Talk:Our Revolution

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Our Revolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics: American Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

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

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rileybathauer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staffing section[edit]

Although widely covered, the staffing issue is not a "controversy" and we should avoid adding a section named as such (see WP:CSECTION). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the last paragraph is necessary after the page lists the board members. When reading articles about Our Revolution, many of them are from groups that are politically biased. Noting this bias may be necessary when citing new information about this topic. Another issue with Our Revolution is that it is not very transparent. Resultantly, information on the movement's progress towards achieving their goals is minimal. Karyan23 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to make[edit]

Precedent: Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson, former unsuccessful Democratic Presidential Candidates, have previously launched progressive organizations that have not gained momentum (1).

Wants to push issues from school boards to US senate

Our Revolution receives backing from People for Bernie, National Nurses United and the Communications Workers of America, amongst others.

During the 2016 Election, the organization supports several ballot measures and candidates who have shown a higher chance of winning elections.

Use citation 2 to source the staffers leaving.

After staff leaving part 501c4. Another factor causing several members to leave was a lack of diversity heading the Our Revolution organization.

Also I would like to add the following citations: CONNIFF, RUTH. "Feeling The After-Bern." Progressive 80.9 (2016): 5. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. Pritt, Pamela. "Sanders announces 'Our Revolution' with national event." Register-Herald (Beckley, WV) 25 Aug. 2016: Newspaper Source. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. "WHOSE REVOLUTION?." In These Times. (October 2016 ): 1427 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2016/10/21. "What's Next for the Revolution?." In These Times. (September 2016 ): 554 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2016/10/21. Linda Feldmann Staff, writer. "Bernie's revolution revs up for 2016 election and beyond – without him." Christian Science Monitor 26 Aug. 2016: N.PAG. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Rileybathauer (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giving WP:UNDUE weight to low-quality sources[edit]

We have a long piece by Politico (a RS), and then we have multiple critiques from a slew of unreliable sources. That's problematic. I think it's fair to include the response by senior members of Our Revolution (even if they're primary sources), but not anything else unless it's in a RS. If we're adding low-quality sources that critique the Politico piece, why not low-quality sources that affirm Politico's reporting[1]? We have a RS policy to avoid this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and was planning to try to fix it. I believe that the Politico info should be cut considerably as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense are the TYT, Common Dreams, and Naked Capitalism sources unreliable, Snooganssnoogans, especially when considering the context and claims being supported?

The Young Turks are a professional news organization with daily program broadcasts on various networks, including historically (and contemporarily depending on the definition) on television. It has a board of hosts comprising professionals in various fields (including journalism) which edit, fact-check, and produce the material. The segment being cited was hosted by Cenk Uygur, the CEO of TYT and a Juris Doctor with at least a decade of history in journalism, and was segmented from their daily broadcast. Given the source itself, I think it is an acceptable use case of a YouTube reference as a secondary analysis. I think it is verifiable and the TYT main show generally, but especially this citation in particular, fails to qualify as even a questionable source.
Common Dreams, which published the piece, are a nonprofit and news site with an editorial staff. The author of the cited work, Michael Sainato, is a freelance journalist who has written for numerous reliable sources and who appears to be occasionally cited on Wikipedia. I think this source qualifies as reliable source.
Although Naked Capitalism is considered to be a "financial blog" and describes its dedicated staff as "bloggers" (Common Dreams, in contrast, accepts submissions), its staff exclusively comprises professional writers, journalists, professors, and experts in various financial topics. Nonetheless, it is the weakest among the three and I understand why it may be considered questionable; however, I still think it is sufficiently reliable for this context and the claim it is supporting.

In all three cases, what is being supported are general claims about the fact that Dovere's Politico piece received noteworthy criticism. This is not an exceptional claim and I think it is due because multiple reliable sources have criticized the report and those critical sources are the majority of sources responding to the piece. If anything, I would consider the Politico piece to be unduly weighted and for the majority to be on the critical side, but I understand that it was a lengthy report from a major news organization, with numerous significant claims, which basically defines the section it's currently in.

Although Erika Andiola never held a position within Our Revolution that is comparable to Zogby's board membership, the Facebook post you linked may technically qualify as a reliable primary source. I am not sure how the source would be integrated into the article, given I do not see what her post offers that is not already covered by better sources, but I do not in principle oppose its inclusion.

The three references I included are not user-submitted comments making outrageous claims under some self-published MySpace blog; they are at worst published works by career journalists from small organizations supporting the mere fact that another published work received a critical backlash for its reporting. The Facebook post you mentioned would probably qualify as a reliable source under certain conditions and contexts. That seems like usual Wikipedia to me. You may dislike that the sources are not from organizations comparable to Politico, and may consider them to be "low-quality sources"; but that does not make them unreliable—especially not in every context—and I contend not in this context for these claims. If you are willing to explain why you disagree, if you still do, I would greatly appreciate it.

For reference, here are other reliable sources I found covering the Politico piece: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So long as you do not object to any of them, some may be worth duly weighted inclusion (as in probably just a citation supporting extant claims), particularly the last three. You might even prefer them. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#1 and #4 are RS. I don't know Bustle and Progressive Army, which strongly suggests that they are not RS. Our Revolution is a primary source, not an independent reliable source. And no, TYT, Common Dreams and Naked Capitalism are not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see reliability issues. You might want to post your views at RSN. TFD (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with opening this up for further input at RS/N if necessary. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bustle is a women's magazine that covers politics and news and which is sometimes cited, though usually better sources are available. Progressive Army is an independent news website established by Benjamin Dixon. The website has an editorial staff of journalists, activists, and a lawyer; and any submissions are reviewed by the staff. I would consider both to be easily passing reliable sources. You may be unfamiliar with them, but I am not sure why that matters. I am unfamiliar with France 24 and KTVB, yet my determination of both is that they would qualify as reliable sources based on my understanding of the pertinent policies, guidelines, and essays available—especially within certain contexts and for certain claims.

Primary sources, including press releases from the article subject, can be reliable sources under certain conditions despite not being independent. I have cited them before and some examples can be found at the DeVry University article. Regardless, why do you think TYT, Common Dreams, and Naked Capitalism are not reliable sources for this context and for the claims? I understand that you think they are not, but not why you maintain that position. Your input matters to me and your rationale would help me better appreciate it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]