Jump to content

Talk:Mother Jones (magazine): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(83 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Magazines|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=

{{WikiProject Magazines|importance=}}
==Holes in the article==
}}
This article appears to have some holes, which seem to weaken it overall:
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(365d)
* It indicates the magazine is rooted in "progressive political values;" what does the author mean by that? Another word for "liberal?" The early 20th century American political movement? Please clarify, to avoid the appearance of bias.
| archive = Talk:Mother Jones (magazine)/Archive %(counter)d
:The magazine is [[far left]] by US standards as far as I know. I did not use that term as it's a word to avoid and is POV. That said I think most everyone, including or especially its readers, would agree it is Left-wing by US standards. After all it is named after an activist for both the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] and the [[Socialist Party of America]].--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
| counter = 1
* What "national magazine awards" has this magazine been nominated for? What categories? When?
| maxarchivesize = 150K
* What does the author mean when he refers to this magazine reporting on "investigative stories that are underreported by the mainstream media?" Also, what does the author mean when referring to "the mainstream media?" Be specific; otherwise, it appears biased.
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
* Harper's Magazine is a liberal magazine with more than 200,000 subscribers. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.86.9.53|67.86.9.53]] ([[User talk:67.86.9.53|talk]]) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 1
Furthermore, I would advise changing its outline, to separate examples of stories from its history; that would make it easier to understand.
}}

Additionally, unless this is all analysis by the author, there need to be citations, particularly of any facts listed.

With that said, it does give some useful examples of past articles this magazine has published, in addition to giving its history in brief.

Overall, it needs to be cleaned up, to make it appear more objective and informative.

== Unfounded Allegations/Neutrality ==

The writer of this article did not approach it from a neutral POV and makes unverified claims, such as:

"The magazine devoted extensive coverage to the underpinnings of the Iraq war - from the small group that laid the groundwork for an invasion during the 1970s oil crisis to the Office of Special Plans, the group the George W. Bush administration set up within the Pentagon to make the case for invading Iraq through carefully selecting and manipulating intelligence reports."

I suggest striking/amending the sentence to:

"The magazine devoted extensive coverage to the underpinnings of the Iraq war - from the small group that laid the groundwork for an invasion during the 1970s oil crisis to the Office of Special Plans, the group the George W. Bush administration set up within the Pentagon to make the case for invading Iraq."

Also:

"The founders thought the country was ready for a magazine of reporting that would focus some of its investigative energy on the great unelected powers of the time—multinational corporations."

Again, to maintain neutrality, I suggest:

"The founders thought the country was ready for a magazine of reporting that would focus some of its investigative energy on what they viewed as the great unelected powers of the time—multinational corporations."

Last:

"Mother Jones has also turned its investigative eye on the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, a deeply flawed campaign-finance system, Washington politics, and scores of other issues."

Should read:

"Mother Jones has also turned its investigative eye on the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the campaign-finance system, Washington politics, and scores of other issues."
:Quote: ''Moore did not have a chance to shape a direction he had in mind for the magazine.''
:... isn't NPOV but sounds like it was written by Michael Moore's mom. [[User:Maikel|Maikel]] ([[User talk:Maikel|talk]]) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


== Picture ==
== Picture ==
The pic of the cover for the September/October 2006 issue looks like it was badly scanned. You can get a pic of each issue from 1993 to the present from its own web site. Why not use one of theirs? [[User:Rlh 1984]] ([[User talk:Rlh 1984|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Rlh 1984|contribs]]) 02:51, 17 February 2007


== Merger with The Center for Investigative Reporting ==
The pic of the cover for the September/October 2006 issue looks like it was badly scanned. You can get a pic of each issue from 1993 to the present from its own web site. Why not use one of theirs?

== Progressive ==

Whomever keeps changing it to read 'Liberal values' is missing some marbles. Just look at their about page. It is a Progressive magazine. [[User:Nostep|Nostep]] ([[User talk:Nostep|talk]]) 06:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Mary Harris Jones]]: move to [[Mother Jones]]. Thoughts? ==

Over at [[Talk:Mary Harris Jones#Requested move]] it's been suggested that the article be moved to [[Mother Jones]]. An editor has raised the point that [[Mother Jones (magazine)]] may be the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]] rather than "Mary Harris Jones".

I'm not from the US, and knew nothing about the magazine before a few minutes ago (and I am, to date, the only !voter...) so editors with more experience of US politics and history would be extremely useful in deciding which "Mother Jones" is the primary topic.

Cheers, [[User:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TFOWR|<span style="color:#f00">This flag once was red</span>]]</sup> 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

==Mideast conflict==
It would be a good idea if the article could gather information on the Mother Jones' editorial policies on the Mideast conflict, which is a controversial topic in contemporary journalism. [[User:ADM|ADM]] ([[User talk:ADM|talk]]) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

== Website ==

The Motherjones website has been down for me for weeks. Anybody else have that issue? [[User:Ingolfson|Ingolfson]] ([[User talk:Ingolfson|talk]]) 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
: no.

==Political affiliation==
It's ridiculously absurd that the article won't indicate anything about the magazine's political leanings, when everybody knows it's left-leaning, and the magazine itself freely admits that it's left-leaning (unless there have been some recent radical changes). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

:You would need to demonstrate this claim with reliable sources, per [[WP:TRUTH]]. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

::Why? Who denies it? Who has ever denied it? As per [[Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue]]... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Done. Demonstrated with reliable sources (a peer-reviewed journal article, and an online newspaper that was already being cited in this article). --[[User:Lacarids|Lacarids]] ([[User talk:Lacarids|talk]]) 04:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

==File:Mother Jones May June 2011 Cover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[Image:Icon Now Commons orange.svg|50px]]
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Mother Jones May June 2011 Cover.jpg|File:Mother Jones May June 2011 Cover.jpg]], has been nominated for speedy deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] for the following reason: ''Copyright violations''
;What should I do?
|-
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ([[commons:COM:SPEEDY]] has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
|}

== Neutrality ==

An article on Mother Jones is inherently biased if it cites Mother Jones as its primary source. This is a fundamental flaw that unless fixed prevents the article from approaching encyclopedic. --[[User:Lacarids|Lacarids]] ([[User talk:Lacarids|talk]]) 04:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
:That doesn't make sense. Mother Jones is a perfectly acceptable source for itself if (a) the facts being cited are non-controversial, or (b) we are quoting Mother Jones itself. It would be different if it was being used as a source for "Mother Jones is the most bestest magazine in the universe ever times infinity + 1", but we aren't doing that. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
:: Per [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]], "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." While this article isn't based "purely" on a primary source, it is based "primarily" on one. --[[User:Lacarids|Lacarids]] ([[User talk:Lacarids|talk]]) 13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:::That's a guideline, not a policy. Provided the material is uncontroversial, there can be no problem. Unless you are editing with an agenda? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 18:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Scjessey, please assume good faith. If you're not able to do that, please reread my comment. I'm suggesting that we make the article ''more'' neutral by following Wikipedia guidelines (specifically, [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] and [[Wikipedia:ONESOURCE]]). You are correct, they are guidelines and not policies. You'll notice, however, that I never stated that they were policies. Please try not to correct me for something that I never said. I simply stated that the article could be improved if we removed the bias from it. I'm not sure why or how you could possibly claim that I'm editing with a bias. The only bias I've shown is one for neutrality. --[[User:Lacarids|Lacarids]] ([[User talk:Lacarids|talk]]) 18:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I ''am'' assuming good faith. That being said, you are apparently making quite a big deal about using Mother Jones itself as a source for non-controversial information. While it is preferable to have [[WP:V|verifying sources]], if they are not available we can manage without them. And to be fair, many people claiming to only seek neutrality are actually seeking what they ''perceive'' is neutrality. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 21:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to reframe my issue. Am I critical? Yes, I am critical of the article. I am not critical of the magazine. The article has serious issues with its sources that make me question its “encyclopediality.”

# It overwhelmingly relies on the subject of the article as a source. More than half of the references are links to motherjones.com. See my comments above, and see [[Wikipedia:COI]] and [[Wikipedia:IRS]].
# The link for National Magazine Awards Database is dead <www.magazine.org/editorial/National_Magazine_Awards/Searchable_Database/index.cfm#results>. Without it, the article relies on motherjones.com to cite all of the awards. The article is essentially relying on its subject for praise about its subject. Please see [[Wikipedia:COI]].
# This sentence: “The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones…” The source is supposed to be Mother Jones Speaks: Speeches and Writings of a Working-Class Fighter. The citation is formatted incorrectly (there is a template for citing books); I’ll admit that I haven’t read the book, but I find it doubtable that a book (published in 1983) that purports to contain the writings and speeches of a 19th and 20th century activist would mention that a magazine was named for her. Maybe in the introduction, or the preface though. Finally the publisher is “Pathfinder Press,” which (according to http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=pathfinder-press-cr.xml) has ties to the Communist League of America. I think its fair to assume that such a publisher could have a bit of a bias towards Mother Jones (the historical person).
# This website is cited six times: www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/jone-mar.htm. Again, I refer you to WP:IRS (tertiary sources). I don’t have anything against Lakewood Public Library, but I’m not sure that they’re an authoritative source on this or any subject.
# The article by Alexander Cockburn is incorrectly cited. The title of his article is incorrectly listed as “Beat the Devil.” That was the name of his column. He wrote many articles under that column. Additionally, the source is The Nation, which is self-described as “the flagship of the left” (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CNEFRE/). Finally, the supposed link to the article is actually to World Cat. The link might as well be removed, as the magazine’s World Cat entry is not useful in any way. How was the article obtained? It would be useful to have the database name (i.e. Lexis Nexis or ProQuest), or a link to the magazine’s archive.
# The article by Adam Hochschild…see problems with Alexander Cockburn article.
#
Again, my problem is with the poor quality of the article, not with the subject of the article. --[[User:Lacarids|Lacarids]] ([[User talk:Lacarids|talk]]) 03:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


I've set up a discussion area for this merger discussion over there: [[Talk:The Center for Investigative Reporting#Merge with Mother Jones?]]. [[User:Novellasyes|Novellasyes]] ([[User talk:Novellasyes|talk]]) 18:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:1. [[WP:COI]] does not apply. That relates to editing behavior, not sourcing.
:2. I already fixed the NMA references before you posted.
:3. The biases of the publisher are irrelevant. Fix the citation if you can, but don't question it because of a perceived bias.
:4. I see nothing wrong with the Lakewood Public Library link because it is referencing non-controversial material.
:5. Fix the citation, but don't question the source just because you think it is biased. There's nothing wrong with ''The Nation'' being used as a source.
:6. Ditto.
:What I'm seeing here from you is (a) a misunderstanding of [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:COI]], and (b) a problem with what you consider to be left-leaning sources, when that shouldn't be taken into consideration for the information they are being used to reference. My advice to you is to fix broken references whenever you encounter them and check your own POV at the door. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:26, 8 October 2024

Picture

[edit]

The pic of the cover for the September/October 2006 issue looks like it was badly scanned. You can get a pic of each issue from 1993 to the present from its own web site. Why not use one of theirs? User:Rlh 1984 (talk | contribs) 02:51, 17 February 2007

Merger with The Center for Investigative Reporting

[edit]

I've set up a discussion area for this merger discussion over there: Talk:The Center for Investigative Reporting#Merge with Mother Jones?. Novellasyes (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother_Jones_(magazine)&oldid=1250070264"