Jump to content

Talk:Mother Jones (magazine)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mideast conflict

It would be a good idea if the article could gather information on the Mother Jones' editorial policies on the Mideast conflict, which is a controversial topic in contemporary journalism. ADM (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Harris Jones: move to Mother Jones. Thoughts?

Over at Talk:Mary Harris Jones#Requested move it's been suggested that the article be moved to Mother Jones. An editor has raised the point that Mother Jones (magazine) may be the primary topic rather than "Mary Harris Jones".

I'm not from the US, and knew nothing about the magazine before a few minutes ago (and I am, to date, the only !voter...) so editors with more experience of US politics and history would be extremely useful in deciding which "Mother Jones" is the primary topic.

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Website

The Motherjones website has been down for me for weeks. Anybody else have that issue? Ingolfson (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

no.

Unfounded Allegations/Neutrality

The writer of this article did not approach it from a neutral POV and makes unverified claims, such as:

"The magazine devoted extensive coverage to the underpinnings of the Iraq war - from the small group that laid the groundwork for an invasion during the 1970s oil crisis to the Office of Special Plans, the group the George W. Bush administration set up within the Pentagon to make the case for invading Iraq through carefully selecting and manipulating intelligence reports."

I suggest striking/amending the sentence to:

"The magazine devoted extensive coverage to the underpinnings of the Iraq war - from the small group that laid the groundwork for an invasion during the 1970s oil crisis to the Office of Special Plans, the group the George W. Bush administration set up within the Pentagon to make the case for invading Iraq."

Also:

"The founders thought the country was ready for a magazine of reporting that would focus some of its investigative energy on the great unelected powers of the time—multinational corporations."

Again, to maintain neutrality, I suggest:

"The founders thought the country was ready for a magazine of reporting that would focus some of its investigative energy on what they viewed as the great unelected powers of the time—multinational corporations."

Last:

"Mother Jones has also turned its investigative eye on the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, a deeply flawed campaign-finance system, Washington politics, and scores of other issues."

Should read:

"Mother Jones has also turned its investigative eye on the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the campaign-finance system, Washington politics, and scores of other issues."

Quote: Moore did not have a chance to shape a direction he had in mind for the magazine.
... isn't NPOV but sounds like it was written by Michael Moore's mom. Maikel (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Political affiliation

It's ridiculously absurd that the article won't indicate anything about the magazine's political leanings, when everybody knows it's left-leaning, and the magazine itself freely admits that it's left-leaning (unless there have been some recent radical changes). AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate this claim with reliable sources, per WP:TRUTH. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Why? Who denies it? Who has ever denied it? As per Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue... AnonMoos (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. Demonstrated with reliable sources (a peer-reviewed journal article, and an online newspaper that was already being cited in this article). --Lacarids (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

An article on Mother Jones is inherently biased if it cites Mother Jones as its primary source. This is a fundamental flaw that unless fixed prevents the article from approaching encyclopedic. --Lacarids (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Mother Jones is a perfectly acceptable source for itself if (a) the facts being cited are non-controversial, or (b) we are quoting Mother Jones itself. It would be different if it was being used as a source for "Mother Jones is the most bestest magazine in the universe ever times infinity + 1", but we aren't doing that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." While this article isn't based "purely" on a primary source, it is based "primarily" on one. --Lacarids (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a guideline, not a policy. Provided the material is uncontroversial, there can be no problem. Unless you are editing with an agenda? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Scjessey, please assume good faith. If you're not able to do that, please reread my comment. I'm suggesting that we make the article more neutral by following Wikipedia guidelines (specifically, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:ONESOURCE). You are correct, they are guidelines and not policies. You'll notice, however, that I never stated that they were policies. Please try not to correct me for something that I never said. I simply stated that the article could be improved if we removed the bias from it. I'm not sure why or how you could possibly claim that I'm editing with a bias. The only bias I've shown is one for neutrality. --Lacarids (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith. That being said, you are apparently making quite a big deal about using Mother Jones itself as a source for non-controversial information. While it is preferable to have verifying sources, if they are not available we can manage without them. And to be fair, many people claiming to only seek neutrality are actually seeking what they perceive is neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to reframe my issue. Am I critical? Yes, I am critical of the article. I am not critical of the magazine. The article has serious issues with its sources that make me question its “encyclopediality.”

  1. It overwhelmingly relies on the subject of the article as a source. More than half of the references are links to motherjones.com. See my comments above, and see Wikipedia:COI and Wikipedia:IRS.
  2. The link for National Magazine Awards Database is dead <www.magazine.org/editorial/National_Magazine_Awards/Searchable_Database/index.cfm#results>. Without it, the article relies on motherjones.com to cite all of the awards. The article is essentially relying on its subject for praise about its subject. Please see Wikipedia:COI.
  3. This sentence: “The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones…” The source is supposed to be Mother Jones Speaks: Speeches and Writings of a Working-Class Fighter. The citation is formatted incorrectly (there is a template for citing books); I’ll admit that I haven’t read the book, but I find it doubtable that a book (published in 1983) that purports to contain the writings and speeches of a 19th and 20th century activist would mention that a magazine was named for her. Maybe in the introduction, or the preface though. Finally the publisher is “Pathfinder Press,” which (according to http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=pathfinder-press-cr.xml) has ties to the Communist League of America. I think its fair to assume that such a publisher could have a bit of a bias towards Mother Jones (the historical person).
  4. This website is cited six times: www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/jone-mar.htm. Again, I refer you to WP:IRS (tertiary sources). I don’t have anything against Lakewood Public Library, but I’m not sure that they’re an authoritative source on this or any subject.
  5. The article by Alexander Cockburn is incorrectly cited. The title of his article is incorrectly listed as “Beat the Devil.” That was the name of his column. He wrote many articles under that column. Additionally, the source is The Nation, which is self-described as “the flagship of the left” (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CNEFRE/). Finally, the supposed link to the article is actually to World Cat. The link might as well be removed, as the magazine’s World Cat entry is not useful in any way. How was the article obtained? It would be useful to have the database name (i.e. Lexis Nexis or ProQuest), or a link to the magazine’s archive.
  6. The article by Adam Hochschild…see problems with Alexander Cockburn article.

Again, my problem is with the poor quality of the article, not with the subject of the article. --Lacarids (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:COI does not apply. That relates to editing behavior, not sourcing.
2. I already fixed the NMA references before you posted.
3. The biases of the publisher are irrelevant. Fix the citation if you can, but don't question it because of a perceived bias.
4. I see nothing wrong with the Lakewood Public Library link because it is referencing non-controversial material.
5. Fix the citation, but don't question the source just because you think it is biased. There's nothing wrong with The Nation being used as a source.
6. Ditto.
What I'm seeing here from you is (a) a misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:COI, and (b) a problem with what you consider to be left-leaning sources, when that shouldn't be taken into consideration for the information they are being used to reference. My advice to you is to fix broken references whenever you encounter them and check your own POV at the door. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Scjessey, I don’t have a POV here. I’m suggesting ways to make the article better… If I’ve said anything that could be construed as POV, let me know what it was.
I’m not sure why you’re insistent not improving the article. This article relies 100% on sources that either (a) come from the subject itself, or (b) that come from organizations that hold the same political and / or activist agenda as the subject of the article. My problem is with the article, not with those organizations.
1) motherjones.com should not be the primary source for this article. That would be like if Wikipedia’s Fox News entry relied on foxnews.com for more than half of its references, and on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for the other half. You don’t see a problem with that scenario?
2) Thank you!
3) It is dubious that a book about Mother Jones the person hails Mother Jones the magazine. Not all publishers are reliable. Pathfinder Press doesn’t appear to fit the reliability test because it had a political agenda. If you look for the book on WorldCat.org, you’ll note that there are less than 20 libraries in the entire US that carry the book. A gander at a citation index reveals that apparently no other authors have ever the cited book. So the referenced book is from an obscure, defunct publisher with a political agenda, and does not adhere to WP:V. ….Just because something is written online or in a book or a newspaper doesn’t mean that it is reliable.
4) WP:IRS disagrees with you.
5) You are correct, there is nothing wrong with using The Nation as a source, however, there is a problem when nearly all of the works cited have nearly identical political leanings.--Lacarids (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted False Reference

Hi, I deleted one of the references that was cited in the Introduction. The sentence "The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones," cited the book Mother Jones Speaks: Speeches and Writings of a Working-Class Fighter as the source of the info. I borrowed the book through an inter-library loan and verified that said book did not state that Mother Jones the magazine was named after Mother Jones the person. Maybe it's in another edition, but the edition that was edited by Philip S. Foner, printed in New York, published in 1983,by Monad Press for the Anchor Foundation, and distributed by Pathfinder Press does not make any mention to the magazine that is the topic of this article.

That being said, I still feel (as stated above) that the article needs to be checked for neutrality. Our friend SCJessey believes that I am referring to political neutrality...I am not. I feel that the article is written like a list of praises for the magazine. Such an approach is "unencyclopedic," and prevents an honest assessment of the magazine's usefulness, scholarliness, and its strength's and weaknesses. The article could be improved by adhering to WP standards and policies, as I have outlined above, and by referencing sources that don't have a proclivity towards agreeing with the magazine. Currently, the only source that doesn't have said proclivity is Lakewood Public Library--which is a tertiary source, not an expert on the subject, and is referring to Mother Jones the person and not Mother Jones the magazine.

I strongly believe that the article needs work, but obviously SCJessey is not only content but insistent on leaving it in its current state. If anyone else has insight, I'd greatly appreciate it.--Lacarids (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That grossly misinterprets my position. The article is in a dire state, and I fully agree it needs a lot of work to bring it up to snuff. I'd like to see a lot more references to verify the content we have. That being said, when you have stuff that is uncontroversial, the standard of sourcing need not be so stringent. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously lacking article: it does not even name the founders of this publication

No actual background/history whatsoever. 93.80.36.79 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add any background/history you can find that can be reliably sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mother Jones May June 2011 Cover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mother Jones May June 2011 Cover.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The master image of the cover is outdated. It needs to be updated with a more recent cover image as the design of the magazine has changed, and one would think that Wikipedia would want an image that is more current than nearly a decade old. JacquesP07 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Politically Liberal

Is there a problem calling the magazine "left wing" or "liberal"? I think we can say that it leans left as surely as we can say that Fox leans right. More importantly we should be able to do so without doing so in a critical or judgmental manner. I called it "liberal," which someone changed to "left wing," which someone else changed to "far left," which someone else changed to "pro communist." Obviously, things got out of hand, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to accurately describe the subject of the article. I cited two reliable sources:

Both citations were eventually deleted in the decay that I mentioned above. I'm a little concerned that someone removed the citation to the peer-reviewed journal article, saying that we shouldn't cite articles behind paywalls. WP:Verifiability (Accessibility) specifically allows citations from paywalled sources.

In summary (sorry to be long-winded): 1) The article should describe the subject accurately, to include political leanings; and 2) a peer-reviewed journal article is a Wikipedia:RS, even if it's behind a paywall. --Lacarids (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Holes in the article

This article appears to have some holes, which seem to weaken it overall:

  • It indicates the magazine is rooted in "progressive political values;" what does the author mean by that? Another word for "liberal?" The early 20th century American political movement? Please clarify, to avoid the appearance of bias.
The magazine is far left by US standards as far as I know. I did not use that term as it's a word to avoid and is POV. That said I think most everyone, including or especially its readers, would agree it is Left-wing by US standards. After all it is named after an activist for both the Industrial Workers of the World and the Socialist Party of America.--T. Anthony 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What "national magazine awards" has this magazine been nominated for? What categories? When?
  • What does the author mean when he refers to this magazine reporting on "investigative stories that are underreported by the mainstream media?" Also, what does the author mean when referring to "the mainstream media?" Be specific; otherwise, it appears biased.
  • Harper's Magazine is a liberal magazine with more than 200,000 subscribers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.9.53 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would advise changing its outline, to separate examples of stories from its history; that would make it easier to understand.

Additionally, unless this is all analysis by the author, there need to be citations, particularly of any facts listed.

With that said, it does give some useful examples of past articles this magazine has published, in addition to giving its history in brief.

Overall, it needs to be cleaned up, to make it appear more objective and informative.

I agree that this article is in dire need of being updated. There is no mention of its extensive history, its current staff numbers or traffic, no mention of the 47 Percent Story that it broke during the 2012 election, of its unique nonprofit business model. No mention of some of the other notable personalities on staff (Kevin Drum, Tom Philpott, etc.) Also, a lot of the details are outdated and not current. JacquesP07 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you're suggesting was suggested and attempted almost a year ago, by lacarids. It seems that scjessey shut him/her down, as he/she has done each and every time that anyone dares to improve the article. --96.241.77.157 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I undid Revision 653345582 that Scjessey made on 24 March 2015. Scjessey has no right to delete other users' suggestions on the Talk Page, even if he/she doesn't like them. I am very concerned that his/her latest revision is indicative of a larger problem--specifically that Scjessey is monopolizing editing rights on this article... and now on the talk page. --96.241.77.157 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There's absolutely no excuse to delete other users' content on the talk page without their consent, except in very rare situations. If you look at Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, it's pretty clear that this isn't okay. "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The edit Scjessey deleted wasn't off-topic. It was a comment that dealt specifically with this article. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is bullshit. It was removed (and I've removed it again) per talk page guidelines concerning personal attacks. You right-wing POV pushers need to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines properly. Outrageous behavior! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Scjessey, you must be joking. Please read what a personal attack is before unilaterally declaring that something is one. And again, stop cursing and assuming bad faith. In doing so, you are willfully disobeying Wikipedia's guidelines. If I were anything like you, I'd probably just delete your edit because in calling me a "right-wing POV pusher" that would qualify as a personal attack under your ridiculous standards for determining what is such. Does that sound okay to you? Of course not. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not it was okay to remove it, the comment is inappropriate to the talk page so there is no point trying to defend it. If you have something to suggest about how to improve the article you can do so without singling editors out for complaint. Also, do not describe other editors' disputed actions as vandalism, that is also inappropriate. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
So it is best if the whole pointless thread is deleted. Article talk is for improving the article, not commenting on editor behavior. I will wait 24 hours then delete the thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't object, but how about just archiving it, manually archiving (it was an old thread that they commented on), or else setting an auto-archive here? I was thinking of collapsing this thread, but then, there's really nothing to be gained by being confrontational. Wikipedia is full of comments accusing other editors of owning pages, deleting personal attacks and then starting new threads to complain about the deletion of personal attacks, and other unhelpful talk page discussion. As apparent personal attacks it's not that bad. It's all preserved in the edit history, and none of this stuff gets seen by most readers or editors anyway. It's not worth raising anybody's heart rate by more than 1-2BPM over. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Jessey, the point of the comment was that the rest of us can't improve the article. You're monopolizing it. We need to bring in some third party moderators and possibly ban Jessey from editing the article for a while. --96.241.77.157 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Scjessey, do not simply delete this entire section. At the very least, you could archive or move it. But then again, I don't think we're done discussing this. You removed this section and just cited major Wikipedia guidelines sections like WP:NPA, but it's pretty clear that you didn't actually READ the guidelines. Take for example the section that deals with removal of personal attacks, which states "On [talk pages that are not your own], especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I think everyone here agrees that this is not a "clear-cut case" of a "true personal attack." That's what it boils down to. The standards for talk pages are much lower than those for the article itself, and it's totally inappropriate to delete other editors' questionable contributions. Until there is an overwhelming consensus, the edits in question are not "clear-cut" "true personal attacks" and therefore are to remain indefinitely. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq

(talk) 06:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear the IP attacked me personally, rather than suggesting improvements to the article, with both the title of the section and the suggestion of article ownership. I think it is clear the title of this section is unacceptable. I think it is clear your right-wing political agenda means you sympathize with the IP, so you have tag-team-edit-warred over this, as you have done in the past. I think it is clear you are incapable of editing articles of a political nature without bringing in your personal political bias. You have shown nothing but contempt for the project, and your behavior is outrageous. I will be bringing this up at WP:ANI shortly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, I have nothing to do with this section's title. I didn't start it and I never changed it. Second, I'll agree with you that THIS section is pointless with respect to the article itself, but the original edit on the talk page that you deleted was pertinent and not a "clear-cut" personal attack. And in lieu of simply reverting your action, we decided it would be fair to talk about it with you. You're welcome to move this section to your talk page, as I have previously suggested. Moving on, the rest of your comment is just you attacking me, as you have to so many people so many times... I don't know why on earth you think I have "contempt" for the project. But in deleting the talk page suggestions of other users, always assuming bad faith, cursing out users, and disregarding the guidelines, you have repeatedly exhibited behavior that is not consistent with Wikipedia's spirit. So please do not make such a bold accusation against others. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bill O'Reilly

I notice that User:Scjessey has been patrolling this article for years to make sure that only left-of-center sources are used in this article, and if anybody introduces sections with alternative viewpoints he immediately attacks them with accusations of POV-driven editing (ironic, eh?). Perhaps he should check out WP:GOODFAITH. But not to get off topic, recently he has reverted a criticism section to this article. It is my opinion that Bill O'reilly's commentary meets the necessary criteria-- 1) It is properly sourced. Scjessey contends that Fox News isn't a reliable source in this instance, which is absolutely ludicrous because this is a DIRECT QUOTE and therefore one source acknowledging the existence of such is entirely sufficient. 2) It comes from a noteworthy person and is relevant to the article. Scjessey may be convinced that O'Reilly is a "right wing whack job", but regardless he is undeniably noteworthy. 3) It improves the weight of the article by introducing alternative viewpoints that are held by a significant portion of the population. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If Bill O'Reilly were a fringe source, by the very definition of "fringe" he couldn't be the most watched cable news host in the United States. Let's throw our personal biases away from a moment and acknowledge that, like it or not, Bill O'Reilly represents a fairly mainstream point of view in today's United States. And let's not forget that including his quote isn't the same as endorsing it. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For crying out loud. There are several problems with including this Bill O'Reilly crap:
  1. Bill O'Reilly is a noteworthy person, but his comments about Mother Jones are not noteworthy. There's very little media coverage of his comments.
  2. Billo works for Fox News, so using Fox News as a source is outrageous. You must use a secondary source.
  3. Whether or not people watch Billo is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not his comment about Mother Jones is noteworthy, which it isn't.
  4. Billo's comment adds absolutely nothing of value to this article. It's a spat between David Corn and O'Reilly that will blow over by the next news cycle. It's beneath Wikipedia to include this crap.
  5. The kind of "balance" Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq seeks is the same kind of "balance" you find on Fox News: POV bullshit that only the lunatic fringe believes.
-- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
And Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq needs to self-revert this immediately, because that's just blatant edit warring to get POV crap into the article. It should only be in the article if a consensus agrees with its inclusion, which is extremely unlikely. And criticism sections are examples of crappy writing, per Jimmy Wales. They are shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please, calm down. It's clear that you don't like Fox News, calling their viewers the "lunatic fringe." (and you say I'm the biased one). But that's all just your opinion. Look, if it makes you feel better, I'll add an additional citation from CNN. Or are they also a bunch of lunatic fringe maniac deranged whackos, as you might say? Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You've completely failed to address my concerns. First of all, you must remove the section you tendentiously re-added until a consensus has been reached on this talk page. Then you need to convince me we need a criticism section (never going to happen), or that Billo's opinion is valid at all in the first place. You seem to have no idea who to work collaboratively, preferring instead to just ignore the views of others. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I have addressed your concerns. You said it was poorly sourced, that Fox News isn't reliable... so I added another source. And a criticism section is necessary, quite simply because Mother Jones has been widely criticized by notable people. In its current state, the article only presents one point of view on the magazine, and that just doesn't reflect reality. And in response to "you need to convince me... that Billo's opinion is valid at all in the first place" uh, no I don't. I don't need to convince you that his opinion is valid because the quote is framed (i.e. "Bill O'Geilly said...") and the paragraph in no way endorses his claim; it just acknowledges it. The article on White Supremacy or Al Qaeda or whatever contains objectionable quotes from "unreliable" people, but it doesn't matter because they are direct quotations and clearly distinct from the overall message conveyed by the article. Such is the case here. And I'm not ignoring your views; I think I took in what you said and changed the article in a positive way, adding a source and casting doubt on the legitimacy of O'Reilly's claims by providing the background behind his antipathy towards the magazine. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Billo's comments have received very little coverage indeed. Almost none, in fact. So it just isn't noteworthy. Again, it adds nothing of value to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, the spat between O'Reilly and MoJo received considerable coverage in national media:

--96.241.77.157 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloated Awards Section

OK, the awards section is seriously bloated. Half (actually most or all) of the awards listed here are irrelevant and unheard of. It seemed a little bit odd, so I did some digging. Turns out that ALL of the awards (except for one irrelevant "Utne award") listed on the Wiki page are listed on Mother Jones' press page.Without looking in the article's history, it's obvious that the author cherry-picked the awards section straight out of the hyperlinks provided by Mother Jones' own shameless self-advertising. Two changes are needed:

  1. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for advertising. This article is clearly allowing that to happen.
  2. Only relevant awards should be listed.

--96.241.77.157 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I've cleaned up the National Magazine Award sentence and updated it with a better reference. And who are you to decide which awards are relevant, and which are not? Also, I've removed the silly "by whom" templates, since the nomination procedure is explained at National Magazine Awards. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Jessey, your reply to me is typical of your previous monopolization of this article.
Who are you to call my edits "silly"? The article uses the passive voice way too much. The result is an article with poor style that's difficult to read (even after you removed "by whom" tags and "cleaned up" the awards section).
I have just as much right as you do to say that a certain award is or isn't relevant. Let's reverse your question: Who are you to decide which awards are relevant and which are not?
Who are you to call my edits "dumb"?
This type of behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are monopolizing the article by bullying anyone that tries to make it better. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NPA

--96.241.77.157 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong and ignorant of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it seems. Maybe in the future, when you've accumulated a little more experience and "wikiwisdom", you'll look back on your actions here with the embarrassment they deserve. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mother Jones (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not Subjective

The article appears to lack subjectivity. Its authors and therefore the article itself treats the subject with a certain reverence. The result seems like an ringing endorsement that the magazine's editor Clara Jeffery would appreciate. --63.243.196.34 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mother Jones (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Magazine Reception and Criticism from Left-wing

S1d6arrett23 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Progressive

Whomever keeps changing it to read 'Liberal values' is missing some marbles. Just look at their about page. It is a Progressive magazine. Nostep (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


2018-2019

It's a radical leftist magazine by the standards of American politics in 2018. "Liberal" is not only true, it's generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.173.70 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, I edited the lead paragraph to remove the word "progressive" from the description of the magazine, which had been intended to describe its political POV. That started a small discussion that resulted in the current description of Mother Jones being "variously described as either liberal or progressive", with links to those topics. This is a much better explanation of how the magazine is perceived. It accounts for what is clearly a topic of public debate by describing the debate without declaring a winner. To all who contributed to those changes, thank you! Good job! EveningStarNM (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother_Jones_(magazine)/Archive_1&oldid=1086424392"