Talk:Discover the Networks

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

does reality have a well-known liberal bias?

To me, this entire project (DTN) is just a blatantly reactionary, right-wing attempt to smear the left. I've spent quite a bit of time on it, and it doesn't include many of the prominent leftists in entertainment that it should (Oscar Hammerstein, for example, is far more prominent than Julia Roberts--Hammerstein wrote speeches for Adelai Stevenson and also wrote South Pacific, which caused an uproar dealing with inter-racial marriage--but that might involve more research). It seems to smear, often without much research. And pretending that the left is responsible for Kaddafi, Hussein, Aytollah Komeni--how can we 'fairly' assess this 'project' and still be true to reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisar (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== I am not sure how to incorporate this response article by Tim Wise, who is profiled on DTN, but it seems to me that it paints a rather poor picture of the quality of the information the site presents.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise06152005.html? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.103.217 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So don't like the site, nuke the Wikipedia page? Seems better to use more neutral language and have a section on criticism than to delete reference to it. I mean there is a Wikipedia page on lots of other political organizations that some people disgree with, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.84.30 (talk • contribs) 20:31, January 19, 2007 (UTC)

Is Discover the Networks a "research project"?

I really question whether one can fairly call Discover the Networks a "research project." As this wiki entry notes further down, the site calls itself a "guide to the political left." As its What Is This Site About page admits, the information on Discover the Networks comes largely from internet datamining. The goal of DtN, by its own admission, is not to conduct research (even if one considers datamining to be research, an organization dedicated principally to research would not simply rely on such information). Instead, the principal purpose of Discover the Networks is to spread "readily available" (again, their words) information (more specifically, it's to smear those profiled using tried-and-true McCarthyite tactics...though to say so might depart from NPOV). At any rate, Discover the Networks is, by its own admission, not a research project. We need a new description of this site, and I fear that I'm the wrong person to come up with one that is sufficiently neutral. BenA 17:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles that I've found there all have been reprints of other articles, chiefly from Frontpagemag.com. -Will Beback 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Issues

This organization is a ring-wing funded watchdog organization of left-wing groups and supporters. It is very partisan and has been controversal, a fact that is not disclosed appropriately in the current version of the article. --MaBellRecreated 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Is Discover the Networks a reliable source? DRK 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant text from WP:RS:

Partisan, religious and extremist websites
The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.

DTN is mostly a repository for material from Frontpagemag.com. I'd consider it to be highly partisan, but not necessarily extremist. IMO it should only be used with care, and its findings should be carefully attributed. -Will Beback 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Context for this poll originates from the article on the MSA, which currently contains a large amount of material sourced solely from DTN. - Valarauka^(T/C) 22:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Valarauka asked me to drop by. As I mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, DTN strikes me as a reliable source for the opinions of its publishers and a place to find topics to research, but not a reliable source for facts and NPOV material. That would apply equally to any partisan website or magazine. William Pietri 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with William Pietri. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt Valarauka and BhaiSaab are expressing their true opinions regarding DTN's reliability as much as they are trying to stifle criticism of DTN. WTPP 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTPP - perhaps you should WP:AGF. Also, notice that every single person who has commented so far in this poll has expressed reservations, and that this talk page already contained three prior, independent conversations all mentioning POV issues, from before the poll. A sample of quotes, if you will:

"just a blatantly reactionary, right-wing attempt to smear the left."
"more specifically, it's to smear those profiled using tried-and-true McCarthyite tactics"
"It is very partisan and has been controversal"

Still think it's just me and BhaiSaab? - Valarauka^(T/C) 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First citation in this article is to mediatransparency.org. Also partisan. And I notice counterpunch.org too. Is it the idea of this poll have citations to discoverthenetworks purged in situations where you would retain those two? And where's the poll on SourceWatch? (Never mind that it's a wiki, which currently has no text on Discover the Networks anywhere...) Come on, folks, what's the agenda here? If you don't like the MSA article for NPOV, edit it. Andyvphil 13:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (emend: SourceWatch link was dead because it still uses "...Network", no "s". So I've corrected it.) Andyvphil 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

DTN article was deleted as non-notable (I think - deleting administrator didn't say) 21 January 2007 after AfD.[1] Deleted article and its discussion was restored to history of article and history of discussion of article (history of THIS page). Some content was transferred to [David Horowitz Freedom Center] and this page is now a redirect to that page. Do NOT restore this article directly from its current redirected state without Deletion Review.[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyvphil (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-redirected six years later, as the site has become an important clearinghouse over the interim. (Besides, if each of George Soros' scores of inter-connected groups are entitled to their own articles regardless of notability, then Horowitz' measly half-dozen can qualify under the same metric.)--Froglich (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not clear there's enough for an article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources and ABOUTSELF

The beginning of the overview section is a WP:MISSION statement using its own website (WP:ABOUTSELF) to describe its own controversial view. Another source is a review of a book posted in the opinion section of Washington Times, that's not much better. If available, an independent source should be used instead. —Paleo Neonate – 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that it was there since the very first revision with citations added later. I removed it and kept what seemed supported by The New Criterion source, —Paleo Neonate – 19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]