Talk:Truthout

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article needs some love

I am going to be adding a lot of information and updating this all day today. I am open to help from other contributors.Houseofbath (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article replaced with press release-style POV text

This entire article is outdated, one sided, biased and showcases a single point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.85 (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. I am working on improving the information and sources here. Care to help? Houseofbath (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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

Fixed. Houseofbath (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved by nominator. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthout.org → Truthout—This article should be titled as the organization name: Truthout rather than Truthout.org as Truthout is a non-profit organization that is not limited to the website. They also produce a newsletter and hold public meetings and events. truthout.org should redirect to the new title Truthout (1st time). --Houseofbath (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

uncited

I moved this from the article, feel free to cite and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthout has published many reports claiming that the Bush administration allegedly crafted a policy and practice of torture implemented by senior White House officials in the aftermath of 9/11. A report published in May 2009, in which Truthout identified as a purported FBI email released under the Freedom of Information Act which stated that President George W. Bush had personally ordered military interrogators to use dogs and other methods to intimidate detainees captured in the "war on terror." The report was picked up by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s Countdown,^{[citation needed]} who called into question previous claims by the former president that he was not directly involved in the decision-making process regarding interrogation policy.

Additionally, Truthout was the first to report that the CIA and the White House allegedly micromanaged the torture of the first “high-value detainee” captured after 9/11, Abu Zubaydah. It was also the first to report that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had allegedly advised the White House on how to avoid war crimes charges, just a few months before CIA interrogators began to use enhanced interrogation techniques against prisoners held at secret black site prisons.

contributors

Art Levinehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine this claim is not in the citation provided Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

claim in the lede

Where is this cited to, I can't find it anywhere, the one cite does mention truthout for that person only..kelpie wilson. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthout's notable contributors have included Noam Chomsky, Dahr Jamail, Henry Giroux, Howard Zinn, Jason Leopold, Bill Moyers, Andy Worthington, Kathy Kelly, Norman Solomon, Joshua Frank, Anne Elizabeth Moore, William Rivers Pitt, Kelpie Wilson[6] and Dean Baker.[citation needed]

I see those names here except for Noam Chomsky and Joshua Frank.

It wouldn't surprise me if Truthout had "borrowed" Chomsky and Frank columns and tried to claim "fair use." If so, it wouldn't be fair to associate their names with Truthout.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. edited to comments and added cite. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Truthout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laughably biased

This "entry" is so biased, one can't help but laugh at it. The lede is a press release extolling the unqualified awesomeness of Truthout, and its diverse lineup of independent voices. Moreover, not a single issue discussed in this entry can even remotely described as undercovered, contrary to the claims made in the opening paragraph. The section devoted to "Coverage Examples" tries to give the impression that Truthout is the most important and influential news organization in the world.72.49.235.222 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest what specifically these sections should be changed to? The portion of the lede that is the most... advert-esque is the line "According to its web site, As an organization, Truthout works to broaden and diversify the political discussion by introducing independent voices and focusing on undercovered issues and unconventional thinking." and at least me say "According to its web site". Im open for a change, im not sure what to change it to though. Bonewah (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember when the webmaster used to be on Yahoo News Message Boards and advocated 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. As far as I know, they still do. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wp:UBO examples

AP News: [2][3]
Daily Dot: [4][5][6][7][8]
Engadget: [9]
Al Jazeera: [10] (opinion)
ADL: [11]
SPLC: Frequent in link compilations (Hatewatch Headlines)
The American Conservative: [12]
Columbia University's History News Network: [13]

This is just a sampling of examples.

Jlevi (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in desperate need of some updates!

This article is suffering from neglect and trolling. Wanna help spruce it up?

Some possible areas of improvement:

- Add content and coverage details. - Add impact narratives. - Strengthen links and citations. - Add Truthout authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm4756338 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WRP?

I never learned how Will & Fitz ended up at Truthout. Oh, well. This reads like AstroTurf 2601:19C:5280:9A0:E9B2:1C6:CB9:567D (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]