Jump to content

Talk:Mike Daisey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.228.177.92 (talk) at 10:00, 20 March 2012 (→‎Breaking News). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Walkout Incident?

Should there be a blurb about the walkout of ninety Christians from a performance, which included one person pouring water all over his notes? The video has been making rounds on the internet. Soonercary 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noted that the incident was not entirely religiously-based. citation gharm 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walkout incident has been notable (108,463 views on just on YouTube) and many press outlets have covered the incident and reaction. Anonymous user who removed this from the article needs to explain why. Until then, information is back. Soonercary 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effusive reviews

I moved the glowing reviews out of the lede and into a reviews section. Having them in the lede makes the article read like Mr. Daisey's press kit. Ref: WP:LEAD WP:PEACOCK Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Jrauser 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything except the new revelations about his misrepresentations reads like it was written by Mike Daisey or his publicist. This is not an article, this is a promotional bio that should not be on wikipedia in this form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.47.81 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

In you inexplicably angry zeal, fellow editors, you've made this article worthless and un-encyclopedic. This is one of the worst, and perhaps most emotionally fueled, articles I've read on Wikipedia, especially one about a currently popular person. I would try to fix it, but... I wont.

-L3334253 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It is disgraceful that this story is being edited to obfuscate the simple facts that Daisey lied and was proven to have lied. repeatedly. on the record. In his Steve Jobs monologue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Daisey's Trip to China: Real? or Fictional?

How much of Mr. Daisey's monologue is fictional? I have grave doubts about the historical veracity of such events as "the on-ramp to nowhere" on which Daisey's taxi supposedly stopped inches from destruction. And traffic cones, while made by the millions in China, are seldom used in that country--a orange plastic post seems to be the standard. I've not seen even one in a decade of travel there. And did a mangled ex-Foxconn worker *really* fondle Mr. Daisey's iPad and mumble, "Magical!"? I would want to see the video for such an improbable event. In other words, is there any objective documentation of his trip in terms of contemporaneous notes, videos, etc.? Solarbuddy (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News

I received this email from Ira Glass on March 16, 2012. I've updated a small blurb under the Agony & Ecstasy monologue section, but this topic should probably have a more prominent placement under a "Controversy" or similar heading:

I’m writing to tell you that tonight, This American Life and Marketplace will reveal that a story that we broadcast on This American Life this past January contained significant fabrications.
We’re retracting that story because we can’t vouch for its truth, and this weekend's episode of our show will detail the errors in the story, which was an excerpt of Mike Daisey's acclaimed one-man show, "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs." In it, Daisey tells how he visited a factory owned by Foxconn that manufactures iPhones and iPads in Shenzhen, China. He's performed the monologue in theaters around the country; it's currently at the Public Theater in New York.
When the original 39-minute excerpt was broadcast on This American Life, Marketplace China Correspondent Rob Schmitz wondered about its truth. He located and interviewed Daisey's Chinese interpreter Li Guifen (who goes by the name Cathy Lee professionally with westerners). She disputed much of what Daisey has been telling theater audiences since 2010 and much of what he said on the radio.
During fact checking before the broadcast of Daisey's story, I and This American Life producer Brian Reed asked Daisey for this interpreter's contact information, so we could confirm with her that Daisey actually witnessed what he claims. Daisey told us her real name was Anna, not Cathy as he says in his monologue, and he said that the cell phone number he had for her didn't work any more. He said he had no way to reach her.
At that point, we should've killed the story. But other things Daisey told us about Apple's operations in China checked out, and we saw no reason to doubt him. We didn't think that he was lying to us. That was a mistake.
Schmitz does a 20-minute story on our show this weekend about his findings, and we'll also broadcast an interview I did with Daisey. Marketplace will feature a shorter version of Schmitz's report earlier in the evening. You can read more details on our website, and listen to our show on WBEZ at 7 p.m. tonight, and noon tomorrow.
We've been planning a live presentation of Daisey's monologue on stage at the Chicago Theatre on April 7th, with me leading a Q&A afterwards. Maybe you've heard me advertising it on the air. That show will be cancelled and all tickets will be refunded.
I've never had to write an email like this. Like all our friends and colleagues in public radio, I and my co-workers at This American Life work hard every day to make sure that what you hear on WBEZ is factually correct. We will continue to do that, and hope you can forgive this.
Best,
Ira Glass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobodave (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put above stuff in proper chrono order. Nobody seems to give a shit, the obverse says nothing about the fraud. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are plenty of sources on the NPR Fraud, including a current New Yorker article, which is what brought me here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Road Runner customer. If there are plenty of reliable sources for some information, then you may add the information to the article, citing those reliable sources and otherwise adhering to the policies of WP in general and those pertaining to living people in particular. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

had you bothered to look into it, you'd have seen I don't need such advice. Not really interested in this article and it's too big a story for the whatever was blocking the update to stand. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional edits

In this edit, somebody in NYC changes a description of a monologue by Daisey from

It purports to examine [[globalization]] by exploring the exploitation of Chinese workers through the lens of "the rise and fall and rise of Apple, industrial design, and the human price we are willing to pay for our technology, woven together in a complex narrative."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10464073-17.html | title=One-man show to depict Steve Jobs' career | work=[[CNET]] | date=March 4, 2010 | accessdate=February 22, 2012}}</ref>

to

It purports to tell a true story about Daisy's [sic] by exploration of the exploitation of Chinese workers through personal interviews with Chinese workers and to focus the lens of "the rise and fall and rise of Apple, industrial design, and the human price we are willing to pay for our technology, woven together in a complex narrative."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10464073-17.html | title=One-man show to depict Steve Jobs' career | work=[[CNET]] | date=March 4, 2010 | accessdate=February 22, 2012}}</ref>

with the edit summary

Is Mike Daisy being allowed to write this article? Why does it keep being rewirtten without using accruate words like "evidence" and phrases like "purpoted to be true"

I imagine that the first question is merely rhetorical. If it's actually serious, see this for the answer.

Why does it keep being rewritten? Simply, to accord with each successive editor's understanding of either (A) the facts as they are presented in cited, reliable, sources, or (B) the truth as understood by the editor. (A) is right and (B) is wrong.

Let's look at this edit. It results in the implication that It purports to tell a true story about Daisy's [sic] by exploration of the exploitation of Chinese workers through personal interviews with Chinese workers [...] is said within a specific CNET story.

The CNET story does not say this. The edit (one of a series from the same IP number) made the article imply an untruth. And that's why I reverted it.

If you don't like the way the article is now written, find authoritative sources (see this) that say something else, and rewrite according to and citing those sources, of course avoiding bias. Other attempts to add alleged or actual truths will be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the man himself?

This supposedly is an article about Mike Daisey. Instead, it is entirely about two of his performances. I was looking for biographical information about the man as it appears in other Wikipedia articles about living persons, but there's nothing. You have not told us anything about his personal background other than how they relate to performances. 75.171.3.225 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Qwest Communications customer. If there are reliable sources for biographical information, then people (perhaps you) may add the information to the article, citing those reliable sources and otherwise adhering to the policies of WP in general and those pertaining to living people in particular. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

list of shows

The list of his monologues is gone now, and although the information up top is clearly the most important, lacking citation isn't a good reason to blank information that could be very easily looked up and confirmed.75.72.175.170 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comcast customer. If you can find information that has been deleted from this article confirmed in reliable sources, then you may readd the information to the article, citing the reliable sources and otherwise adhering to the policies of Wikipedia in general and those pertaining to living people in particular. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this edit, "Truthsquader" removed much of the content, added judgemental material, and bizarrely described this edit: Retained the salient information about the individual. I am still mopping up. A lot of the material -- notably, exactly where he performed this or that monologue -- that I'm readding is unsourced, but in the short term this hardly matters as it is most unlikely to be controversial and its inclusion helps other editors look for evidence. Of course what can't be sourced within a reasonable time should then go. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Daisey&oldid=482872429"