Talk:Annie Leonard

Please do not delete

I just created the page, it's currently a stub and I am actively editing it. Please refrain from deleting it until I can complete the page. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing tags. Inviting the community to review the article. Bstone (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I believe that the Story of Stuff and its increasing popularity makes Ms Leonard notable. As well her high profile in environmental activism augments her notability. Thus, I believe she withstands the test. Lastly, a google search of her name reveals 27,300 hits. Seems to me she passes. Bstone (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Her news notability can be discerned here. Clearly, she has been in the news and subject of many articles to the point where she is notable. Bstone (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please integrate those references into the article? Jfire (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And it shall be. Let me just take a moment to say that I feel the speed in which this article was twice deleted is absolutely unacceptable. I had no sooner created the article and was going to add the hangon tag that it was deleted. Even when I added the tag it was still deleted. I feel as tho I am under some sort of clock or watchful eye to prove this article in as short a period as possible, which of course leads to all sorts of poor editing. As a long time wikipedia editor, I hearby express my frustration. Bstone (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. One good way to develop and article without a risk of it's being deleted prematurely is to develop the page as a user page first. Once you get it to a level that satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for articles, it can easily be moved to the final location without losing any of the content or editing history. Jfire (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deb, instead of just tagging the article as lacking notability (which I believe the above section has dispelled and I am actively working to integrate into the article) you can even discuss it here. I believe it would be most appropriate to discuss it here. Thank you.Bstone (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In consultation with an admin on IRC (as I think Deb has stepped out of this conversation), I have used some of the news articles to content and sources. As such, I am removing the notability tag. I am doing this in utter good faith. Bstone (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So, for references, we have one POV website, one source affiliated with the subject (and currently inaccessible), one blog-type post, and something from a conference for innovators/environmentalists. None of these are very reliable sources. If the article came up for deletion in its present form, I'd have to say delete. Jfire (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you by chance list which site refers to what? The dead site is clearly the storyofstuff. It worked fine today. Must be a temporary issue. Also, I haven't even gone through 1/4 of the news articles about her. There are many more articles to get sourced info from. Bstone (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I listed them in the current order, so AlterNet=POV (partisan website), relocalize.net=blog-type, bioneers.org=conference. If you're still working on sources, that's cool, I'll give feedback as long as I can. Jfire (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the notability and sources tags, as I do not believe the cited sources are reliable or establish the subject's notability. Jfire (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability has been established. Tag can be removed. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it has not. If you refuse to discuss the issue here, further tag removal will be treated as vandalism. Jfire (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to immediately resort to threats, Jfire? It doesn't go over well nor is it accepted. Please rethink your tactics. Bstone (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll strike that comment as a gesture of good faith. Now, please, would you respond substantively to the concerns raised? Jfire (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. I would like to see more sources, but I would also like to see this article remain. MarkBuckles (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I am curious why this article is listed in the Articles with topics of unclear notability from January 2008 , All articles with unsourced statements and Articles with unsourced statements since January 2008 categories. There are no unsourced statements that I can see. Bstone (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as the one that's marked, you also need one for her testifying to Congress. Deb (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The website with the citations seems to be down. Let's wait a bit but when it comes back those statements will indeed be properly sourced. Bstone (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentary?

Is The Story of Stuff really a documentary? It feels more like an argument or editorial in video form, and it may not belong in the same category as, say, the work of Ken Burns.

My guess is it is polemic which is common in some documentary films (it seems that nearly everything that is non-fiction in film is called documentary - maybe I should check wikipedia) - but can someone tell me how does one quaulify to be a "scholar" it seems rather meningless in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.5.131.18 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems Annie Leonard has been noted by Time magazine as a "Hero of the Environment" for her documentary work. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841805,00.html 72.75.76.45 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I added a section mentioning some criticism of Leonard, since her work has not been uncontroversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loglogx (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Saying that Youtube videos are not reliable sources is like saying Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even worse, since Youtube videos are not wikis, they just spread the original message as created by the author. I also added notes that both CNN and FoxNews have run stories on Doren's criticism, making Doren's videos more relevant than any regular video-reply on Youtube.comment added by Loglogx (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos cannot be used as sources unless the video upload is authorized. If they represent CNN or FoxNews stories, reference those stories and leave the YouTube reference out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Those YouTube videos are clearly on Lee Doren's YouTube channel, so are allowable. Please properly credit them, as the ones in the Story of Stuff article are, or someone else will remove them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there seriously not going to be any criticism section? Her claims are simply ridiculous and that has been pointed out on two different news channels. BenWoodruff 15:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWoodruff (talk • contribs)

Leonard's work is what is criticized, not the woman herself. A video simply being on Youtube doesn't establish enough notability to merit inclusion at Wikipedia. Doren's video has gotten enough attention elsewhere that it is mentioned in passing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is not the woman herself who is criticized, but her views. Check any other intellectual's entry on Wikipedia to see if they don't include sections on their views. Moreover, saying a critique is not notable only because of its medium, Youtube, even when it has reached a huge audience and has been covered by CNN and Fox News is just strange. I'm putting the critique section back up. loglogx (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2010 (CET)

And I'm taking it down. You haven't demonstrated notability. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked up notability. Using quotes from the WP:Notability page "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". CNN and Fox News are reliable secondary sources. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Each network ran a multi-minute segment on Doren’s criticism. For me that establishes notability. If there are details that you do not agree with, we can discuss them, but I think that the section as a whole is motivated. loglogx (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (CET)

Yes, and that criticism is documented at Story of Stuff. The criticism, however, is of the work itself not of Leonard. Moreover, the bulk of the section is additional information regarding an exchange between Doren and Stacy Malkan that has not been reported elsewhere and therefore notability has not been established. Outside of this, you've got a sweeping statement that Doren claims she misrepresents her sources. In addition to notability concerns, it's also got a highly skewed partisan bent, giving the section POV concerns as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The criticism regards all of her videos, and they don't all have their own articles. I've put back my part but removed the addition mostly written by another user (the part where Malkan is mentioned). The statements in that section may be sweeping, but they reflect Doren's videos. loglogx (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2010 (CET)

The criticism that is notable (that is, reported elsewhere) is only of Story of Stuff. I don't dispute the notability of Doren's critique, I simply think it's more appropriate at Story of Stuff. Outside of a few potshots about her political leanings, Doren focuses exclusively on her arguments in his critique, not on her character.

You mention above that "any other intellectual" gets treatment similar to this on their Wikipedia articles. Can you provide examples? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I found these examples of intellectuals with sections on criticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman#Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky#Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#Criticisms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Criticisms

loglogx (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (CET)

This is why I love wikipedia: a highly partisan person who has, as a major notable accomplishment that justifies her inclusion in the database, some animated videos featured on Youtube, and which exhibit extremely partisan POVs, but which (apparently and effectively) can't be critiqued because the criticism is removed for having an unacceptable pedigree, challenges her POV (and thus exhibits partisan POV) and is largely accomplished via Youtube videos. Anyone looking only at her entry will never know that plenty of people find her work objectionable and seek to challenge and counter what they perceive is partisan propaganda. How Orwellian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.9.176 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Her videos are featured on her website. At some point others copied them to Youtube. Criticism is mentioned, but to really establish that it is as widespreadly disliked as you say it is, we would need reliable, third party sources. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annie Leonard. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.storyofstuff.com/anniesbio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918225035/http://www.sustainabilityfunders.org:80/ to http://www.sustainabilityfunders.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annie Leonard. 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/20160131234337/http://www.no-burn.org/index.php to http://www.no-burn.org/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023111205/https://secure.bioneers.org/node/645 to https://secure.bioneers.org/node/645

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)