Talk:Abby Martin

Good article reassessment

Abby Martin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: There is no consensus to delist the article. One editor supports delisting, one editor opposes delisting, and one editor is neutral. There is no consensus that the article does not meet the good article criteria, so this defaults to the article's retaining good article status. Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• The edit controversies you refer to in the above began with you and another user edit warring and destabilizing the article due to your own POV pushing. Additionally, the content you describe as “fabricated information in the article not supported by sources” is, in fact, real, accurate, and verifiable and supported by the original sources found in the GA reviewed version that you appear to have discarded. So, not only are both of your claims false, you yourself appear to be responsible for the current state of the article, which makes your attempt at reassessing it both duplicitous and in bad faith. The solution, therefore, is not to reassess the article, but to revert and rollback all your changes and to restore the last good version. However, because I am no longer active here, I will not be participating in any changes moving forward. I just wanted to comment on your poor edits and bad justification for this reassessment and to observe that you should not be allowed to edit this page. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: Thank you for your reply and using your good faith to accuse me of having information "discarded". This is not the case. Looking at the article when it originally was granted GA status, there were some different sources used, for example RT's discovery of Martin and the information that was not originally only sourced by a college research paper. I did not remove such sources and much of this happened before my edits. I am only bringing this article to be reassessed because of genuine concerns regarding edits between the original GA article and what is currently posted. Since I can now see the original sources presented, I may be able to add them back and fix some issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I stand by my comments, more so based on your reply to my concerns. How could you possibly request a GA reassessment without doing the bare due diligence, namely, checking the originally reviewed version? You are clearly biased against Martin based on your previous edits, and your claim to be interested in this reassessment is just an attempt to remove its quality rating. I therefore have zero interest in discussing anything further with you, and it’s this kind of extreme incompetence and blatant POV pushing that has led me to lose all interest in Wikipedia. Don’t ping me again. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I will not ping you, but I admit that this is my first time requesting a GA reassessment. It was only done purely because I noticed multiple issues (mainly missing sources and WP:OR) and thought that there may be more fundamental issues with the article. Just replying to your response and thanks for sharing your concerns.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• @ZiaLater: I made some edits to the article. There is still a tag asking for a better source, and I agree the source is not great. The statement does not seem very controversial though. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• A lot has been reverted or removed. I tried. I feel the lead is too short, but YMMV. All in all Neutral on its good article listing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cunard: @Aircorn: please let us know what is going on with this reassessment. As of today 17 June 2019, the template at the top of the article says "The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)" That links here. MPS1992 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I closed the reassessment as "no consensus to delist" after a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Would you or someone else be able to help with the technical work of closing a good article reassessment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

9/11

Recent changes seem helpful, but "9/11 conspiracy theorist" is still not Martin's Career - just like JFK/Grassy Knoll or Moon Landing Hoaxer is personal belief, not Career. Abby Martin is not even mentioned on the "9/11" page, but this is: "In 2008, 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a 'greatest conspiracy theory' list compiled by The Daily Telegraph. The list was ranked by following and traction." The article still makes it sound like Martin was a key figure in this movement, not a random adherent of a popular movement. If we are going to add "Grassy Knoll adherent" to every relevant Wikipedia biography, lot of work ahead. Also, no idea why 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and 9/11 Truth are separate articles. PLawrence99cx (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

She was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and RS have covered it. So should we. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

People are not "theorists". They maybe have theories or suscribe to theories. I suggest it is an infringement of neutrality to give such prominence to year old views a journalist has since relinquished in a living biography by denigrating them in the lead as a "conspiracy theorist". If we follow the guidelines for Biographies of living persons "...biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

People who push conspiracy theories are conspiracy theorists. If you disagree, you can start a RfC or consult with the Fringe noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Or we can take this up with the BLP noticeboard. Honestly, you think the description as a conspiracist belongs in the lede, while her board membership does not? What is the distinction, exactly? They are BOTH covered in the article. In any case, the description has to go. From WP:BLP: "Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources." This description is controversial. It is not "commonly used". It goes. Eaglizard (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

One is reliably sourced, the other is entirely unsourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You still have not argued why this description is not in violation of WP:BLP, Snooganssnoogans. It is still controversial. Unless you can show that it is a "commonly used" description, then it is a clear violation of BLP and should be removed. I will give you time to reply here before I revert your edit. (Also, you might consider reviewing WP:LEDE. Why does this particular description of someone she used to be but has disavowed belong in the lede?) Eaglizard (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There are several RS that have covered her involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy theories movement, with one entire subsection devoted to it in the body, in addition to one third of the 'reception' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Let's see what someone else says. Eaglizard (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

But this is a BLP, so the BLP noticeboard is far more appropriate. Other than Snoogy, nobody seems to think fringe theories are relevant here in the first place.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

RfC: 9/11 Truther

Should the lede describe her involvement in the 9/11 Truther movement? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. For two reasons: (1) This is something that reliable sources frequently note when they cover her (and it's not as if RS are giving this person a lot of coverage): AP, NY Times, Washington Post, National Post, New Republic, Buzzfeed News, Newsweek, Huffington Post, Daily Beast and so on. (2) Besides her criticism of the annexation of Crimea, her involvement in the 9/11 Truther movement is covered at greatest length in the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Here's the body of the article[2] prior to GPRamirez5's reliably sourced white-washing of content from the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Seems amply sourced by RSes, and a significant portion of her career. Possibly we should also mention that in 2014 she stated that she no longer subscribes to these views - however this does not erase her prior work in this area. Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It actually doesn't seem to be a part of her career at all. Most of it happened before she was a professional journalist. And as a journalist, she disavowed it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (coming from BLPN). Given the small amount of weight relative to the rest of her career, and that she has stated she has moved beyond that. It still needs to be mentioned in the body, no question, but with the current short lede, its really UNDUE to put it there. --Masem (t) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given she renounced such views before becoming known I'd say it's undue. She was young and angry about an unjust war. And I don't think being a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" was ever considered a career path. A brief mention in the body is one thing, but including it in the lede is something else. The body as it is now smacks of WP:CHERRY, is excessive and is written in a way which presents the subject of the article in a negative light. I think trimming it would be a good thing for this BLP.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is NOT robustly sourced. I did a google search for "9/11 Truther movement abby martin" ... not a single one of the sources that included such info is solid news agency. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude, did you check the article and its references? New York Times, Atlantic, WaPo? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the violation of BLP explained by me earlier. Plus the editor trying to include this appears to have an agenda of including only negative info, so it might also be a violation of neutrality.Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I was wholly unfamiliar with the subject of this article, until solicited today for comment. I presume it was a bot that generated that solicitation. I read many of the comments on this talk page, but felt there was no preponderance of the evidence supporting either position. Going to the article, in the "early life," section, I saw that the source of her bio material was tagged as needing a better cite, but in fact, the still-retained material was essentially self-published. Then I looked at how long she adhered to 9/11 "truther" beliefs. The attack occurred when she was only 16, but it took her more than 13 additional years to realize that narrative to which she had adhered was bunk. She worked for years for a network that is specifically designed to promote fictional views of geopolitics/"fake news" crafted in the interests of the owner, the Russian state, that are also bunk. That's quite a delay in the eventual advent of a "moment of clarity." It reflects what appears to be a diminished capacity of, or resistance to, critical thinking. This doesn't mean that she's usually wrong, or a bad person, and I don't think either would be an apt description of her and she is obviously talented. So, in the absence of more persuasive arguments, I'm strongly in favor of keeping that in this article's lede. It's very basic. It seems to be who she is. Activist (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The lead is a summary of the article, and this makes up a good chunk of it. Naturally it should mention that she has since renounced those views, and if people want to summarise other parts of her career then that's good too. When an intro is this short we don't need to start worrying about weight unless adding other information in the same level of detail would make it too long. (MOS:LEADREL: "[Due weight] should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.") Based on the current article I'd give the topic about two lines. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It is the reason the became notable in the first place, it is still often mentioned when she is discussed in RS, and above all, it is significantly covered in the body of the article and therefore should be summarized in the lead. The lead is not just for current career and current views, it is for summary of the body. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, well sourced, significant and as noted above probably the reason she is anything other than totally ignored. Guy (help!) 18:37, 15 October 2019 (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.

Buzzfeed

I removed the following text from Abby Martin#9/11 conspiracy theories: "A 2015 BuzzFeed News article stated that beside being active in the 9/11 truth movement, Martin "frequently showcased other conspiracy theories"." My notation was "the Buzzfeed article is about Martin's show which is covered in the next section." Snooganssnoogans reverted with the notation: "restore rs content. i'm fine with this being here. but it can also be moved to a section on her show."[3]

The source used says, "Martin, an antiwar activist and artist, has also been involved in the 9/11 truth movement, and her show has frequently showcased other conspiracy theories."

This information repeats what is already in the article. "9/11 conspiracy theories" already says that Martin, "was part of the 9/11 Truth movement, starting her own 9/11 Truther group...." The next section, Abby Martin#Breaking the Set and work for RT says her show "investigated conspiracy theories related to water fluoridation."

Basically, the text adds nothing to the article and is confusing. It implies Martin had a show when she was in the Truth movement. It's not clear why Buzzfeed should be mentioned in text.

TFD (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Gaza Fights For Freedom

AM is currently doing the rounds for her new film - 'Gaza Fights For Freedom'. This challenges the mainstream narrative that Israel is currently being attacked by an oppressive and violent regime from Palestine. Please bear this in mind with edits, as the more she tours and exposes what Palestine is having to endure, the more pro-Israeli / AIPAC lobbyists are going to be on here smearing her with impunity Apeholder (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy theories

The first sentence of this section has 8 references which is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This is overkill since all the sources refer back to an original source, a 2008 inteview of Martin included in a youtube video posted by the truther group WeAreChangeLA (9-11 Truth March 10-11-08 Santa Monica Part 3 FIREFIGHTERS.) I suggest we trim this back to the NYT blog post "Russia Today Host Has Roots in ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement" by Robert Mackey (Jan. 20, 2016 1:15 PM)), which uses the video as its source. The next sentence, which explains what Martin said in the interview, could be sourced to the youtube video. Also, we should mention that these stories were published in response to Martin's criticism of Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

TFD (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason why many sources need to be cited is because some editors will inevitably claim (a) Martin did not promote 9/11 conspiracy theories, and (b) Martin's promotion of conspiracy theories is UNDUE. Because some editors are incapable of editing this encyclopedia in good faith and in a consistent principled manner, it's sadly the case that it's often necessary to cite a million sources to fend off these bad faith challenges. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

And no, we absolutely do not need to insinuate to readers that RS are 'going after her' for daring to criticize Russia's invasion of Crime or whatever it is that you're suggesting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT source says that Martin has been in the news for criticizing the invasion has roots in Trutherism.[4] The ATlantic source says, "Later its D.C.-based host, Abby Martin, was praised for denouncing Russia's invasion of Ukraine on air and proclaiming her editorial independence from the network (later still, and this is not totally related, it was revealed that she's an avid 9/11 truther!)."[5] The Huffpost article is about how Martin criticized the invasion, before mentioning she was a truther.[6] In fact all these articles are about her criticism of the invasion and her trutherism. While I am not implying a connection between the two, the fact is they were reported at the same time in the same articles.

Whenever I see multiple footnotes, my assumption is that editors are using multiple weak sources to compensate for the lack of any good sources. Your comment that it is necessary to show weight doesn't make sense. You need to prove that on the talk page not in the article, otherwise lots of articles would become unreadable.

I suggest you take time to think this out, because I don't think these changes would harm any meaning, but would merely make the reading clearer.

TFD (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I came here to make the same point as the original poster. Martin making a handful of comments around 14 years ago is definitely overkill to make it such a prominent point here. It's clearly a bad-faith position being used to simply write off her entire career as a "crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorist". Unfortunately with articles like this a certain core of others, there's one particular editor who considers themselves the ultimate authority on all things WP so this will just end up as an endless cycle of editing and the same person instantly reverting itApeholder (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Whenever someone says "It's clearly", one knows that they are selling a dogma, not fact.

'Reception' section

In this section there was a quote from Martin apparently saying that she says RT gave her the greatest editorial freedom , ( can't imagine why ), but the reference was inaccurate, and useless, and how the hell is her saying how great RT is , anything to do with 'Reception'. Why has this article got a green mark saying its good. It looks rubbish. And why was the Liz Wahl quote removed from this section which was pertinent to how her work was being received, its 'Reception'. Bulldog Antz (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! This 'article' could have been written by her, it's so full of special pleading and tendentiousness.

Responses and podcasts

Pertaining to the Rolling Stone quotes, and the above "Reception" thread, please respect WP:BLP. It clearly states that the subject should be quoted in her own defense when attacks on her are posted in the article.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Randomly plucked comments out of primary sources do not belong on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

it's not a random quote but a direct response to the accusations that you added. Normally denial of accusations by subjects is added and not that denials are always primary sources of opinion. TFD (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The DNI report that she's rebutting did not claim that her RT show was active during the 2016 election - it explicitly says the show was created in the run-up to the 2012 election. Her 'rebuttal' suggests that the DNI report said something that it didn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to analyze responses by subjects and determine if they are plausible. That violates OR. TFD (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't just remove that, you first removed the paragraph addressing neoMcCarthyism and non-corporate journalism. Moreover, those quotes refer to subjects highlighted in the podcast introductory text: "the journalist discusses Hillary Clinton’s 'neoMcCarthyism'" and "on her experiences as an independent journalist in a culture that silences dissenting voices" GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Algemeiner an unreliable source?

Re this edit, removing this content: On RT in February 2013, she commented that Israel uses "Hitler's methods" to sustain a "Jewish majority".. Its premise is that the Algemeiner Journal is not a reliable source for BLPs, per WP:BLPRS. However, the only discussion on RSP considers it to be RS: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_302#Algemeiner_Journal_&_The_Jewish_News_Syndicate BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is how I interpret WP:BLPRS. Specifically The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Algemeiner is tabloid journalism and has a well-known ideological bent when it comes to Israel. Even so, I don't see how the quote is relevant to Martin's career at RT. ImTheIP (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Algemeiner is a legitimate source per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_302#Algemeiner_Journal_&_The_Jewish_News_Syndicate. It should remain in the article. BuzzFeed and the Daily Telegraph certainly fall within the category of tabloid journalism, but are still sourced in the article. For consistency, the quote will be added back. The quote is relevant to Martin's career at RT since it illuminates a pattern of disturbing behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workwammba (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The DT is a 'tabloid'? Oh, dear. I suppose the definition of 'tabloid' is anything you disagree with.

It is a matter of weight. Unless something receives widespread media attention it's not noteworthy. For example, if Joe Biden orders takeout crab cakes in Wilmington, Delaware, it might make the back pages of the local weekly newspaper but not be significant to his overall biography. TFD (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Weight argument is stronger than RS argument. Alegemeiner is not a tabloid source and is considered reliable by RSP. However, the Wilmington analogy is not a good one: Algemeiner is one of the largest US Jewish-focused news outlets, and local interest to Jews is not comporable to local interest to a Delaware town. At any rate, it looks like other sources mentioned this and/or cited Algemeiner, showing weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Other sources: The Tablet,[7] The Student Life,[8] HuffPo.[9] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are much better, imo. I paraphrased it and added it to a new section about Martin's views, Abby Martin#Views. Because the quote is more about her views than about her stint at RT's Breaking the Set. ImTheIP (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

More sourcing questions

I have restored a large amount of text - some critical, some complimentary - removed for being from blogs or otherwise badly sourced. I'm not clear which sources are seen as problematic. Can we discuss case by case rather than delete en block? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. @Apeholder: can you please explain the POV-tag? ImTheIP (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't restore material removed because it violates biographies of living persons policy because you don't know whether the sources are acceptable. The default should be to remove and discuss. The major issue was weight. We don't use niche publications for stories that have been ignored in major mainstream media. While they may be of interest to their readers, they are not of interest to the general public. It is not the role of articles to correct the failure of reliable sources to amplify information that Wikipedia editors consider to be important. TFD (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clearer, it seemed to me the sources were reliable, so the material did not appear to violate BLP policy. Which of the sources do you consider too niche for the material to have due weight? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to these sources: a Spotify episode, Tablet Magazine, HuffPuff, The Student Life, a blog from Robert Mackey at the NYTimes, The Daily Banter, and Issuu? Burrobert (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The Spotify version of the Martin on the Joe Rogan show is a primary source. The other citations were: Tablet, HuffPost, TSL, NYT and USA Today, which are all, I believe, RSs. Daily Banter I'm not familiar with; that looks like the weakest, but it is attributed and takes up very little room here. Issuu is actually a magazine called ColdType, and I have no idea of the reliability but as it's a banal compliment it's hard to see how it violates the BLP policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Are we accepting the Joe Rogan reference? There are all sorts of quotes from the Joe Rogan show that I would like to start adding to Wikipedia if allowed.
• I don't know anything about The Student Life. I looks reasonably respectable, if small, from its Wikipedia page. It claims to have a staff of 120 yet "operates out of Room 101 in Walker Hall on the northern portion of Pomona College's campus". Quite cramped I imagine. What statement are we using TSL for?
• There is a question mark over using HuffPuff for politics. Not sure whether our usage here fits into that category. The article does not appear to be from a "contributor" or "editorial partner". Any thoughts?
• The NYTimes reference is to Robert Mackey's blog. wp:newsblog says "if a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer", which we have almost but not quite done.
• 1. Our statement "Martin has been criticized for her past support of the 9/11 truth movement" is sourced to this blog and The Daily Banter. Probably should be removed unless there are other appropriate sources.
• 2. We say "In 2014 New York Times columnist Robert Mackey contrasted Martin's critical remarks on the Russian occupation of Crimea with her conviction "that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were part of a government conspiracy." I would rewrite this to make it clearer that that it is Mackey's opinion that the two connected and contradictory.
• I know nothing about the Daily Banter. It doesn't even seem to have a Wikipedia page!! It has been used 59 times on Wikipedia but, as far as I can see, its reliability has not been discussed.

Burrobert (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Rogan (Text: Martin believes that Israel is a setter-colonial state; that its goal is, and has always been, to kill or expel the indigenous population, the Palestinians, so that Jewish colonizers can have an ethno-supremacist state. According to her, for non-Jews, Israel is an apartheid state: I think I flagged this as a primary source, presumably reliable for her views (though I did not verify it) but not in itself evidence of noteworthiness. It has since been deleted, to which I have no objection.

TSL: This was one of three sources for the statement She believes that, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, Israel persecutes Palestinians similar to how Nazi Germany persecuted Jews. This has now been deleted, although I don't understand why. Her actual quote is "Israel is the only country in the world that was paved for a specific group of people that experienced such horrific discrimination and genocide, and for that same group of people to now use Hitler's methods against another minority to maintain a Jewish majority, is insane." This has been reported by a number of sources, e.g. Jerusalem Post,[10] so I would strongly argue that it it noteworthy.

HuffPo: Was used as another source for the Nazi analogy, currently only used as citation for her 2008 involvement in 9/11 truth. (Relevant quote: Martin herself is a 9/11 Truther, calling the government's version of the events "propaganda", and has accused Israel of using "Hitler's methods". It is from HP UK, which I believe is considered more reliable than its US sibling. I'd support inclusion.

Mackey in the NYT is not an opinion piece and is completely a reliable source, giving a in-depth background to what's in the news. The Crimea sentence in our article is pretty opaque, and could be clarified or removed; the article could be used more robustly in relation to her 9/11 views, showing they extended past 2008.

Daily Banter: Probably not reliable and incident it mentions probably not noteworthy as no other coverage. Support removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Mackey's bio at The Intercept says, "he was a reporter and columnist for the New York Times, where he anchored the newspaper’s breaking news blog, The Lede, for five years, and wrote a news analysis column, Open Source." The article comes under "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces," which are not rs for articles. TFD (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This from The Lede not Open Source. Surely it's covered by WP:NEWSBLOG, Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[8] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The text read, "In 2014 New York Times columnist Robert Mackey contrasted Martin's critical remarks on the Russian occupation of Crimea with her conviction "that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were part of a government conspiracy." That's clearly analysis rather than reporting. He's comparing what she is saying now with what she said over a decade ago in order to analyze her. TFD (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, how the text currently reads is opaque and unhelpful; we should clarify or delete. But I don't see why we shouldn't include analysis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Because News organizations, which is part of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, says that analyses in newspapers "is rarely reliable for statements of fact." The reasoning is probably that reporters are good sources for what happened today, but are not historians. I think that in cases where sourcing is poor that it is better to omit information. It's a trade off between providing as much information as possible and being as neutral as possible. Articles shouldn't shape readers' opinions about subjects but should reflect how they are widely portrayed. TFD (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

But this is in the "Reception" section. The NYT is by far the most mainstream source currently cited, so if we are looking for how they are widely portrayed it seems more pertinent than Millenial Magazine or ColdType? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)