Talk:Truthout

Article replaced with press release-style POV text

This entire article is outdated, one sided, biased and showcases a single point of view.

Anonymous user 65.96.221.140 seems to be trying to erase the following section:

“

Karl Rove Indictment Controversy

On May 13, 2006, Truthout.org reported by Jason Leopold, a Truthout.org reporter, that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had been indicted as part of the investigation into the Plame affair. On May 19th, after almost a week had passed with no announcement of the indictment, Truthout.org Executive Director Marc Ash issued a "partial apology". [1]

On June 14, in response to news reports that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald would not be pursuing charges against Rove, TruthOut Executive Director Marc Ash issued a statement[2] that TruthOut was "standing down on the Rove matter." He wrote, in part, "Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday [by the mainstream media]. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications." As to the status of Jason Leopold, Ash writes, "There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically," and, "[W]e stand firmly behind Jason Leopold."

”

- Mcasey666 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This article is protected pending a review and rewrite based on concerns raised by the subject of the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page for the time being. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost three months now. Is there any progress to report? Can we unprotect this page? –RHolton ≡– 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Kelly Martin and Brad Patrick -- this is still on a legal hold; Brad says he hopes to revisit the issue after the first of the year. Until then, protection should not be removed; after that, it should still not be removed until we check with Brad. Mango juice^talk 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of a page being protected for 4 months?(RWR8189 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

As they mentioned, it's a legal issue. My completely unfounded speculation is that Truthout.org objected to the criticism found in the article.[1] Until the legal matter is resolved, this will probably be stuck in its current state. And legal matters can take a very long time. -- Kesh 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a WP:OFFICE action? If so, it should be tagged as such. If not, I'm unclear under what process it's being protected for upwards of 4 months. --Delirium 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is listed under OFFICE. They may have forgotten to categorize it appropriately here, but it's marked on that page. I've left a request with User:Brad Patrick(per the OFFICE page) to see if he can add the proper category tag. -- Kesh 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

completed --Trödel 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link concerns

While I know it's rather pointless to talk about it while the page is protected, but some of the external links look like tangental, somewhat unreliable sources. 68.39.174.238 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which links in particular? And it doesn't hurt to talk about. We can review the article here and come up with improvements for when it does get unprotected. -- Kesh 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short review of the links

TruthOut web site — Official site, no problems with it.
SourceWatch: Jason Leopold — I don't know much about this site, "no vote".
William Rivers Pitt, VFP Mini-Bio — 404 error, definately needs to be corrected (IA or otherwise) or removed.
marc ash vs corallo & luskin. again. — Is related to the subject, but I'm not sure what good it does the articel by just sitting in the EL section without any explanation.
The Left and the Blathersphere — Related, but again, would be more usefull if used as a source for "criticism" (Since that seems to be its angle)
Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again — Also critical, but doesn't seem NEARLY as partizan as the other links. I would tend to prefer this one (For sourcing)
Truthout Got Hacked Revisited — A discussion of the site getting hacked. The articel itself doesn't mention this at ALL, and if noone else (EG. Other sources, the site itself) mentions it, I'm not sure if there is a need for this.
Wonkette Coverage Of Truthout — While a well known blog, I'm not sure if this is useful with 4 entries. Maybe cite some of the entries that could be used to back up an assertion and drop this link?
You Want The Truth? — Personal communication with one of the more contentious authors, seemingly the same thing as the Columbia Journalism Review above, but with some personal attacks thrown in.
Truthout Runs Out Of Truth — Even more about one of their more contentious reporters. Seems like a aggregation of various responses to the story. Update, according to the below comment, this is now a 404 as well!

So, only one that really needs work (The 404), but some others that may be suspect for their really harsh partizanry. If the CJR one contains the same thing as the rest of them it could replace all of them AND be used as a source. 68.39.174.238 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I would have to agree, some of those need trimmed and the rest need to be actually integrated into the article as references, rather than just sitting at the bottom. -- Kesh 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could get permission to remove the partizan links that just duplicate the CJR story? Since they're all more or less redundant to each other, I think having such abrasive and (in at least one case, ad-riddled) links does the present articel a disservice. 68.39.174.238 08:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be prudent - ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Who/Where do we ask to get a review of our intentions? Right now, I'm suggesting that links 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the above list be removed as being unsuitable or redundant. 7 and 8 I don't think are that important, but I don't think they're quite so blatantly violatory so I'll be happy either way. 68.39.174.238 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the WP:OFFICE case, only BradPatrick can edit this article.--RWR8189 01:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ral315 did, although I doubt that minor an edit is likely to cause problems ;D 68.39.174.238 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last link ("Truthout Runs Out Of Truth") now gets a 404 too. CWC(talk) 11:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Article currently says: "It's articles are now carried by many international publications ...." That should be "Its", not "It's".

By the way, what is the legal issue that has caused this article to become subject to WP:OFFICE? --Metropolitan90 20:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No official statement about it that I know of but, if you read through the history, it shouldn't be hard to put together. -- Kesh 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This from the Columbia Journalism Review seems to describe the basic trouble that lead to the noxious state. 68.39.174.238 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Columbia Journalism Review can publish an outright attack piece with no legal ramifications, it seems sad that we're so scared of legal threats that we don't even have the guts to write a basic, neutral article for over half a year now. --Delirium 11:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, Wikipedia doesn't have the deep pockets to handle a lengthy court battle over an article like this. I'd say Jimbo Wales & others are being cautious until they can put an end to that threat, and let the article go back to being edited. -- Kesh 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion it may also have just been forgotten; keep in mind this was done well before WP:OA existed, so it's in grand-father limbo. As to our writing an articel, we're prevented from doing so by the fact the page has been protected. I suspect, however, if we were to hack up a legitimate, well sourced, etc, etc articel somewhere like /Revision one and present BP/JW/WMF with it, they might just let us overwrite the old one with that one.

Support, requesting that an admin make this small change. The possessive of "it" should lack an apostrophe. Jouster (whisper) 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TruthOut Blog

TruthOut no longer maintains a blog and the last sentence should be concerning the blog on the main page should be removed.

LWelsch

Simple Wikipedia.org conversion

Simplyfying and putting up at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthout.org

Resident Mario (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 minutes later... Done! :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident Mario (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has awful sources

The article as it stands has 3 sources, one pointing to truthout.org, one to a pay/registration site, and one to an article that is critical of truthout.org. I think this article needs better sourcing that is independent of the subject and that establishes notability. Bonewah (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the need to establish notability. Truthout is pretty well-known in its leftish end of the news/republishing/blogging internet. Notability shouldn't be questioned when lots of people have heard of it/read it. On the other hand I agree that the sourcing sucks. I came here to kind of check the site's bonafides and have come up empty. jackbrown (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not enough that truthout is well-known in leftist circles, we have to prove it here. Good sources would go a long way in doing that. Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]