Talk:Democracy Alliance
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editDescribing it in the first sentence as "informal" seems wrong. It has an office, website, and staff.Buellering (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first sentence with a more neutral tone. The word "change-makers" was apparently taken from the alliance's own site. Other parts of the article still have the tone of a press release. Ishboyfay (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
https://democracyalliance.org/organization/new-american-majority-fund/ addresses the LACK OF LATINO OUTREACH! CITE FOR MAKITA or what ever their name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2241:D3A0:B8A3:BD18:5C19:EA85 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Washington Free Beacon
editThe Washington Free Beacon is not a reliable, independent source. It is described as a "conservative website" by the Washington Post and an "ultraconservative website" by Politico. And, of course, our own article on the site describes it "conservative" and known for "aggressive, ideologically driven reporting" akin to leftist websites like Think Progress. Capitalismojo wrote in his edit summary that "WFB is RS per RSN" - but I have searched the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I find no evidence that this particular website has ever been discussed there. If I am mistaken, I welcome a link to take a look.
If this were a cite for a particular attribution or an opinion piece ("Senator X argued Y"), then I would have less of a problem. But for straight news, it is absolutely unacceptable to rely on non-mainstream sources. There are dozens upon dozens of media outlets out there - we do not need to descend to the blog/advocacy-journalism level (whether on the left or right). Neutralitytalk 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I recall spending what seems like enormous amount of time with other editors on WFB discussion. I thought it was at RS/N but I, also, can't find the discission there. I appoligize for that. I find it particularly annoying when I'm on a wild goose chase so again, I am sorry for that mis-statement. I really dont't want to rerun previous discussions so am fine with the removal Neut. As a note on RS, ideology is not the defining factor in RS discussions. See WP:BIASED It is acceptable to use news sources that have a point of view. Professional staff, editorial oversight, corrections policy, and standards are some of the factors in such decisions. WFB has a substantial professional staff with journalist who have written for NYT, WSJ, WaPo, LA Times, Wash Times, Financial Times, etc... As it is already over ref'd, I agree with the removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for working with me on this. I do appreciate it.
- I agree that sometimes an ideological source is OK to support a given proposition. (For example, I just cited an ACLU press release to support particular facts: e.g., that they made a given claim and that they filed a particular lawsuit in a certain year). And I have no doubt that the WFB has a full-time, professional staff (but so does Think Progress and other sources).
- But I think should be avoid the use of ideological sources to support contentious labels (like "secretive," "fringe," etc.), especially when we repeat the label in wiki's own voice (rather than attributing it - i.e., X organization describes Y as Z). This concern is especially heightened when a right-wing group is describing a left-wing one, or vice versa. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- An interesting and defensible position. I instinctively like that approach and will therefore consider it at some length. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The ‘Resistance,’ Raising Big Money, Upends Liberal Politics
editNeeds incorporation into article.