Jump to content

Talk:Sam Adams Award

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

2007 award for Andrew Wilkie

[edit]

I didn't find a source directly stating that Andrew Wilkie received the award for 2007 -- I inferred this from the facts that a) one of the sources states that he was a previous recipient of the award and b) the recipients for all other years are known from the other source. It's a bit strange that here and here all other recipients are listed, but Andrew Wilkie isn't. I've emailed him to clarify this. Joriki (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

[edit]

I can't find any references that an "Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence" would even exists; google is pretty silent in this area. →AzaToth 00:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a hoax. There are three sources at the bottom of the page. Two of which could be considered "reliable". One is Harpers magazine and the other is a mainstream danish online newspaper. I will remove the "hoax" tag, but you can place a "notability" tag up if you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided another reliable source: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/013009a.html
JohndanR (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not regard consortiumnews.com as a 'reliable' source, and the Sam Adams Associates, etc. and consortium news seem to revolve around Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA analyst, prolific writer and interviewee on intelligence issues, personable, but given to hyperbole, inaccuracy, and publicity.
For an example of hyperbole, he claims, in a widely circulated video interview available on the internet, possession of a copy of President Truman's notes written before a letter, allegedly written by Truman to a newspaper in which public letter Truman clearly alludes to CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination. In fact, the letter has been reliably researched as very probably coming from a friend writing in Truman's name, and the notes McGovern refers to, but conveniently doesn't bother to show the camera or interviewer, which are a matter of public record, do not appear to contain the same allusion that appears in the Truman-esque letter to the newspaper.
I too, have searched for the mysterious 'Sam Adams Associates...' and given up. If Mr. McGovern himself would like to take a few minutes out of his entertaining talk circuit and make a valid entry in Wikipedia, with supporting documentation, on SAAII, I'd appreciate it.
Much of what McGovern does and says is interesting, often illuminating, in the fashion of, say, Noam Chomsky et al, but he must be heard judiciously, with a certain mental bookmarking for further reference and confirmation or disconfirmation, as the case may be.
Consortiumnews.com meetws the criteria for a reliable source, at least for claims that have not been challenged by any other source. There are other sources in the article too, such as cspan, and there are more reliable sources that mention the award if you look for them. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregcaletta (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will place a notability tag, as I have difficult to see if SAAII is notable enough (google has very few entries as well). →AzaToth 01:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

The award seems notable enough to me, but I will not remove the tag until we can get a third opinion. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange isn't a whistleblower

[edit]

So not all of the award winners have been whistleblowers. 93.133.241.206 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Fair, there is no citation so you can remove it. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and reliable sources

[edit]

I re-added the notability tag. Please don't remove it until consensus has been reached. I agree with the editors above that the article fails to satisfy WP:N. The very existence of the SAAII, and its award, seems to be propagated by unreliable sources. Every single one of the cited sources is an opinion piece or something that appears not to have gone through any editorial process. Notice the use of the first person, the strong statements of opinion, the block quoting of "remarks" and press statements, and some of the promotional language. Making matters worse SAAII doesn't appear to have any web presence beyond a blank Facebook page. It might not be a hoax but it does appear to be a fiction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I re-added it again. If anyone disagrees with my position on this, please please please let's discuss it here? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-re-added it. This discussion indicates we have a consensus of one. If you disagree, why don't you explain why? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't have any doubt that the award is notable, but I am not going to get drawn into a revert-war over the tag. Rather, I'm doing some background reading with a view to greatly expanding this article. By coincidence, RT has been leading its news bulletins with the Sam Adams Award for the last few hours. --NSH001 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Full segment on RT: http://rt.com/news/rt-whistleblowers-snowden-prize-983/ --NSH001 (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for explaining your position here rather than reverting. You might not have any doubts about the organization's notability, but that's not what matters; what matters is that there aren't sufficient reliable sources that talk about it (per WP:GNG). I don't think that a single post from a Russian TV network, one that has been repeatedly criticized as having an anti-U.S. government bias, counts as enough reliable sourcing to satisfy the encyclopedia's notability requirements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to thank me at all, I just dislike wasting my time reverting. Much better to quietly draft a thorough new article (there are plenty of RSs for that, RT among them) behind the scenes, and post it when I'm ready, a much more efficient use of my time. Whether or not RT has "an anti-U.S. government bias" is irrelevant (all media organisations have a bias). --NSH001 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course every source has a bias. But you still need to satisfy WP:GNG, and bias does factor into the reliability of sources and therefore GNG. (E.g. a source with a strong anti-NSA bias is more likely to play up an announcement that paints the NSA poorly.) If there are indeed "plenty of RSs," why not post them here? (I've looked and I can't find them, but you might have had more success.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This new NY Times article demonstrates the problem with the Sam Adams Award, or at least the concerns the Times (one most reliable news sources in the world) is having with it. The article refers obliquely to the award and the organization to explain Snowden's reappearance, but doesn't do it by name. Very odd and unusual. This suggests, to me at least, that the Times, even with its vast investigative resources, couldn't confirm the identity of the either the award or the organization. In other words, the very existence of Sam Adams isn't verifiable, let alone notable. These are the cornerstones of Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to have missed my addition of the AP/Haaretz article where AP interviews someone from the organisation in the context of covering Snowden's award. Existence and notability is now shown. Podiaebba (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I also saw a Washington Post article that mentioned the group. Ok, I agree that the group and award has received some recent press and now satisfies WP:GNG. Please continue to keep WP:RS in mind when citing sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I now agree that the award satisfies WP:GNG (just barely), there are still a lot of unreliable sources that keep cropping up, some of which I have now deleted twice. Please refrain from adding these sources back without discussing them first. The Consortium News sources are clearly promotional, and others don't meet any indicia of reliability (e.g. editorial oversight). "Articles" by the whistleblowers themselves are terribly unreliable as there is obvious bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr., thank you for the edit summaries which point to this talk page, it's good to not assume editors are checking in. There are nuances with respect to an article's RS requirements when the subject matter (such as this) has received little to no 'mainstream' attention, and this is written into the RS guidelines. These whistleblowers, some of whom originated the Sam Adams Award, are of and by themselves considered RS for this subject, and their statements can be used as RS whether they are printed in a personal blog or the NYT. Pease see WP:RS for more on these details. petrarchan47tc 22:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:RS are you referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you could list specifically which sources are bothering you. The line I am referring to is from WP:USERGENERATED "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". All of the recipients and originators of the award meet this criteria. Any quotations from them about the award, or writings by them about the award are acceptable as RS. petrarchan47tc 01:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I sense you're just being disruptive. Are you seriously saying that these sources are acceptable self-published sources, without even bothering to explain how? And you're accusing me of hiding the ball? Which sources... Let's see... maybe the ones I deleted? I'll list them just to humor you:
Ok, so let's get to the nitty gritty. You invoke a language from WP:RS saying that these sources are self-published but acceptable anyways because they're established experts who are published by reliable third-party publications. Ok, so tell me how these people are experts, in what fields, where they're published, and how those publications are reliable. In fact, these people aren't experts beyond the fact that they've had experiences in common, they have no publication histories, and the main publisher you're relying on, Consortium News, has a heavy anti-military, anti-establishment focus and is hardly considered a reputable news outlet.
Then on top of that you completely miss the fact that, even if these sources fit within the exception to WP:SPS that you cite, they still have to meet the other criteria of WP:RS, i.e. bear the usual indicia of reliability. But every one of these sources is an opinion piece at best, written in the first person with heavy laden values statements. Some are explicitly promotional efforts, saying (paraphrasing), "come on down to the awards ceremony next Saturday night!" And then the most obvious point, which is that the authors of these statements are the very whistleblowers who received the awards! Talk about bias. And there's zero evidence that these stories have any editorial review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're getting so excited about. Firstly, consortiumnews.com is run by a highly reputable and award-winning journalist. Secondly, there's no need to rely on these sources for anything other than the fact of the award win; everything else is documentable from other sources that can be taken from the relevant WP articles. Podiaebba (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We want our content supported by reliable sources. Have you even read these sources? Do they reflect even an attempt to offer independent news journalism? Do we have any evidence Robert Parry even looked at these pieces? And what's the basis for him being "highly reputable," a single award he received in the 1980s for -- brace yourself -- exposing CIA secrets? I mean you cannot get more biased and unreliable than whistleblowers writing blatantly promotional pieces about other whistleblowers, being published on a minor website with no known track record of reliability edited by a journalist known for working with whistleblowers. This is pure self-congratulating promotion/advocacy. We're not in that business.
Now, as for your query about why I'm "getting so excited," this really is quite irrelevant as we all edit with our own motives, but I'll tell you why anyway. I have no problem with this material appearing in the article. It isn't particularly controversial and I have no beef with the organization, the award, the recipients, or the cause. What I do have a problem with is articles being larded up with junk sources that not only violate encyclopedia policy but also waste readers' time and damage the article's credibility. Now it's your turn to tell me, what's wrong with leaving the text of the article as is and simply omitting the offending sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that having text supported by no sources is better than text supported by sources close to the organization in question? I mean really, how is it any different than sourcing the awards to the website of the awarding organization, as is entirely the norm on WP? Does anyone get upset about the journalistic or editorial reliability of the website of the awarding organisation? I think consortiumnews is a considerable step up from that, but even if it's on the same level of reliability, that's fine. PS I think you do a very very considerable injustice to both Robert Parry (journalist) and Consortiumnews.com (the latter has featured 3 times in Project Censored stories of the year for example), but whatever, my main point is that this doesn't matter here, when the sources are used for this extremely limited purpose. Podiaebba (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to break my response down to answer each of your questions.
  • Are you seriously suggesting that having text supported by no sources is better than text supported by sources close to the organization in question? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I cite WP:LIKELY in my defense. The simple fact is that we don't cite every sentence in every article. And I don't want to pick an unnecessary fight with those who are just trying to keep the text. As for the sources being close to the organization, as I've written, that's only one of the several problems with these sources.
  • I mean really, how is it any different than sourcing the awards to the website of the awarding organization, as is entirely the norm on WP? A couple of problems with this. First, it's not entirely the norm (as far as I know) and it's not supported by policy for other awards pages either. Second, it's quite different. You're implying that these are primary sources or at least akin to them. They're not. If we were sourcing an SAAII website with a list of recipients, that would be a primary source. More importantly, they must still bear indicia of reliability (e.g. a proven track record corroborated by secondary sources) and "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. (WP:PRIMARY.) Not only that, but if we're saying these are primary sources then we're in WP:BLPPRIMARY land for most of these statements, so we have to be extra careful.
  • I think you do a very very considerable injustice to both Robert Parry (journalist) and Consortiumnews.com (the latter has featured 3 times in Project Censored stories of the year for example), ... I'm evidently not as familiar with these sources as you are, but my brief research on them shows they all have a similar anti-government secrecy agenda. I also have no reason to believe that features in Project Censored make a news organization any more reliable.
  • [M]y main point is that this doesn't matter here, when the sources are used for this extremely limited purpose. I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is of keeping these WP:QUESTIONABLE sources that add very little if anything to the article. (As I suggested, I think they actually detract from it.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIKELY is surely intended for things that are common knowledge, not factual things like this. You're really reaching here, and I don't know why you're bothering. The sources fit the intended purpose, and sources are better than not-sources. I've never heard anyone argue that sources are "distracting" before. If you intend to pursue this, I suggest you figure out how to get more people involved. Podiaebba (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LIKELY is (just as it says) for things that are unlikely to be challenged, not just for matters of common knowledge. Matters of common knowledge have WP:BLUE. What's more desirable, no source or an unreliable source? (Hypothetically speaking, since I understand you believe these are reliable sources.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIKELY is an essay, and you're misapplying it. If a source is removed on grounds of unreliability, then the claim needs a fact tag, which you don't seem to want. I really don't know what you're trying to achieve here. Podiaebba (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you're going to insist we can't keep these statements without citations, then I suppose I want them deleted. Not the choice I would have made, but I'll defer to the consensus. Now, let's get back to discussing the reliability of the sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a citation from The Independent (a mainstream broadsheet national newspaper in the UK, not anti-US) that confirms that both Snowden and Manning have received awards from SA. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to RSN

[edit]

DrFleischman, I have reverted the article back to the version before you started removing what you call "questionable" sources. The suitability of sources depends on what they are being used for. I believe that they are good enough for the purposes of this article. I also believe that many of the assertions you have made in edit summaries, or in the section above, are incorrect. The place for discussion of sources is WP:RSN, and you should take it there if you want to remove these sources. --NSH001 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the noticeboard would be the next step as well. petrarchan47tc 22:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's actually have a discussion about it before suggesting DR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Daniel Ellsberg?

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

Mike Kuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.116.152.86 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Adams_Award&oldid=1209050199"