Talk:Amy Goodman

There is no proof that she was born in Washington DC. Citation 3 notes that the youtube states that she says she is born in DC at 29:05 (when in fact she never states this during anytime of the duration of the video). This should be taken down as it is conflicting with the information that states she was born in New York.

...and a d.o.b. might be added, in line with Wiki practice. Valetude (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we should exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Unless this has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, listing Amy Goodman's salary in the article is not appropriate. (For a similar discussion, see for example Talk:Simon_Danczuk#Expenses_and_Salary). --Edcolins (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Clearly correct revert, Edcolins. Doesn't have any business here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. Cherry-picked factoids are not suitable for anything let alone a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Per our rules about primary sources it's not encouraged, and per WP:BLP we want to be very cautious about salaries, which for most people is considered pretty private (although it's public in her case). The Wikipedia is not about muckraking journalism. So rolling back the info is probably a good call and our rules support it. (I can see a case for including info like generally this when it's already in a public document -- IMO it's more useful for getting a handle on the subject than how many siblings they have or where the went to high school, which information we often include. It tells the reader something that is or could be useful for understanding where the subject fits in the world. But our rules pretty much discourage it.) Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

The only reasonable exception I can come up with for including someones salary in their biography is where they are a public sector (government) employee and its come up for discussion in reliable sources. Otherwise its just completely irrelevant material that shouldnt be included per BLPPRIMARY. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Just wondering if the fact that tax-payers indirectly subsidize Democracy Now through tax-deductions for contributors because of Democracy Now's 501(c)3 status would have any bearing on the reasonableness of the public knowing what the tax-supported organization is spending money on? I don't have an opinion but it seems like a question that Democracy Now would ask. N0w8st8s (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply ]

This has no relevance. 2600:8802:5913:1700:D95E:4856:9AD2:F43D (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I can see the references in the Editor, but they don't register as citations in the article. Why is this? 72.174.131.123 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

This article refers to Pacifica Radio, but what about the Democracy Now! YouTube channel? They've currently got 2.47 million subscribers and over 16k videos. She appears every weekday morning with a "Top US & World Headlines" report which typically gets over 200k views. https://www.youtube.com/@DemocracyNow I've been comparing this news broadcast with the NBC Nightly News, which is also on Youtube. The NBC video is twice as long, but typically has less than half as many distinct stories. Skysong263 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]