Talk:Criminalization of politics

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sources

"that's not even a blogger. you can't cite some anonymous bloke on a message board."

Wait, and the difference is? Benjamin Gatti Why should we take the Wall Street Journal and Judy Miller or Jason (Blake?) any more seriously than an anonymous blogger? I just think that readers must be saavy or suffer the consequences. The idea that censorship is going to protect the reader from falsehoods is ridiculous, uninformed, patronizing, and elitist. Benjamin Gatti

Why should we take the Wall Street Journal and Judy Miller or Jason (Blake?) any more seriously than an anonymous blogger? Because those are Wikipedia's policies. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it feel like I keep running into Ben? And this wasn't even on purpose! Literally just ran into this article. I think I need to find another hobby. ;-) Anyway, I did have something real to say. Ben, is the Wall Street Journal and Judy Miller less reliable than the left wing magazines you like to take quotes from? Is all of the reporting in the mass media "opinion" to you? Not being critical. I'm just asking. --Woohookitty 16:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben can provide his own answer, but I'll jump in with an unsolicited comment. Because of the Plame affair, the issue of WMD's is currently in the news. Taking that issue as one example: During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the obscure left-wing magazines that "responsible" sources sneered at were unquestionably more reliable than Bush cheerleaders like the Wall Street Journal and Judy Miller. I'm not saying we can never quote the corporate media; I'm just saying that NPOV requires us to cast our net more broadly than some editors do. JamesMLane 16:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guriqbal Singh Pandher Says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.145.57 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't what I meant. I think I didn't put it like I wanted to. Left wing or right wing magazines can be quoted, but generally not for authoritativeness though there are exceptions. Wall Street Journal and their ilk are usually quoted for authoritativeness more than the opinion journals, but again, there are exceptions. However, a blogger or a poster on some message board is definitely not as reliable as the mainstream media or a left wing or right wing opinion journal. Ben usually seems to think that it's all the same thing. That his opinion or my opinion has as much weight as the Wall Street Journal. I'm not talking for him...I'm basing it on a long line of comments from him on other articles on here. We have to draw the line somewhere and generally, we draw the line at mainstream publications and opinion journals. Including anything else would just be chaos. --Woohookitty 06:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a "the" line. It depends on the context. For a statement like, "The combined losses of all U.S. airlines in the second quarter totaled $____," I'd feel comfortable simply stating a number, with a footnote, inline citation, or other reference to a Wall Street Journal article (or, for that matter, to a Nation or National Review article). For a point that might well be disputed, however, I wouldn't do that. I'd write, instead, something like "The Wall Street Journal estimated that the Democratic counterproposal would increase the revenue from the tax by a total of $____ over the ensuing ten years," and then the citation. As for a random blogger, I agree with you that such a source isn't the same thing as a well-known publication. Citing a blogger would generally not be appropriate, but sometimes it would be. On some points, a blog would even be a primary source. ("Professor Ivorytower's scholarly article concluded that the term "___" originated in discussions of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, but others disagree, noting that it had appeared several weeks earlier in some blogs discussing the disputed U.S. presidential election." A sentence like that could be followed by links to relevant blogs, as direct support.) To complicate matters further, there are some sources that might nominally be called "blogs" but are generally considered to be in many respects the equivalent of an opinion magazine (e.g., Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo). For "authoritativeness" purposes, I wouldn't see much reason to distinguish among the Nation, National Review, and Talking Points Memo. JamesMLane 12:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a line. I still don't think you quite understood what I was saying. Yes we can link to blogs, but we don't use it as a primary source. Ben tried to use one as a primary source. Here it is. --Woohookitty 13:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken the time to look at the context of that specific example. In general, I agree with you, but there are exceptions. For example, the Killian documents were discussed extensively on blogs, so the article refers to what was going on in the blogosphere, and for that, blogs are primary sources. JamesMLane 20:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a notable term?

I am just wondering. I did some poking around and as far as I can tell this term has only really been used a few times by a few bloggers and journalists who were obviously trying ot coin a phrase and get their 15 minutes. Dalf | Talk 09:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, "criminalization of politics" now gets more than 57,000 Google hits. Even if you exclude Wikipedia and blogs, there are 18,000 hits, many of them in noted journals and media outlets. I think this phrase is pretty well established, and it was well underway even before the current presidential administration. Kestenbaum 07:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get 12,000 following the link you provided, and a phrase comming in with such a low number of hits (even the 57k number), does not make it a real phenomana or even a real term for something that may or may not exist/be happening. Mostly I am just saying that the media in the usa has a pretty amazing power to invent political terms which have specious meaning or application and those terms have a pretty steap half-life. Do they ALL deserve articles when no one will be using them after they haave had their 15 minutes? Dalf | Talk 10:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]