show. No reliable source is ever adduced. Since the warning given to the penultimate IP had no effect, I've awarded a week's vacation to the latest IP. If this recurs, award longer vacations. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Daisey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gothamist.com/2005/04/22/mike_daisey_monologuist.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.annextheatre.org/shows/moon_world/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Daisey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)