Talk:Common Dreams

Founding fathers
I've removed the statement "Common Dreams publishes editorials that support their view of the original vision, or "common dream", of the founding fathers of the United States." which was changed to "Common Dreams publishes editorials that support their view of the original vision, or "common dream", of certain of the founding fathers of the United States. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison can be included in the list of the founding fathers represented by the group that refers to itself as "progressive."" by User:Son of Man. I couldn't find support on their website or elsewhere for the general claim, much less the specific claim about which founding fathers. If someone has a source for this claim, please provide it. Thanks ! FreplySpang 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information
This information continues to be removed:

Category:American media Category:Progressivism Thanks. Travb (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Common Dreams: About Us
 * Which are the Most Popular Progressive Websites?


 * Promotional in nature. WP:NOT.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A few quotes from the 335 articles on Lexis Nexis mentioning Commondreams
From the first 37 of the 335 references to commondreams.org on Lexis Nexis:

Removed one external link
I removed one external link:



The entry for Commondreams on the site is one sentence, in a long list of websites.. Travb (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Discover the network
Discover the network is not a reliable source. It lacks verifiability from other locations, it has a strong bias, it is rarely corroborated and never cited by other sources. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Also I believe it is the web version of a published book.  --BenBurch 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not. Given that you had that mistaken belief, alow me to request that you become fully informed. Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, sir. I confused it with a book of almost the same title, and as Horowitz has SO many books in print, thought it must have been another of his.  --BenBurch 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Editoralizing moved from article page
Confederate Yankee
 * Claims that Common Dreams uses questionable sources, and makes the claim that their reported story relating to Hurricane Katrina Issues - Prisoners Abandoned to Floodwaters is totally inaccurate, quote "Not Even Close".

Freedom of Speech
 * Common Dreams will delete any "discussion" item that does not march in lock-step with their agenda. It is not a true discussion forum, but rather a gathering of like-minded leftists who do not tolerate questions or contrary views.

69.150.209.15 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Admittedly, its editorializing ~ but true never-the-less) User:130.76.96.15


 * I believe you. I have no problem with this being in the article, as long as it is sourced. 69.150.209.15 13:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

banned users
Someone (I assume who was banned from Commons Dreams) keeps adding criticism in regards to the site's banning policy. The first edit was unsourced OR. The second edit was sourced, but using blogs. If there are reliable sources (mainstream) that mention this controversy, find them and add those to the article.  APK  (If You Wanna)  05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the criticism section, I have added information, with citations, regarding Commondreams deletions and bannings of commenters to it's articles - particularly the way it bans those who criticize mainstream liberal positions from the left. In comparison, does say, freerepublic.com ban posters who are "too right-wing" - or who criticize conservatism from the right?  This documented behavior is noteworthy and should be in the article.

In response to the need for "mainstream sources", where in the "mainstream" can someone find any information regarding Commondreams at all? "Agnostic preachers" kid himself acknowledges their practice of banning critical comments from the left - comments that aren't inflamatory in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.107.6 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't acknowledged their banning policy. In fact, I've only visited the site once and found it to be rather lame. The only thing I care about in regards to Common Dreams is that if you're going to add criticism to their WP entry, then it must be sourced. If you can't find a mainstream source mentioning their banning policy, then it isn't notable enough for inclusion on their entry.  APK  (If You Wanna)  05:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't multiple, named "eyewitness" accounts of the banning practice a suitable source? And if web-logs or political commentary web sites aren't "reputable" than can any internet sources be trusted - including Wikipedia itself?  Earlier cited sources in the praise and criticism section are the Amateur-run Portland Indymedia Center and the Pundit Bill Moyers - plus promotional writing from the Commondreams site itself.  How are these considered reputable "mainstream" sources?  Remeber, the section of this article is titled "Praise and Criticism".  So don't I merely have to establish that sources other than the author exist for this criticism?

I will add my proposed edit below. Please advise how it can be improved.. Thank-you.

Commondreams.org has also been criticized for it's practice of banning, without any form of notice, users of it's reader-comments utility. Uniquely among political web sites, it practice is to ban those who those who deviate beyond a certain moderate position, in this case, people regarded as "too left". This includes those who offer criticisms of liberalism, or the US Democratic party from a leftist perspective. Most notably, a dramatic "purge" of left-critics of Democratic party candidates occurred just before and after the November 2008 election. All comment deletions and bannings occur with considerable opacity, and those who even tangentially mention comment deletions or disappearance of commenters themselves get "disappeared". No notice or explanation from the moderator is ever given - even after repeated e-mail and phone requests for clarification from the person banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.107.6 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A Wikiuser nicked "Mewulwe" ("Me-cunt??") keeps scrubbing mention of Commondreams.org's practice of deletions and banning. This should now be considered vandalism.

85.166.121.208 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Mewulwe" has again deleted, without comment, the entry under "praise and criticism" documenting Commondreams' censoring. He really should desist in this edit-warring. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Independence
I question the statement "This policy was established to assure its independence as a media outlet" With articles like http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/30-5 it is fairly obvious that commondreams.org is not independent. 94.210.170.127 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common Dreams. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225045819/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/106749.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/106749.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Add logo
Would like to add logo to info box. Not sure how to, but please help if possible.

https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/cd_stacked_white_facebook_commondreams.org_.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brahmsmount (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common Dreams. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000728/http://www.wweek.com/editorial/2916/3631/ to http://www.wweek.com/editorial/2916/3631/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Common Dreams should be callled propaganda
Not in the perjorative sense. The site's history is clearly as an outlet to spread ideas, but not to necessarily challenge any of the status quo or criticize fundamental functions of the US Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.173 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Common Dreams is corporate funded
Common Dreams uses the following advertisement "No firewalls. No advertising. No corporate sponsors". The biggest sponsors of the website are wealthy individuals and foundations and these sponsors have control over content on the website. Firewalls is not used in the technical sense either and refers presumably to some of idea of quality or journalistic objectivity. No advertising refers to the form of ads that more people are probably familiar with, however data use (theft) from visitors used by the owners of the website is clearly used for the same purpose and much more. Note that this entry has used a one line sample of self-promotion from the website. Legal definitions of non-profit aside the absurdity of stating that the website is not funded by corporations (a deception) suggests the website is devoted to corporate profits much like the political party that it is associated with.

Consider the following well designed propaganda piece which is typical for most articles published by Common Dreams. This is an example of a paid op-ed that hides most facts. Commondreams will not denegrate a powerful US Bank:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/05/02/milestone-moment-jpmorgan-chase-announces-former-exxon-ceo-no-longer-be-lead

JP Morgan has been described (by criminologists) as an outlaw corporation or "too big to prosecute" and this is continuous with repeated fines and penalties as a routine cost of business. JP Morgan Chase has laundered drug money from cartels, created the financial crisis primarily to fund war which (as a direct result) put millions of Americans out of their homes, jobs, and future financial security. Chase has funded mass incarceration, funded and participated in destroying civil liberties, supported Apartheid in Israel and supports militarism. JP Morgan apparently has a free pass from the US Government to be as "evil as they want to be." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.221.162.132 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)