Talk:Mike Daisey

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Lycurgus (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs in the lead

Please take a look at the discussion at talk:Mike Daisey#The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs in the lead first to weigh the arguments. It's currently stuck at a 3RR impasse.

Mike Daisey is a monologist whose recent work on Apple's manufacturing practices has generated significant coverage and reached outside the arts world.

I believe this piece belongs in the lead. Another user believes it should not. This is still a highly visible article and a blp, your opinions and vigilance would be welcome. - hahnchen 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs is Mike Daisey's most popular/influential/notable work. This is even before the recent blow up regarding its veracity, which makes his it his most discussed work. You can see this on Google Insights, you can also search news archives. This piece belongs in the lead.

I wouldn't call it "notable", so much as "notorious". The man's notoriety is entirely due to his having been caught lying through his teeth for self-enrichment at the expense of Foxconn and Apple workers, shareholders, and management. 76.103.102.240 (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what Mike Daisey is best known for, not monologues about Nikola Tesla, L. Ron Hubbard, Steve Jobs and Apple's supply chain in China, the Department of Homeland Security, the history of the New York transit system, 9/11, the inventor of the neutron bomb, Wal-Mart and a variety of other topics.

I think the article would be more effective if it summarised his career into its most important points in prose form, following by a list of his works - as opposed to listing his entire list of works chronologically, which breaks up the article with very short disjointed sentences. I don't have time to undertake that though. I also think several of his works could be spun out into their own articles, TATESJ being the most obvious. - hahnchen 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR - - WP:BRD Most of the citations in this article make clear that his Apple piece is not the most significant in this career. [1] For example does not say that it is his most well-known show. [2] Nor does this, mentioning only that it was a successful run. Nor does this article [3] remark that it is his most famous piece. ARticle after article after article from reputable sources does not place his Apple piece over his other work. That there is a spike in media attention, I"m not sure leads to "significance." By that standard, the NIH should spend 99% of its funding on swine flu. --Gie99 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• • And yet the one you've reverted to has no sourcing. And mentions topics he's covered in an arbitrary fashion. The lead that I wrote doesn't state that TATESJ was his most popular/influential/notable work, it merely states that it generated debate. This American Life states it was their most popular download, Playbill's review describes the show as his most successful in NY[4]. He has been appeared on TV as an "Apple critic" down to this show. He has written a NYT op-ed on the back of this show[5]. This is clearly the work most covered by reliable sources, this is why it belongs in the lead. This is not original research, this is looking at the wealth of sourcing out there and editorialising what is most important. This is the lead. This is what Wikipedia does. - hahnchen 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very likely that TATESJ was his best-known work before the very recent kerfuffle. (I for one first heard of his work a couple of weeks ago from the Guardian, in the context of a strangely excited article about how he was copylefting his script or notes or whatever for TATESJ.) Certainly the kerfuffle has been very big, by the standards of kerfuffles over monologues -- a large percentage of US and other infotainment sources have something to say. In view of this, I think it's reasonable to say something of this in the lead. On the other hand, it shouldn't go into detail (which can come later), it might not need sources (which must come later), and it shouldn't go overboard.

Yes, the TATESJ flap has been the aspect of his career that's been most assiduously covered by reliable sources. But it's also the one that's been most energetically covered by pundits/bloviators. It will be all too easy for editors to cherry-pick among these. I hope there'll be moderation here, and that the article will instead summarize the views of pundits who demonstrate hard thinking.

I think the article would be more effective if it summarised his career into its most important points in prose form, following by a list of his works - as opposed to listing his entire list of works chronologically, which breaks up the article with very short disjointed sentences. I don't have time to undertake that though.

Change "sentences" in that to "sections" and I think so too, and I too don't have time to undertake it. One problem is that the job will require good judgement, and some of the comments on this talk page (not this section, but the sections above it) suggest that a sizable percentage of potential editors have already made up their minds about Daisey and would spin and cherry-pick accordingly. I'd wait until this TATESJ flap settles down a bit (one way or another) before inviting others to do this rewriting job.

I also think several of his works could be spun out into their own articles, TATESJ being the most obvious.

Yes, this would be possible for TATESJ and Dog Years. But why? Nobody has yet demonstrated an energy to write more about Daisey's works than would comfortably fit in this single article. If the length of this article becomes excessive, yes; until then, proliferation of articles strikes me as merely troublesome, though I'm open to other reasoning for how it could help. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I tried to remain uncontroversial in the lead without giving any real opinion. I mentioned that TATESJ could be split out in case it overwhelms the current article given its coverage. - hahnchen 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• I prefer these edits made by an unbiased person. And by one who has been constructive in this article instead of anyone driven by emotional pull. This is, wp:blp after all. Above all, i think the edits should be driven by a desire to inform, not to influence. For these reasons, I've tried to stabilize back to Hoary's wording for now. Finally, I'd like to add that I've known about Mike Daisey's large body of work _long_ before his piece about Apple. Anyone saying that the Apple piece is his "biggest" or most "significant" is simply uninformed. I'd say the firestorm has made it the most controversial & well-known to a popular audience. From an knowledgeable standpoint though, this view would crassly over-weigh its significance in comparison to his entire body of work. --Gie99 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd venture to guess that Hahnchen too would like the edits to be made by an unbiased person. You and Hahnchen disagree; I don't remember that H accused you of bias and I hope you're not accusing H of bias, or of being driving by emotional pull. (For all I know either he or you or both of you may be so driven, but I prefer to concentrate on your edits or suggestions rather than attempting to divine your motivations.) ¶ You talk of my wording. In one narrow sense, you're right: When I hit the "Save page" button, the result was necessarily my wording. But other than in this sense, it wasn't: all I tried to do was to restore material vandalized by another person, to provide minimal sourcing for each monologue, to do minor rearrangement, etc. I'm not at all happy with the article as it's been for the last couple of days, just less unhappy than I was about it in its previous, shortened state. ¶ You say: I'd like to add that I've known about Mike Daisey's large body of work _long_ before his piece about Apple. Yes, a bit of googling (duckduckgoing) quickly establishes that MD had a keen following before he became a figure in national news. ¶ Anyone saying that the Apple piece is his "biggest" or most "significant" is simply uninformed. [...] this view would crassly over-weigh its significance in comparison to his entire body of work. Very possibly so. But we can't simply take this on trust from a WP editor, no matter how well-intentioned. ¶ Surely one thing we can agree on is that MD has recently been in the news, providing excellent openings for the more thoughtful of news media (NYT, etc, or even NYRB or for that matter publications from the Seattle area) to present profiles of him. (You know the kind of stuff: Though he's only recently become a household name, Mike Daisey has been delivering his inimitable style of monologue for over a decade. John Doe has been following his work since 1999 and gives the bigger picture.) Now, if this kind of thoughtful commentary put TATESJ in its place within the Daisey oeuvre, then our article could cite it. Can you come up with anything like this? -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Every piece of Daisey's work generates coverage in the arts section of newspapers. TATESJ has done more than that. This is taken from WP:LEAD - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." To say this isn't a prominent controversy would be to ignore reality. - hahnchen 09:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • My immediate concern is that the lede is currently being written by a contributor who evidently has no grounding in the subject matter. It would be analogous to a layman authoring an encyclopedia article on a scientific subject. His edits are simply un-authoritative and groundless. Minimally, outside citations from reputable sources would support his edits & his belief that the Apple piece is "prominent," but they do not. That he is editing the lede of a living person troubles me greatly. I agree that we cannot take anything on trust, which is why I've consistently demanded reputable citations for assertions levied, and why I've reverted. As to your request for sources [6] He is refered to as a "New York theater performer," not an Apple-critic. [7] He is refered to as a "monologist" who "who began his career in Seattle in the late 1990s". by some one who knows "Daisey's work well". [8] refers to him as an "author-actor," not an "Apple-critic." Frankly, it would be delusional for any reputable source to see Mike Daisey as primarily an "apple critic." And frankly, it's tiring to have to "prove" what is patent, common knowledge in the theater world to counter careless & uninformed propositions. Finally, in this breathless speed, I've not had opportunity to mention that I'm not opposed to mentioning his apple piece in the lede, for I am not deaf and blind. What I am opposed to is to have it done in a wholly uninformed way, with an urgency that is unnecessary and error-prone.-Gie99 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the lede at this point -- Daisey was making news long before he started telling this story. It's possible that with a little time and distance, it will fit in there, but at the moment, it's not clear that it's the sort of defining information that the lede should cover.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahnchen and Gie99, I hope you can both agree that the best way forward for the lead is to focus on achieving consensus here at Talk instead of edit-warring at the article. Writegeist (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm already on 3RR, Gie has exceeded it. I don't intend on reverting again. - hahnchen 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Gie99 is right in that I do not have a grounding in theatre. I do not have an intimate knowledge of his work, I might miss "patent, common knowledge in the theater world". But this is clearly beyond theatre, I might miss the bits that Gie99 knows, but it looks like I'm picking up the bits that he doesn't. But if you want to pull rank, and show how us how informed you are, some credentials beyond a single purpose account and a "trust me" label would help. I don't really buy the appeal to authority argument though, because "a layman authoring an encyclopedia article" is exactly what this is about. This is Wikipedia.

And if you have that knowledge that I lack, then do something with in other than needlessly reverting. I tried to add something to the article, so those readers coming in fresh could see why this subject was important. Instead of using your time and expertise to do something which would actually improve the article, you've chosen to block my attempts. If you're familiar with his body of work then you should do something about it.

And as for its importance. Your Chicago Tribune link, which mostly just reprints what Daisey says on his blog, also contains this passage, "The Washington Post reported that Daisey expressed regret that the radio scandal has become a national obsession and has eclipsed the substance of his stage play." Every Daisey piece reaches the theatre, it's covered in the arts pages. TATESJ clearly goes beyond that, it was covered in the tech press, and now has commentary from all sides regarding journalistic/artistic integrity. And it's not like these views are by little voices, these are by significant media commentators such as Michael Wolff, Jay Rosen, David Weigel, and many others. Does anyone seriously disagree with this? That it's his most prominent work?

As for my "simply un-authoritative and groundless" edits, and my "careless & uninformed propositions", the edit I made to the lead described TATESJ as containing "numerous fabrications" came straight from This American Life. I didn't side on either side of the journalism/art debate, merely stating that it generated debate. The two sources I linked, were the TAL Retration episode, and a blog post from Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company where this play debuted, careless and uninformed indeed. - hahnchen 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't I bothered? Because I'm not here to argue, it's tiring to see uninformed editors hold sway and modify the lede of an article about a living person when reputable sources do not support, and who clearly has no idea what is going on beyond the recent media firestorm. You ignore the content of two of my citations and pick out a PR one from the Chicago Tribune. Your links are to TAL content and to a corporate PR blog that refers to Mike daisy as a "an artist of passionate commitment and bravery who invests himself in each new piece with a level of purpose and determination that are rare" not an "apple critic." Frankly, 100% of my time here has been spent on talk pages and playing a reversion game with you. Instead of contributing the article, my efforts have been diverted to educating editors on why the proposed lede is inaccurate. And I'm not even doing a very good job at that. So it seems like 100% of my time in the future will continue towards these goals in lieu of substantive contribution. It's absolutely exhausting, and frankly I'm not sure I longer care. -Gie99 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Why haven't I bothered? Because I'm not here to argue." This is the only thing you've done since joining Wikipedia. Don't pretend you've attempted anything else. I labelled you a single purpose account, you've clearly embraced this 100%. You're right, I didn't look at the other two sources you linked - the first one you linked to already backed up my argument in regards to the show's prominence. Neither of them are from outside your theatre bubble. Your whole shtick of pointing to sources that don't describe him as an "apple critic" is a straw man argument, it completely misses the point, my argument was not that everyone describes him this way - it never was, just that he clearly is described this way. Daisey himself says this is his best work, it is clearly his most covered work, and he believes that this piece has "eclipsed the substance of his stage play". You don't think this is worth mentioning. You've attacked my sourced version as inaccurate, my sourced version that merely tried to highlight this obviously prominent piece, without giving judgement on either side. You've produced nothing better. Produce something better. - hahnchen 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Best Known"

By far the most media attention around Mike Daisey, and how most people know him, is because of the exposure of his fabrications in the Apple monologue and public radio episode. He is not best known for his plays on L Ron Hubbard or whatever else. He became a public figure in the swarm of attention around the Apple issue, and an even bigger figure after the truth came out. Why hide this in the intro? Saying he is best known for a laundry list of plays is not accurate. Hammertime2005 (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• By far the most media attention around Mike Daisey, and how most people know him, is because of the exposure of his fabrications in the Apple monologue and public radio episode. Yes, maybe.
• He is not best known for his plays on L Ron Hubbard or whatever else. Remove "or whatever else", and I'd agree.
• He became a public figure in the swarm of attention around the Apple issue, and an even bigger figure after the truth came out. Wrong. He was a public figure before the Apple stuff.
• Why hide this in the intro? Why hide what? (The fiction that he wasn't a public figure before the Apple material?)
• Saying he is best known for a laundry list of plays is not accurate. Which version of the article said that he was best known for a laundry list of plays?

One edit by Hammertime2005, summary This article reads like a resume with its laundry list of plays. None of these got even 0.001% of the press of the fabricated Apple episode, which is the most notable part of his career, which a lexus-nexus search will show.

He has a career in drama. The dramas have titles. It's normal for sourced lists of plays (or similar) to appear in articles on people like this. A number of the plays by Tom Stoppard cumulatively got some tiny percentage of the coverage that Shakespeare in Love did, but the former remain. This is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregation service.

Another edit by Hammertime2005, summary Here is a start for changing this from a resume to a real Wikipedia article: get rid of this purely self-promotional section. With that, the deletion of an entire section, titled "Reception", that consists of adulatory material from the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Adulatory it may be, but it is, or anyway is claimed to be, from three non-minor US newspapers. Are the quotations fabricated, fiddled with, or cherry-picked? Then say how. Can you come up with other material to balance it? Or is it just that the material here causes cognitive dissonance for you? -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It does read like a resume, though. Or, even worse, some kind of autobiography on a personal home page, full of peacock terms, praise, and excessive detail. I just looked at the Tom Stoppard page again, because you mentioned it. I remember thinking that he had a rather well-written article, completely unlike this one. As it turns out, my recollection was correct. Where, in the Tom Stoppard article, does every minor play that he wrote receive lovingly detailed descriptions? It simply lists them in prose form, with a brief summary. In fact, I think Tom Stoppard (the article, not the man) would be a fair starting point for a rewrite on this article. I'll start on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - aside from the Apple story which clearly deserves a full section, the article would be clearer to the reader if it had a few paragraphs summarising the overall progression and success of Daisey's work over the years, and a full but simple list of monologue titles in a section further down. I lumped all the one-paragraph sections into a single "Other monologues" earlier today, but presenting these performances one after the other with more or less equal weight doesn't give the reader a very clear picture of Daisey's work. --McGeddon (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is probably just going to get reverted, but I followed through and tried to summarize his work, as best I could. I got rid of all of the "performed such and such at Joe's Cafe House in 2005", because, really, who cares? I've never seen any other article on all of Wikipedia that listed such trivial information, as if it were as important as World War II, complete with sources. What the hell? This is useless information, and all it does is clutter the article, making it difficult to read. I also omitted summaries of his non-notable monologues. No other article on Wikipedia (that I've seen) has such long and detailed synopses embedded in an article. It doesn't exist in Tom Stoppard, George Carlin, Henry Rollins, or Carrie Fischer. So why does this article do it? Is Mike Daisy somehow unique on all of Wikipedia, that his work deserves obsessive attention and detail, whereas these people don't? I'll answer that rhetoric question, just in case anyone is thinking of reverting my edits: No.

I got kind of tired of editing, after seeing the huge mess that I took it upon myself to fix. I think it took me over an hour to pour over this article and figure out how to fix it. So, some of my work might have been a bit sloppy. I apologize for that, but, near the end, I just wanted to save the page and stop editing. If someone can fix up what I started, that'd be great. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work! That gives a much clearer impression of who Daisey is and the interesting aspects of his earlier work, which were definitely swamped before. I've polished a few edges, but the structure seems sound. --McGeddon (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks much better now. I couldn't stand to edit another word, and you fixed almost everything I was too tired to deal with. I think we've finally gotten to the point where the article is concise, readable, neutral, and gives a proper overview of his work. The only thing that still bothers me is the lack of citations for the newer sections that I added. In particular, the "Themes" section is full of original research. I'll try to fill in some citations there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is now much improved. Hoary is correct that Wikipedia is not a news aggregation service, so the weight of news articles about Daisey (the overwhelming majority about the Apple issue) does not mean the rest of his cited career should be ignored. But until now the Wikipedia entry was written as if the Apple controversy was just a footnote to lauding his other works. The Apple controversy, like it or not for Daisey and his friends here, IS the most notable part of his career by any standard, press hits or otherwise. So it should have center stage in the article, which it does now.

By the way, calling it the "this american life controversy" is disingenuous. The truthfulness of the Apple work was being questioned even before "this american life" blew the whole thing open. Lets not call Watergate the "washington post controversy" or this one the "this american life" controversy. 41.220.116.75 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversy 2X

I just want to make note of the fact that the Apple/China/This American Life controversy is currently dealt with at some length in 2 separate sections. Not good. This needs to be rectified in some way: either keep it all in the monolog section, or summarize there and merge the bulk of the info into the controversy section (with a link to that section). Cgingold (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is someone removing the information that he lied??

Mike Daisey lied in the report, he said the factory guards have guns and that freeways ended at a drop-off only with orange traffic cones. It makes the show more dramatic but it is not true. And I do not think factory workers have ever go to Starbucks. We do not have the American orange cones here that he mention, and roads here are very safe and organised and a unfinished freeway could NEVER be allowed to be driven on. Its nonsense and he knows very little about China.

So why remove from the article that he lied and instead say he 'dramatised' his report. He lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.139.28.78 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's mostly just one editor, who keeps removing all the negative statements and criticism. If this keeps up, we'll have to either ban that user or protect the article. It's getting ridiculous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the article has been re-edited to read like a press kit... Seems obvious who is doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.200.252 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Themes

I rewrote the Themes section, using citations, this time. However, it was a little difficult for me to find relevant articles online, because Google is swamped with outraged bloggers, writing about the Agony/Ecstasy scandal. Eventually, in frustration, I gave up on getting anything useful at all from Google and just searched the archives of Slate.com, the Seattle PI, and the NYT. This results on somewhat homogeneous sources, as well as a potential overreliance on a single author (Jason Zinoman is cited quite a few times in this article). I tried to avoid synthesis and original research, but, since I had so much trouble finding usable sources, it was difficult. If someone takes exception to my writing, I won't be offended. If you do decide to try to rewrite this section, I recommend using Jason Zinoman's articles as a starting point, as they're well-written and in-depth, rather than the "fifth grade book report" style that even most professional critics use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is a slow creeping disaster because people keep forcing negative information. It's like, we get it Mike Daisey sucks, can i just get some useful information about him besides the two things you know about him? Thanks. -Meep291 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

All of these outraged Talk comments are based on the supposition that Daisey is an investigative reporter, a journalist, a nonfiction writer who FAILED us by LYING to us. Wrong. He's a fantasist. There were ample signs all along. Remember his manic ramble about Steve Jobs? Or the incident when 80 people walked out on one of his monologues, spilling water on his script? He immediately howled that it was his only copy, they had maliciously destroyed his art. His wife Jean-Michele calmly pointed out that there were other copies. He invents scenarios. It's just that we didn't know how extreme these can become until his China misinformation debacle. Daisey has apologized for that (sort of). And in my opinion he remains an entertainer of merit, as long as we don't expect from him what he cannot give: information and opinions grounded in reality. Younggoldchip (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced personal allegation

Somebody using successive IPs of Mid-Maine Communications, Inc. has a monomania about Daisey, as the article history will show. No reliable source is ever adduced. Since the warning given to the penultimate IP had no effect, I've awarded a week's vacation to the latest IP. If this recurs, award longer vacations. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Daisey. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://gothamist.com/2005/04/22/mike_daisey_monologuist.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.annextheatre.org/shows/moon_world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013144013/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/116336-Daiseys-The-Moon-Is-a-Dead-World-Featured-in-Soho-Rep-Readings to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/116336-Daiseys-The-Moon-Is-a-Dead-World-Featured-in-Soho-Rep-Readings

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) 05:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Daisey. 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/20091204073703/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/107518-Daiseys-Summer-Interrupted-as-Audience-Departs-and-Defiles-His-Work to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/107518-Daiseys-Summer-Interrupted-as-Audience-Departs-and-Defiles-His-Work

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) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)