Jump to content

Talk:John Stossel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Freddie Mercury

John Stossel REALLY looks like Freddie Mercury with thicker hair.

July 28, 2006 -- The first line says Stossel is a "journalist" for ABC, but that title normally denotes some level of objectivity. While he may have been more of a standard correspondent early in his career, I think it would be more fair to call him a "journalist/activist" or "reporter/activist" or something to that effect.


IS he jewish? if so I think it should be added to his page! -------- 16th March, 2006

Dude! What?! Do we do this with EVERY person: state their religeon? No, so that if he's Jewish, this is somehow *special*. What this is is a form of latent anti-Semitism. 216.203.27.99 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA


it can be added, but why is it in the first line of his biography? when I think of John Stossel, I don't think immediately of his Jewish religion. --69.113.38.124 13:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Is there a reason why the Dr. D entry states the settlement amount was never released but the Stossel page says an exact amount?

Also: Who is "Dan Schneider" and why do we care about a post he made to a hackwriters mailing list about John Stossel?

Add criticism for balance

If there is any substantive criticism of Stossel out there, we may want to add something about it for balance. -- 22nd February, 2006

Currently, the External links section contains two independent sources that are critical of Stossel's reporting but none that are neutral or supportive. The Schneider piece fails to provide evidence for some of its criticisms. For example, it does not address the main tenet of Stossel's program Greed--that it frequently motivates people to serve each other through trade and innovation. The other links are to Stossel or ABC pages. -- 22nd March, 2006

I Agree that there needs to be criticism added to this page. After reading articles like You Call That Art it is obvious that there is going to be people who disagree with his views. External links are not showing all sides of this story. -- 30th May, 2006

www.fair.org has a ton of stuff on Stossel that is both critical and supported by source material. His methodology is often flawed (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011706.shtml), therefore agreeing with his preconceived notions that private enterprise is always better than public works. Also, to not at least include some of the controversy surrounding his work is a key point that is missing.

What that dailyhowler article conveniently leaves out is that Stossel said at the beginning of the segment that Belgian students outperform American students on international tests. It is well-known that American students do poorly on the international tests.[1] The rest of Stossel's segment is used to make the point TV-friendly. JHP 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant (or non-NPOV) to identify the political affiliations of the critic-sites. "Progressives" tend to oppose libertarians like Stossel in principle, and their criticism reflects this. The http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/18.html#a8765 link is a fairly savage attack that calls Stossel a pathological liar. That's not a balanced criticism.

Agreed. Wikipedia has a reliable sources standard that most of these critic sites don't meet. JHP 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the entire Stossel page is misleading in that it does not clearly state that Stossel regularly cherry-picks facts from questionable sources to advance the neo-conservative political agenda. Stossel is, like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Rush Limbaugh a neo-con pundit with a hyper-conservative slant throughout all his work. To describe Stossel as an objective journalist would be comical and most misleading. Much like Malkin or Coulter, he advances his political beliefs and agenda through biased and poorly researched articles and shows. Take for example his articles on global warming in which he cherry-picks facts from neo-conservative think tanks (funded by Exxon or other large gas and oil corporations) to support his contention that global warming is a "myth"! Here we have Stossel, a psychology major (!) telling the public that hundreds of world famous, PhD scientists, and Nobel Prize winners are somehow all wrong about global warming–and that we should believe Mr. Stossel instead. Like the person mentions above, Stossel's info sources are typically neo-conservative think tanks that are bent on advancing their political agendas. Stossel is part of the neo-conservative movement in the USA which attempts manipulate public opinion with propaganda masquerading as "fair and balanced journalism", to use the comical and most misleading Fox News slogan. Zamboni driver 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Upon doing further research into Mr. Stossel's reporting record, I want to share this article with the Wiki community which brings to light serious questions regarding Mr. Stossel's journalistic integrity. It appears to be the case that Stossel has in fact fabricated lies regarding the safety of organic produce, and his bogus report resulted in his own reprimand by ABC as well as one of his producers being suspended for fabricating so-called "research" that concluded organic produce was contaminated with e.coli bacteria. Here is an article which was published in the New York Times which summarizes Mr. Stossel's bogus and simply made up claims regarding organic produce:


Report on Organic Foods Is Challenged Source: http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/073100abc-organic.html

On Feb 4, the ABC News correspondent John Stossel hosted a report on "20/20" that probably surprised many viewers. It made the case that organic food is not necessrily healthier than conventional food–and might actually be dangerous.

Citing research he said was commissioned by ABC News, Mr. Stossel said that organic food seemned more likely than conventional food to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. He also said that conventional produce does not necessarily have more pesticide residue than organic produce, contradicting one of organic food's primary selling points.

"Our tests, surprisingly, found no pesticide residue on the conventional samples or the organic," he said in the report.

But the two researchers who were commissoned to do the testing--Dr. Michael Doyle, a scientist with the University of Georgia, and Dr. Lester Crawford, director of Georgetown University's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy--said they never tested produce for pesticide residue for ABC. ABC executives are now looking into whether the statement about produce, a key premise on which Mr. Stossel built his case, was made without any basis in fact.

"All I agreed to do was test for indications of pathogens," Dr. Doyle said. "I didn't do tests for pesticides."

Dr. Crawford said that while he did not test produce for pesticides, he did test chicken-and found residue on the samples of conventional poultry but not on samples of organic poultry. Those findings were not mentioned in Mr. Stossel's report.

The producer of the segment, David W. Fitzpatrick, responded in a letter by saying that the pesticide tests were done and that the results had been forwarded to the Organic Trade Association, a group that spoke in defense of organic produce in the segment. The executive director of the association, Katherine T. DiMateo, said Friday that the organization had not received results from any tests for pesticide residue on produce.

Despite being told by the environmentalists of the doctors' denials, ABC showed the report again on July 7. During an on-the-air conversation with Cynthia McFadden, a "20/20" anchorwoman, Mr. Stossel said, "It's logical to worry about pesticide residues, but in our tests, we found none on either organic or regular produce."

Last week, ABC News executives still could not address the questions raised in February. They, at first said pesticide tests were performed on produce by Dr. Crawford. Told that Dr. Crawford maintains he did not do such testing, they later released a statement saying they would look into the matter and "if a mistake was made, we will correct it." Mr. Stossel had no comment and Mr. Fitzpatrick was on assignment in Africa and unavailable.

Stossel is clearly a "journalist" with a political agenda and axe to grind. Stating this here is not POV, but rather, unfortunately, factual. Zamboni driver

This is blown out of proportion. Stossel was told that it was tested for pestiside but later found out that it was not. He appoligized for the misunderstanding and regreted the mistake. He did not fabricate anything in regard to bacteria. The only statement that was inaccurate was in regard to testing for pestisides. It was a mistake - not a big Axe to grind at the Organic food industry. Morphh 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Zamboni driver, please don't revert other people's comments just because they disagree with you. This is unsportsman-like conduct. The incident you mention is already discussed in the "Criticisms" section of the article. This article does not claim that John Stossel is an unbiased journalist. Quite the opposite, it clearly states that his journalism is influenced by his libertarianism. John Stossel's position on global warming is certainly more skeptical than mainstream science concensus, but he is right that there is still some legitimate academic debate on whether it is caused entirely by man or not. If you don't believe me, read Climate Change Science by the National Academies of Science. --JHP 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, JHP. I deleted Morpphs posting because it's knee-jerk contrarianism. His posts shows he did not read/comprehend the NYT article I posted on this topic or address its contents. I'll leave his posting and yours so others can read and conclude for themselves. I find it amusing to read these "defences" of Mr. Stossel now coming out of the woodwork after my posts. Notice they never address the content of the charges against Stossel of deliberately making false claims against the organic food industry; instead they say my comments are "blown out of proportion." What is funny is that it IS a big deal in the organic food industry! Just Google this topic and read for yourself.Zamboni driver 06:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


The text that jumps out at me in the criticism section that seems logically flawed is:

The bulk of this criticism comes from progressive organizations[14][15] which strive to expose "conservative misinformation in the media."[16][17] However, John Stossel is a libertarian, not a conservative.[18][19]

The fact that this is offered as a defense is flawed because while people may define themselves as libertarian, libertarianism is not completely exclusive of conservatism. Conservatism shares many of the same ideas as libertarianism, especially about corporate conduct and various activities of the government. To highlight just look at the quote of noted libertarian Milton Friedman, "I am a libertarian with a lower case l and a Republican with a capital R, for the sake of expediency."

I wrote that section of the article. The statement that he is a libertarian is not intended as any sort of "defense". It is intended to avoid the confusion of thinking that he is conservative. He is not, and he says he is not. Libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing. Here is the definition of libertarian from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2a: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
2b capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
You are right that "libertarianism is not completely exclusive of conservatism", but libertarianism is not completely exclusive of liberalism either. You do remember set theory from high school math, right? Libertarianism and conservatism intersect, but libertarianism and liberalism also intersect.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union is generally considered to be a very liberal organization but, since it advocates individual liberty and opposes government power, true libertarians tend to feel right at home supporting the ACLU.
Most people who call themselves libertarian vote Republican, but that's not always the case. I am a libertarian, but I am also a Democrat. Take the quiz and you will be able to see a diagram that shows the difference between conservativism and libertarianism.
JHP 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That quiz is ridiculously biased. There's so few questions as to render it useless, and the questions that are presented are worded in such a way as to elicit a lot of "libertarian" responses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz#Criticism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.112.60 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
The quiz is a recruiting tool and the questions are far from perfect. A more accurate quiz would have impartial wording, more questions, and measure how strongly respondents feel about each question (e.g. "On a scale of 1 to 5, how strongly do you agree with each statement"). However, saying that it is useless is an exaggeration.
You seem to have missed my point, though. My reason for pointing people to the quiz was so they "will be able to see a diagram that shows the difference between conservativism and libertarianism." The 2-dimensional political diagram is very useful and is far more accurate than the traditional one-dimensional left-right political diagram most people are familiar with.
When I posted my earlier statement, I didn't realize that the two-dimensional diagram was available on Wikipedia, but now I do. So how about this: Don't take the quiz, just look at the diagram.
Compare the typical one-dimensional diagram...
Liberal <----------------------------------------------> Conservative
...to this 2-dimensional diagram...
By the way, please sign your posts.
--JHP 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You know this is a strickly American way of looking at left and right. Everywhere else in the world, there is no such thing as "liberal". Left means "socialist" (and broadly defined within that means everything from the original libertarians: the anarchists, to Stalinists and everything in between).216.203.27.99 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

In my experience, the external links in Wiki articles related to people tend to list the people's own websites or work first yet I notice that the external links here that are critical of Stossel come before the links to his own work.

If you have a problem with Stossel thats fine but at least afford the man respect for his own work and list his link first like what is done on most Wiki pages. I see bias in the article.

edit: There. I did it myself. If anybody has a problem, I'll hear them out.


Snark

Down to earth/uninformed style?

Jonabbey 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Edits, July 2006

A bit new to Wikipedia editing, so didn't first put a summary of suggested additions when I added the "Criticisms of Stossel's Reporting" heading and accompanying 5 paragraphs of text. Hope no feathers ruffled, change all you want, of course, no offense intended.

Also, deleted a bit of text in my edit from circa 7/11: took out a phrase about Stossel's "down-to-earth style" from "Books" since I felt it threatened NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Again, hope no feathers ruffled, change it back if you like.

Suggested further edit, to be implemented circa 7/22/06 if no objections:

1)This entry already a bit long. Subtract all but 5 or 6 of the "Give Me a Break" segment titles, the paragraph under "Criticisms" beginning "In June of 2001" in the interests of brevity. DONE 7/24

2) Make new para. under "Criticisms" briefly discussing Stossel's pro-free-market stance as it relates to critiques that have been made of his reporting. Move the bit of text under "Legalize organ selling" into this paragraph and do away with that heading. 7/25 NOTE: REVISION ALREADY DONE (ADDITION OF "LIBERTARIAN VIEWS" MAKES THIS LARGELY IRRELEVANT.

3) Add new heading, "Stossel in the Classroom," to discuss controversial instructional materials for public schools put out by Stossel. For sample units, see under "guides and worksheets" at http://www.intheclassroom.org/students/index.php. DONE 7/28--FORGOT TO LOG IN LIKE AN IDIOT, BUT THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS PUT IN 5 MINUTES AGO ARE MINE Dicksonlaprade 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Let me know of suggestions or objections.

Dicksonlaprade 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: schedule busy. will complete suggested edits, hopefully, later this week.129.15.127.254 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"The latter petition was the product of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is affiliated with a number of corporate-funded, far-right organizations known for global warming denialism" The wording far-right is a point of view.--Soliscjw 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed "far-right" to "conservative." Good catch. Dicksonlaprade 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
While reading further I found another item in the same sentence 
I am not sure that is why I did not change it my self 
"global warming denialism" I think the word denialism should be changed 
to some thing like "groups who question humans role in global warming."--Soliscjw 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That's tricky. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly on the side of human industrial activity being a primary cause of global warming, which makes it even trickier. This is why I used "denialism." "Global warming skepticism" is problematic for the opposite reason, since "skepticism" has a positive cast. "Global warming contrarianism" works (e.g., science journalist Chris Mooney uses it), but is an unfamiliar word choice. Your suggestion--"groups who question the human role in global warming"--works, too, but it doesn't get across the fact that such groups are (1) often funded by the fossil fuels industry (see, e.g., the entries for the Cato Institue and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Exxonsecrets.org, MediaTransparency.org, and SourceWatch.org) and (2) at odds with the vast majority of scientists on the question of what causes global warming.
Any changes someone can suggest that deal with these difficult issues are welcome. 129.15.127.254 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that I dissagree with the statement just saying that the term "denialism" is pointed and implying a negitive point of view of the group. This is why I did not change it on the page since this is such a highly charged topic.--Soliscjw 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky. I definitely see your point about it being a bit of a pointed word choice. Dicksonlaprade 16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed it is better, but I think the word skepticism does not work well in the sentence.--Soliscjw 22:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the user who suggested denialism. A lot of these "skeptics" on the issue of global warming will use pseudoscience to justify their skepticism. Why are they not skeptical of the opinions presented by opponents to the consensus opinion? That's not what I would consider true skepticism. 75.19.112.60 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary (?) NPOV tag above Criticism Section

On July 26th, Soliscjw added an NPOV tag right above the "Criticisms" Section so that there would be a note that "the neutrality of this section is disputed." I'm not sure that this tag is really necessary. Two word choices in the original "Criticisms" section were considered problematic by Soliscjw and others: one was the use of "right-wing," which I replaced with "conservative," and one was the phrase "global warming denialism," which someone else replaced with the phrase "global warming skepticism."

Both Soliscjw and I would like a better replacement for the last-mentioned phrase, but I don't think that that, by itself, warrants an NPOV tag. Unless there are other issues people want to to discuss in this section, I vote we remove the tag on or about August 13. Dicksonlaprade 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I will take it down there were a few thing that I thought were and they have been fixed (at least as far as pov)--Soliscjw 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Cool. Thanks! Dicksonlaprade 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Was there some thing wrong with the section early career?

It has been removed I do not know if there was a reason behind it or is it the work of a vandle. I did not want to revert the section if there was a valad reason behind removing it.--Soliscjw 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it as soon as I saw it because, in my opinion, to remove something like that without so much as an edit summary indicates such poor editing or, more likely, outright vandalism, that the appropriate reaction is "revert first, ask questions later." Lawyer2b 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism but wanted to make sure and wanted to "assume good faith" just in the slight chance it was not--Soliscjw 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of "criticisms" section

For no apparent reason, the ENTIRE three-paragraph "Criticisms" section has been removed and replaced with this: "Since the late 1990s, Stossel's journalism has become increasingly criticized by groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America for alleged innaccuracies and misrepresentation. Stossel himself states that there were no intentional innaccuracies and believes that his political views have drawn the ire and aggression of the 'liberal left'. It should be noted that the attacks on Stossel coincided with his political shift from liberalism to libertarianism. [citation needed]"

If you remove three paragraphs of material which is supported by over twenty citations without so much as a how-do-you-do on the discussions page and replace it with a vapid paragraph which provides no information whatsoever on criticisms of John Stossel--a paragraph which, moreover, is not even supported by a single citation--then perhaps Wikipedia is not the right forum for you. I am, of course, reinstating the inappropriately deleted material today. I have no problem with people updating or tidying up this material (as many have done already), of course, but I see no plausible reason to Stalinize the "Criticisms" section to make Stossel appear to be a put-upon saint when the truth is actually much more complex. I trust that this will not result in an idiotic edit war. Dicksonlaprade 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. There is a strange problem with the last paragraph of this section which wants fixing, but I am going to leave this section alone for at least a week. If someone else would like to fix the problem without deleting everything in sight, please feel free. Dicksonlaprade 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section should stay since Stossel does have critics who make good points. I have added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph pointing out the politically-oriented nature of many of his critics. It is telling that the criticism section is the longest section of the article: The Stossel-haters are out in force. JHP 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that most of the criticism section should stay; however, I have (for now at least) removed the section on 'price gourging' since it did not actually mention any specific criticisms of his opinion--it merely stated what his opinion is. --69.139.102.138 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism

The libertarianism section is quite bad and looks as if it was written to intentionally portray Stossel in a negative light. Libertarians believe in personal liberty and the free market, but you would never guess that from the way the article is phrased.

Also, the article sometimes confuses the terms conservative and libertarian. Many of his left-wing detractors call Stossel conservative because they only recognize two political ideologies, but they label him incorrectly. In his second book, Stossel quite clearly states that he is NOT a conservative. JHP 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading WP:EP, I have decided that the proper thing to do is move the offending text here:
An example of his libertarianism is his claim that the body organ transplant shortage in America could be solved if people were allowed to sell their organs. [2] He also argues that cousins should be allowed to marry one another [3], given that first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease. [4]
These are not common libertarian positions so they provide a poor example, especially when taken out of context. Plus I have decided to rewrite the entire section. I feel it is a better representation of his ideology to focus on the issues he has returned to in several stories and articles over the years, and to focus on topics he has done full hour-long specials on. Plus, as I said above, of all the topics he has covered over the years that could have been used as examples, it seems that these highly-controversial ones were intentionally chosen to portray him in a bad light. JHP 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested sources

  • Videos of Schults hitting John Stossel [5][6]
We already had that video (as well as others) in the external links section, but it was removed on November 26, 2006 due to "suspected copy-vio or otherwise inappropriate links per WP:EL & WP:C". -- JHP 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Character assassination

About half the sources cited in this article fail to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. Partisan sources are generally fair in the criticism section, because they are indeed Stossel critics, but they are being used throughout the article to do a hatchet job on Stossel. JHP 08:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of sources being used which identify themselves as progressive organizations or conservative watchdogs:

Here is a list of sources that obviously don't meet the WP:RS guideline even if you ignore partisanship:

JHP, I believe you're misreading WP:RS. You're right that crooksandliar.com is probably not appropriate for a factual reference on the validity of a claim, but it's perfectly fine for an opinion piece. WP:RS says "When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources" (emphasis mine) and "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. See WP:CITE for more details. If there is text, audio, or video available of someone expressing the opinion directly, you may include or transcribe an excerpt, which is allowed under fair use" (again, emphasis mine). Note that we're not arguing over the validity of the criticism, merely documenting what the critics say. Crooksandliars.com is a good example, because they have commentary and often host unabridged videos of the subjects they critique. It's my opinion that such references are acceptable per WP:RS. Wyatt Riot 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the actual video on crooksandliars.com. I intentionally kept the link to their video in the external links section (but removed the broken link earlier in the article because it was broken). If the same video(s) appear on YouTube, however, that would be a more appropriate source because sending readers to a site named "crooks and liars" is an underhanded way of portraying Stossel in the worst possible light.
My general complaint, however, is not that partisan sources are used. It is the overwhelming use of partisan sources in an intentional attempt to violate WP:NPOV. This article was (and still is) a character assasination, not a scholarly reference. The overwhelming use of partisan sources (without disclosing that they are partisan) conveys the idea that this article is an accurate portrayal, when in fact it is largely a personal attack. JHP 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
When simply documenting something that Stossel said, I do agree that a site like YouTube is preferable. But I whole-heartedly disagree about your other point. There is a great amount of criticism of Stossel's journalism and editorials, which absolutely must be cited, just as criticism of Noam Chomsky must be cited. If this article gets large enough, it can even be forked into a "Criticism of John Stossel" article just as there is a Criticism of Noam Chomsky article. Wyatt Riot 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
JHP, it also appears that you are editing under an IP address: 130.76.96.14 (Talk). While this isn't blatant sock puppetry, it does smack of "good hand, bad hand", as it appears you're playing by the rules with your JHP acount and deleting links and citations with your IP. Please remember to sign in so that all of your edits are credited to you.
If you're not at that IP, please accept my apologies, but it appears that someone is impersonating you. Wyatt Riot 02:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Wyatt Riot for busting JHP for sock puppetry! Well done. JHP's unconvincing explanation below reveals an uncomfortable wanting regarding the numerous and valid criticisms of Stossel provided herein. For libertarians to honestly offer up Stossel as an exemplary libertarian is quite comical. As has been repeatedly shown on this page (and on numerous other very reasonable websites), Stossel is a third rate tabloid journalist who is has been caught lying on many occasions in his reporting. And when he's caught he pulls a disappearing act!-and so does the rest of the ABC news crew working with him. ABC: the folks who just brought us the marvelous "Path to 9-11" debacle of lies and misinformation posing as "docudrama". Please! Nobody takes Stossel seriously. I'm not out to hatchet job him, or POVing him. Simply put, Stossel is a tabloid journalist producing shill stories serving special pro-corporate interests and political persuasions. Please, JHP: sock puppetry is most unbecoming behavior. It makes me wonder if you work for ABC, or are part of Stossel's production staff or something :D. Hey just kidding, I hope we can all have a laugh here and not take ourselves too seriously. Zamboni driver 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know which parts of the last paragraph were "just kidding" and which weren't!?!? I guess I'm taking it on the chin for accusing Zamboni Driver of unsportsman-like conduct in an earlier post. I probably deserve it. Zamboni Driver, I apologize. --JHP 02:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I just forgot to log in. I tend to do that when I'm not at my home computer. - By the way, I do forget to sign my posts sometimes too. Please don't think I mean any harm by it. JHP 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the article. I intend to expand the libertarian section when I get the time. If you want to include his controversial positions, please be fair and briefly explain his logic. (See my comments in the Libertarianism section, above.) Also, a single sentence explanation of libertarian ideology is a lot less reading than following the link and reading an entire article, that's why I put the libertarian explanation sentence back (with rewording). If you think the sentence, "However, Stossel's views have often been controversial, especially among those who distrust capitalism and big business" is inflamatory, I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase it. It was not intended to be inflamatory. JHP 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm more-or-less satisfied with the way the article is going. I understand now what you mean about the critical articles in the Libertarian section; it seemed like your edit summaries were arguing that they weren't valid criticism, not that they just were out of place in that section. The only parts that I believe should be kept out or drastically reworded are "especially among those who distrust capitalism and big business" and "Progressives tend to disagree with libertarians like Stossel in principle, and their criticism reflects this". The former seems phrased in a way that is demeaning or snide, although I can't put my finger on why. Just the way it comes off. The latter passage seems to lump all progressives into one easy-to-dismiss category, but the statement is also self-evident (and therefore unnecessary): any people with fundamentally different belief systems are of course going to disagree with each other in principle, simply because of their fundamentally different belief systems. I think the simpler the better, like "especially among many progressives" or "progressives tend to disagree with Stossel", but still not quite there. Maybe the problem I'm seeing is that there can be a great deal of overlap among libertarian and progressive ideals, as evidenced in movements such as progressive libertarianism. Wyatt Riot 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What I was trying to say with those statements is that progressives believe that government programs are beneficial, and capitalism is harmful. While libertarians believe that government programs are harmful, and capitalism is beneficial. So, even if their goals are the same (e.g. reducing poverty, improving education), their means of achieving those goals are polar opposites. JHP 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if those generalizations are always true, though. Most of the progressive magazines I've read through are 50+% ads (take that how you will) and a friend who describes himself as a fervent libertarian believes that government programs are necessary in some instances. While your statements may be true in the case of many libertarians and progressives, I think such blanket statements should be avoided. But that's just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained why I removed the one "In Praise of Price Gouging" article from the external links. My thinking was that it's just one of his many newspaper articles and we were already linking to a site that had 35 of them here. If you want to put that article back, I have no complaints. --JHP 06:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to me that this article has more critizims about his books and reporting than supporting giving Stossel critics undue weight. "Neutral point of view says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."--Soliscjw 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to progressive or center-progressive organizations such as Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the criticism section refers also to the Consumer's Union, and the Washington Post--sources with a great deal of reliability in the domains in which they are used in "Criticisms." I agree that the addition of more non-watchdog citations would be desirable. I do not agree that a list of Criticisms which encompasses less than one-tenth of what may be found on the Mediamatters.org and FAIR.org websites is "character assassination"--particularly when both sites tend to be very good about supporting their complaints with links and references to outside sources. Stossel is a controversial figure, and his Wikipedia entry must 1) do justice to this controversy, 2) describe the reasons for it, and 3) provide appropriate links where Wikipedia users may go to read further about the controversy. We're not there yet, but pretending that anyone who dislikes something about Stossel's journalism is a "Stossel-hater" will certainly not get us there any faster. Dicksonlaprade 19:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is better now than it was a few days ago. I have no problem with the "Criticism" section as it is now. The article as a whole is more balanced now. Before, the "Criticism" section made no mention of the fact that many of his critics are influenced by partisanship. The "Educational materials" section was primarily critical. I moved most of that text to the "Other criticism" subsection. The negative criticism began earlier in the article. In addition, the "Libertarianism" section cast him in a bad light. There were links to videos on a site that gave the impression that Stossel is a "crook and a liar". And finally, the article said nothing positive about him to counter-balance all the negativity. I have addressed all of my major complaints and am now fairly happy with the article. I feel the way to fix the disproportionate length of the "Criticism" section is not by shortening it, but by lengthening the rest of the article in a fair manner. JHP 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I haven't looked too much at the FAIR site, but the Mediamatters.org site uses lots of distortions in their criticism of Stossel. I don't consider Mediamatters.org to be a reliable source. Consumer's union, the Washington Post, NY Times, and Salon are all good sources, though.

Citation needed - Awards

The line about thanking John Stossel for not having an entry might not be true. The closest thing I can find is him saying on the Montell Williams Show back in 2004 that "I won so many Emmys one year, someone thanked me for not having an entry in his category." That's really it. He repeated it in his book, Give Me A Break: "One year I got so many Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech 'for not having an entry in this category.'" [7] No idea if it's true or not. --Ali'i 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And again on the Hannity and Colmes in 2004 (Feb. 18): "I used to win so many Emmys that people would thank me for not having an entry in their category." --Ali'i 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest, then, that it be "qualified" by simply naming the source. Something like, "According to Stossel...." or "In his book, Give Me A Break, Stossel claims..." :-) Lawyer2b 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Defense against "Criticism of his reporting on pesticides"

Three weeks after The New York Times' original article which broke the news about Stossel's incorrect pesticide test claim, The New York Times followed up with another article that defended him. Regarding Stossel's 20/20 report on organic food, The Times wrote:

Most of it reflected conventional wisdom among scientists: organic food has no nutritional advantages and poses a greater risk of bacterial contamination because it is grown in manure.
He also reported that pesticides are not a danger in either kind of produce, which is not controversial either. The Food and Drug Administration regularly tests produce and finds pesticide residues in both organic and regular produce that are well below dangerous levels.[8]

Investor's Business Daily defended Stossel by saying:

Was Stossel "lying to the American people," as Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook has declared?
No. The scientists who conducted the tests reported to the show's producer, not to Stossel. They tested for the presence of both the bacterium E. coli and for pesticide residues. But the residue tests were strictly on chicken, not produce.
One needn't possess Einstein's brain to see how information from tester to producer to reporter could get lost.
Further, had Stossel simply stated "there are" tests instead of "our tests," he would have been absolutely correct.[9]

Steven Milloy (a questionable source in my opinion, but no more questionable than Media Matters) wrote the following for Fox News (another questionable source):

In its January 1998 article titled "Greener Greens (The truth about organic food)," Consumer Reports reported a survey of pesticide residues on produce: "One-fourth of our organic samples had traces of pesticides, compared to 55 percent of the green-labeled samples and 77 percent of the unlabeled conventional samples... Our tests show that ‘organic’ doesn't necessarily mean ‘pesticide free’."
Most importantly, however, pesticide residues found in food, whether organic or not, are virtually always well-within levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency — and the EPA standards are set many hundreds of times below levels at which noticeable effects may be observed in laboratory animals.
...Stossel erred. But his message is correct — organic foods are not safer than non-organic foods based on pesticide residues.[10]

In addition, Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media—which are conservative versions of Media Matters for America and FAIR—defend Stossel's organic food report here, here, and here. As deeply-partisan media watchdogs, MRC and AIM are every bit as unreliable and biased as Media Matters and FAIR. However, if progressive media watchdogs are being used to criticize Stossel, it should be fair to use conservative media watchdogs to defend him.

Media Research Center wrote:

Actually, Stossel’s report was well-crafted, and correct in all of its key assertions. MediaNomics went to the videotape, and found that the wrong comments about pesticides were just two sentences in a report that lasted nearly ten minutes. Stossel’s main point -- that consumers are buying expensive organic foods because they mistakenly believe they are more nutritious -- was amply documented and hasn’t been contradicted by any of his critics.[11]

Accuracy in Media wrote:

Dr. Bruce Ames, the renowned biochemist who developed a simple test to determine which chemicals cause cancer, revealed years ago that residues of man-made pesticides on fruits and vegetables are insignificant in comparison with the carcinogenic chemicals produced by the plants themselves.[12]

A final point: this Wikipedia article states the following as criticism of Stossel, "Later scientific research supported the opposite conclusion, which makes organic produce a more attractive option for consumers who are concerned about such residues." Later scientific research? Shouldn't Stossel's reporting be based on the scientific knowledge at the time of the report? Are journalists really expected to be able to predict the future? --JHP 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points Morphh (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I'm an admitted Stossel fan so perhaps that's why I noticed that although it seems very well supported, the "praise and criticism" section is almost entirely criticism. On top of that, the criticism section seems quite large in relation to the article. I suggest it be pared down considerably, summarized (something like, "Many of Stossel's reports/opinions/conclusions have been criticized for any number of reasons, including...bla bla bla") and then reference some of the links in either that section and/or the external links section. Basically, the article should not be a repository for criticism of Stossel. I welcome feedback, especially from those neutral and/or not Stossel fans. Lawyer2b-blp 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I could see removing the criticism under "education," but the remaining criticms seem appropriate to leave in: the first led to a segment producer being suspended, the last is a clear breach of journalistic ethics, and the "global warming" issue shows ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the scientific consensus on that subject.
I agree, however, that the addition of some "praise" would be good, given the title of the section--but then again, how many other public figures have "praise" sections in their Wikipedia entries?

Dicksonlaprade 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mdk1719 made some extensive edits to the criticism section which I believe added both non-notable and non-neutral point of view material. I will be removing pieces of it and providing edit summaries to explain why for each piece. Lawyer2b 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that, Lawyer2b. JHP 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On 2 January I made extensive modifications of the criticism section to remove anti-Stossel spin. Now two contributors have had problems with my description of the interview added to the rebroadcast of "The Food You Eat" as citing "non-existent results", both of whom, interestingly, concluded that I was being anti-Stossel. Lawyer2b self-reverted his change from "discovered" to "alleged", presumably after checking the sources, but now Morph has also replaced "non-existant" with the comment "Statement doesn't support the claim - reworded with less POV" after I had reinstated "non-existant" which had been first replaced by Lawyer2b, and reverted by me. Lawyer2b's revision of my sentence stated as fact something we don't know and which is controversial, namely Stossel's state of knowledge at the time of the rebroadcast. I certainly don't believe that Stossel "fabricated" results, which is the EWG spin, but it's not inconceivable that he had learned of his error by the time of the rebroadcast but was choosing to brazen it out in a Ratherite way. I don't think that's what happened. I believe Stossel. But there is no reason to state as fact what he knew at the time when I've put Stossel's own words on the point into the next paragraph.

I simply reverted Morph because he doesn't seem to have understood the details of the issue. I suspect my revert of Lawyer2b came up on his screen and he chose what appeared to be more nuanced wording. But the fact that the results were non-existent is not controversial. That's what Stossel apologized for. Chicken was tested for pesticides, veggies weren't, the whole point of the quote is to show Stossel SAYING that veggies were tested when they weren't ("non-existant results"). Then I give his explanation. Morph's comment is in error and his version obscures the point of the quote. If that's not clear or if I am missing something... let's discuss it here. Andyvphil 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, for some reason I was thinking that the bacteria on organics was the untested produce. From that, I thought conculsions were drawn from the statement that were not supported. My edits were in error - thanks. Morphh (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the following interpolation into the paragraph on crit of Stossel for allegedly misusing children. "(Someone at wikipedia should edit this. These allegations make no sense. There's nothing unethical described here although Stossel is libeled with that term. And the term "scaring" is subjective and used to smear Stossel. Why would asking questions about environmental education "scare" the children? It's interesting that the link posted here has the folder name "tamperingwithtruth". It sounds like they are the ones "tampering with the truth". The wikipedia goons will now probably delete my comment because it conflicts with their opinions.)" /s/63.215.122.7 19.Jan.2007. Goon, here. 63.215.122.7 is right that the paragraph is almost certainly non-NPOV and IS certainly badly written...but needs to note that what HE did is not, but is addressed at, WP:vandalism. Instructions to 63.215.122.7: register, research, and rewrite. Andyvphil 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who posted that obviously misread the paragraph he was commenting on. As I understand it, the claim isn't that Stossel scared the children. The claim is that Stossel asked the children whether what they had been taught about the environment scared them. (e.g. Teacher: "Global warming will destroy the planet." Children: "Eeeeek!") The parents supposedly weren't pleased about the types of questions Stossel was asking them. What parent wants their kid to look bad on national TV? -- JHP 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. It was easy to misread, though. As a temporary fix I rewrote it for intelligibility and to remove statements not supported by the source. Need more info to get to point of NPOV, tho. Interestingly, source says the parents (some? all?) wouldn't have agreed to interview if they knew Stossel was involved... The real questions are (a) whether Stossel actually demonstrated the children were being indoctrinated rather than taught, and (b) whether any harm was done to the children. IMHO, parents who are sympathetic to the miseducation of their children don't have much of a right not to be fooled into letting the miseducation be revealed. Andyvphil 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

References

While this is not a requirement, the prefered method of reference use is footnotes <ref>...</ref>. If someone wants to take the time, it would be nice to convert the embedded hyperlinks to ref statements (even better to use the citation tags). Also, refs should follow punctuation with no spaces between the punctuation and the ref or no spaces between refs. Morphh (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Example:

Embedded Hyperlink
He also reported that ...levels.[13]
Footnote
He also reported that ... levels.[1]
Notes
  1. ^ Tierney, John (2000-08-18). "The Apple and the Sins of Journalists". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-01-02.

    2. "Progressive" vs "liberal"

    In parts of the article that refer to organizations critical of Stossel, people have periodically changed the word "progressive" to the word "liberal". Both of these terms cause problems because their definitions have shifted over time. I recommend we keep the word "progressive" for two reasons: First, these groups call themselves "progressive". Second, self-identified "progressives" tend to be left of self-identified "liberals".

    In its self-description, FAIR writes, "As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates..."[14] Media Matters for America describes itself as, "...a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center..."[15]

    Since these organizations self-identify as "progressive" and since that self-identification distinquishes them from more mainstream liberals, I think it is best to accept their self-description. --JHP 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    It is my understanding that "liberal" has become a negative term, so they are changing their name to "progressive" as it has less negative connotation. So, when I see someone change liberal to progressive - I quickly think such - Trying to make it sound better by using a less known and positive term. Odd thing is, progressive use to mean communist. Liberal use to mean capitalist (and still does in the rest of the world). Funny how politics changes these labels to fit their needs. Morphh (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    And before progressive meant communist, Teddy Roosevelt--a Republican--was considered progressive. "Progressive" implies progress. (Is a return to 19th century farming techniques really progress?) "Liberal" and "Libertarian" imply liberty (free speech, free enterprise, free trade, etc). "Conservative" implies cautiousness or resistance to change. When referring to Russian and Chinese politicians, the communists are the conservatives because they want to conserve the old communist system. --JHP 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    lol - that's funny. politics is an odd game. :-) Morphh (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Stossel's Stuttering

    Was John a stutterer? If so, how did he overcome his speech impediment?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.31.93 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 May 2006

    Yes. He overcame it by attending an intensive, three week program that retrained him to pronounce troublesome words. This information can be found in his book, Give Me A Break. MafiaCapo 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    I am suprised that John Stossel's stuttering impediment isn't mentioned in this article. He's involved with the American Stuttering Foundation [16]. <3Clamster 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Good point - we should include this information as part of his background. He discusses it in his book. Morphh (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


    Clearly biased

    It is unarguable that the article displays a biased in favor of Stossel, which is violatin fo WP:NPOV, the criticism section should not at all feature the skepticism featured in this article. Planetsconspire 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, it is arguable. I'll argue that this article does a good job at balancing the pro- and anti-Stossel views. Please let us know exactly which text you feel violates WP:NPOV and we can look into fixing it. Also, please don't remove cited facts without providing an explanation. --JHP 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    A criticism section is not a section for making undefended attacks against a person's character. It is a section for explaining controversy surrounding the person. It is not enough to mention what he did that was controversial. It is also important to explain why he did it. The entire criticism section is well-cited. Please specify which text you think is biased and why you think it's biased, otherwise I will remove the POV tag in a few days. --JHP 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    This article seems very weighted towards criticism. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight I use word counts of the sections to illustrate my point:
    Work: 472 words
    Philosophical influences: 395 words
    Praise and criticism: 1055 words
    Awards: 75 words
    Criticism: 975 words
    This article is 51% about criticisms. To me that sounds biased. The criticism section needs to be smaller, or the other sections larger. Kennonv 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    But the criticism section isn't criticism. it's about criticism. Andyvphil 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. Have you tried comparing the length of this talk page to the length of the actual article? --JHP 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think this article is actually biased against Stossel. It does appear from the data that others have assembled that this is the case. My understanding of NPOV is that you include all views and imply that none is correct. As such, I would argue that a good example of a biased article (in favor) would be Global Warming, which only includes the man-made view and ignores other views such as the sun (which actually seems more likely since global warming is also happening on Mars). Well, anyway, to get back on topic, I think that this article should be expanded with more information in favor of Stossel. There is some pretty biased language in the criticism section by the way. "In June 2001, Stossel presented a one-hour special titled "Tampering with Nature" in which he belittled a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) which warned of the "devastating consequences" of global warming:" The key word in that sentence is "belittled," which conveys strong pov bias. The criticism section also fails to include any response to the criticism, implying that it is correct, which is a violation of NPOV. I think the criticism section should be cleaned up because it is excessively biased against Stossel. Life, Liberty, Property 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    "Belittled" meant he thought poorly of it, which is accurate. Why is that an attack on Stossel? Wikipedia doesn't say he's wrong. Andyvphil 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    OK, so there seems to be broad agreement that the article (specifically the criticism section) is biased, but complete disagreement regarding the direction of the bias. Wow, that helps a lot. Is it OK with others if I just mark the criticism section as biased, rather than the entire article? --JHP 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    You may mark the criticism section as biased, that's fine with me. And I encourage people that disagree with him to beef up the non-critical parts of the article. While the section is well written, it is exhaustive - to the point of appearing biased. The article should be a little more about him and not so focused on people's criticisms of him. I looked at articles of other polarizing figures and they had a much more balanced representation. He is a provocateur of sorts, and I like the counter arguments, but that should be maybe a quarter of what the article is about at the most, and not the major concern of the article. That was my main concern. Kennonv 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think such a mark is called for. Some of the crit is as yet unbalanced by skepticism of the crit (eg, "Stossel claimed global warming 'may be a good thing'" cries out for context), but most of it is in good shape. If someone thinks the section is too exhaustive they can balance it by making the other sections more exhaustive, not by cutting ntable sourced material to fit an arbitrary slot size. Andyvphil 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm a huge Stossel fan, and I think the criticism section does a respectable job of trying to voice criticism without letting it become an all-out-attack on him. I think the disproportionate size of the criticism section simply reflects the fact that a lot of people like what he says and a lot of people don't. --JHP 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Fair use rationale for Image:JohnStossel.gif

    Image:JohnStossel.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    "Union of Concerned Scientists"

    The notion that the UCS allows people "from all walks of life" to join is not relevant to the material in the article. The clear implication of that wording is to suggest that they had non scientists sign their petition to inflate its numbers, but there is no evidence that anything like that happened. (If it did, then OK, let's say that rather than beat around the bush.) This wording appears to be an attempt to draw a parallel where there is none. Also, WP:SYN prohibits using multiple statements of fact to support a point of view. Consctructions like "despite its name" are also clearly POV. That material violates multiple WP policies. Croctotheface 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    That information about the source of the petition is irrelevant doesn't seem to animate any desire in you to remove background info about OISM. And UCS's name is inherently misleading, a fact that ought to be mentioned whenever it appears. That not misleading Wikipedia readers is somehow against policy is a bizarre notion. Andyvphil 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    How is the overall membership of UCS relevant to their petition if onl scientists signed the petition? In context, after mentioning that the petition on global warming that Stossel promoted included signatures from nutritionists, saying that the UCS allows people from all walks of life to join could create the mistaken impression in readers' minds that people from all walks of life signed their petition. Also, the use of "despite" should be avoided, per WP:WTA, since it can inject POV into the article. Also, per WP:SYN, unless a reputable source made the argument you are making with your edit, that UCS is "misleading," we can't publish it simply because you believe it to be true. Croctotheface 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Croctotheface. Yilloslime 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Me too. Morphh (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    You haven't responded to either of my points: (a) your double standard, and (b) that the UCS name is inherently misleading. Every poll or petition should of course be weighed in the context of its sponsor, and having mentioned UCS it is desirable, in order not to mislead the unwary, to clarify that it is not a union of scientists. The idea that it is idiosyncratic of me to note the misleading nature of UCS' name is willful ignorance. It is normative in circles not sympathetic to UCS' biases to mention that fact. Just Google "Union of Concerned Scientists"+"not scientists" for numerous examples or go to Union of Concerned Scientists and look at the Crit section. Are you, seriously, denying that the name is misleading? Andyvphil 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm denying that it is Wikipedia's job to publish opinion, and your entire paragraph here, and all the material you wish to include in the article, is opinion. Croctotheface 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You may want to reword that. I think your refering to Andyvphil's opinion regarding the topic as Wikipedia publishes opinion all the time - we just have to attribute it. Morphh (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would argue that when we publish an opinionated quote or publish a statement that explains an individual or group's opinion, and we properly attribute it, what we are doing is publishing fact. Croctotheface 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I repeat: "Are you, seriously, denying that the name {("Union of Concerned Scientists")) is misleading?" It is indeed my opinion that the world is as round as a cue ball. I can assume the truth of that opinion in editing Wikipedia because contrary opinion is fringe. My opinion, repeatedly stated, is that "Union of Concerned Scientists" is on its face misleading, since its members are not scientists. I'm still awaiting any argument that this opinion is controversial. Andyvphil 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    If Stossel has an opinion about the nature of this organization, then quote him. Otherwise, a discussion of the name belongs in the UCS article, and your opinions and conclusions about organization do not belong in any article, as per WP:NPOV. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I keep having to repeat myself: "...UCS's name is inherently misleading, a fact that ought to be mentioned whenever it appears. And (again!): "Are you, seriously, denying that the name {("Union of Concerned Scientists")) is misleading?" Sourcing the organization without noting the misleading nature of its name is controversial and I've provided a Wikicite for this opinion. I think you are the one who needs to review WP:NPOV. Andyvphil 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Lots of organizational names can be viewed as misleading. The best example are the many corporate funded faux-grassroots organizations that have names like "Concerned Families About Something Or Other". But we simply can't insert commentary every single time the name is used, and we can't insert our own personal commentary at all, under any circumstances. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    If "Concerned Families About Something Or Other" is actually an Exxon PAC that should, indeed , be mentioned if it is sourced in any article. And what kind of weaseling is "can be viewed"? Is or is not the name misleading? How many times do I have to ask the question? Is six enough? Andyvphil 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if we think it is misleading. We cannot put our opinions in articles. And please don't use the talk headers for commentary either. Thanks. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    What I actually put in the article was not opinion, but the reliably-sourced fact that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not a union of scientists. My editorial judgement (opinion) is that it is desirable that the Wikipedia reader be so informed. The exercise of editorial judgement (opinion) is fundamental to this project and cannot be avoided. "That not misleading Wikipedia readers is somehow against policy is a bizarre notion." Andyvphil 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Andyvphil that the UCS's name is misleading, and that this fact should be readily known to readers. However, Andyvphil, I do disagree with your statement,
    "...UCS's name is inherently misleading, a fact that ought to be mentioned whenever it appears.
    Think about the ramifications of such a policy. Nearly every special interest group tailors its name in the hope that when that name falls on the ears of the public, that it will be well received. "Pro choice" groups use that term because, hey, who could be against granting people choice? "Pro life" groups use that term because no one wants to be known as "anti-life". "People for the American Way", well, you get my point, I'm sure. So anyway, the problem is, if we decide that such monikers and terms need to be shown up as the obvious euphamisms that they are, in "every place" that they spring up, that these pages will become nearly unreadable.
    I mean, nothing is going to be perfect, but at least, here on Wikipedia, with wikilinks all over the place, one who wishes to (and I readily admit, sadly, that this will not include even a majority of readers) can go to the UCS article and find out what the group is really like. I think that that's the best we can do, except for perhaps noting the fact that they are an interest group, which is neither POV nor defamatory nor even questionable. That's what I'm going to do in a moment, and you tell me what you think of the way it looks. Unschool 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    One problem with your compromise proposal is that I think UCS' name is peculiarly misleading. "Concerned Families About Something Or Other" or "People for the American Way" may dubiously claim to be "Families" or "For the American Way" but neither "families" nor "people" lay claim to any special expertise. Noting that it's a pressure group is an improvement but still leaves unanswered the implication that it is a pressure group composed of scientists. And I already, willingly, compromised, converting the longstanding inline comment to a footnote to avoid the implication I had been accused of making that UCS had included the signatures of nutritionists, etc. Does that little number in brackets really make the text "nearly unreadable"? If UCS' name is misleading, is it really "POV" or "defamatory" to provide clarifying information from their own website? Andyvphil 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    My issue is primarily that you have a very clear OPINION about this group and, based on your most recent comment, their ability to comment about issues such as global warming. As you should be aware by now, Wikipedia does not publish the opinions of its editors: per WP:NPOV, articles should be written from a neutral point of view. The effect of including the language that you favor would be to cast doubt on the petition promoted by the UCS. It would suggest to readers that they should somehow doubt whether their signatures were obtained from scientsts, when in fact there does not seem to be any actual doubt as to that fact. Your personal dislike for this organization and your opinions about whether it should call itself what it does remain irrelevant to the article. Croctotheface 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    My editorial judgement is that it is a fact ("By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."-WP:NPOV) that UCS's name is deceptive. If revealing that fact will cause readers to doubt UCS' veracity measures can be taken to counteract that effect, to the extent deserved. I neither said, implied or believe that they used the signatures of non-scientists. If you can find the cite I will have no objection to your inserting a declaration to that effect. But Wikipedia readers ought not be misled merely to prevent them from supposedly jumping to conclusions you find unpalatable. Also, the idea that having opinions disqualifies one from acting as a editor is idiocy. Before you point me at WP:NPOV as the supposed justification of your position you really ought to read it: "All editors and all sources have biases." Andyvphil 07:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    How do you get from what I said ("Wikipedia does not publish the opinions of its editors") to "having opinions disqualifies one from acting as an editor"? They are not at all like each other. Regarding the idea that your opinion about UCS's name should be considered a "fact", there is nothing in either the realm of logic or fact that I can imagine would support what you're saying. Anything that involves a value judgment or a judgment about which someone could expect to be criticized, for instance that they are engaging in deceit, is certainly a matter of opinion. Would you be in favor of saying in the text that John Stossel is "deceptive" because he said that the 17,000 signatures of the other petition came from "scientists"? The judgment about the value of what he said should be left up to the reader to decide for himself. Croctotheface 09:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    To answer your first question, you started off by saying "My issue is primarily that you have a very clear OPINION about this group..." Secondly, we don't say Stossel is "deceptive" -- but we supply the fact that OISM acknowledged verifying less than 17,000 scientists. Nor did I say UCS was "deceptive" -- but I supplied the fact that it is not a union of scientists. "Let the facts speak for themselves" -- WP:NPOV. What we are dealing with here is your preference that a reliably-sourced fact be excluded from the article. Now, on this page, where we are supposed to formulate editorial judgement (reach a consensus of opinion through discussion and argument), I am still waiting for anyone to defend the proposition that the name "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not misleading. Instead you take refuge in false generalities and straw man arguments. Andyvphil 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Your edits have been informed by your opinion that the group's name is "deceptive". It is clear that your opinion informs the changes you wish to make to the article. Therefore, I cannot see how your changes possess a neutral point of view. Regarding your belief that an editor here needs to "defend the proposition that the name...is not misleading", you are mistaken. That debate is wholly irrelevant to changes to this article. See above for why; I do not care to repeat everything that I and others have said in trying to explain to you what is and is not relevant to this article. If you can't be convinced that you have been mistaken in this case, then there is no reason to continue to engage in this discussion. The consensus is firmly against the edits you want to make. Croctotheface 19:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    The properly-cited and relevant fact that UCS' name is deceptive was in the article for a long time before you decided to advance your POV by deleting it, so I remain unimpressed by the depth of your "consensus". Andyvphil 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm very sorry, Andyvphil, but I just need to reiterate that your beliefs (which I share) regarding the deceptive nature of the name need to be taken up on the UCS article. It just doesn't merit marking up every article in which this group is mentioned. I sense your frustration with this fact (for it is a fact, I concur) of the deceptive nature of this group's name. I simply—and respectfully—disagree with your conclusion that this deception needs to be included in the Stossell article. Sorry. Unschool 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    The controversial and deceptive nature of the name is taken up in the UCS article, but I fail to see why the reader of this article should need to follow the blue-link to find that out. "Does that little number in brackets really make the text 'nearly unreadable'? If UCS' name is misleading, is it really 'POV' or 'defamatory' to provide clarifying information from their own website?" If the problem is that you don't think it's worth the conflict, I understand. If you don't think the clarification is desirable, I don't understand. Andyvphil 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    The problem is that I don't think that your proposed solution is practical. I feel that step you would take (clarifying the deceptive nature of their name in every instance in which the UCS is mentioned in Wikipedia) would subtract more from the qualitative nature of the project than it adds. Unschool 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    What does the footnote subtract from the qualitative nature of this article? Andyvphil 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not from the qualitative nature of the article, but from the project, en toto. To include caveats about the appellation of a group, in every article in which that group's name appears, would lead to cumbersome, slow-to-read articles, and would generally look unprofessional. Simply put, the veracity of everything we write in here should be made clear, but not at every turn. Let's use a fictional organization to make my point:
    • This organization, we'll say, favors laws which would a) mandate that everyone be trained in the use of handguns at age 14, b) provide everyone with a handgun at government expense at age 16, and c) require a fine of $100 for any citizen found without his government issued handgun after they reach the age of 18. This group favors these laws its members because sincerely believe that such measures will lead to a reduction in violent crime. (And who knows, maybe they'd be right.)
    • Anyway, before they become well-known, they decide to name themselves, "Americans for the Preservation of the Right to Self-Protection" (APRSP). Now, depending on your political point of view, you might regard the APRSP to be a bit of a deceptive name, since they not only favor preserving "rights", but they are also mandating certain behaviours. Soon, its spokesmen begin appearing on political commentary shows, either as interviewees or even as talking heads themselves. In doing so, they confine their public comments to the need block laws which would outlaw handguns and other firearms; they do NOT publicly push their true agenda. They work on establishing credibility as a voice in the conversation, without speaking their true mind (though their policy positions are available to anyone who'd care to look up a copy of their bylaws—it's just that the media hardly ever digs that deep.)
    • But anyway, as you might imagine, references to the APRSP start popping up in a variety of Wikipedia articles. First on gun control and the Second Amendment, later in articles on Supreme Court decisions, and eventually, in only superficially related articles on, say, individual journalists who have either reported on the APRSP or who maybe even have supported it (or attacked it).
    • Anyway, some Wiki editor decides that the APRSP's moniker is deceptive, and believes that anyone reading an article with a reference to the APRSP needs to know that this group is NOT just about preserving self-protection rights, but rather, is working to force everyone to own and carry a gun. So in every article that refers to "Americans for the Preservation of the Right to Self-Protection", he adds 'a group which actually favors mandating all adult citizens to own and carry a firearm with them at all times.' It's a simple caveat, and it's certainly true.
    • But if I am reading an article on "gun control", and find that caveat, and then I go to an article on "handguns", and find that caveat, then link over to the article on Charlton Heston (who, we'll fictionalize, condemned the APRSP on his deathbed, hence the reference) and find the exact same caveat—all because some Wiki editor thought that it was too hazardous to my knowledge base to not be informed at every turn—well, seeing this reference to the group's deception over and over and over doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Better, (though far from perfect), I think, for me to go the APRSP article (after I've seen blue links only at every turn), and read about it myself. And in that article, the point should—indeed, must be made. Not over and over and over in articles on difference subjects.
    So that's how I feel about it. The suggestion you made to include this reference to the UCS deception every time they reared their head, is simply not going to result in an encyclopedia that I like. Unschool 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Now, suppose, instead of "Americans for the Preservation of the Right to Self-Protection", they'd decided to call themselves "Doctors for Gun Control"? Andyvphil 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oh for christ's sake, the very root of your argument is that you think people are too lazy to click a link. You're just dressing it up as concern over the name. Get over it. They don't call it the world wide web for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.112.10 (talk) 12:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

    Praise and criticism

    I think this section needs to be retitled and integrated. See NPOV article structure. Morphh (talk) 0:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. Every criticisms section is idiotic and tends to attract trolls and idiots (this article especially). When you integrate the criticism, it isn't as obvious that a bunch of loons edited it. ;) --Rotten 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    Interest group vs. Pressure group

    Andyvphil makes an accurate point, which I think others may miss, when he points out that the term "interest group" does not carry the automatic connotation of an actual organization, the way that "pressure group" does. In the US, at least, while the two terms can be used synonymously, the term "interest group" can also carry a more amorphous meaning, that of a group of persons who ostensibly share some common interests because of some shared heritage or set of beliefs. "African Americans", "lesbians", "housewives", and "college students", can all compromise "interest groups" in this vague sense. Many of the members of such groups may well belong to "interest groups" in the other sense, that is, of an organization that promotes a set of beliefs, but many others do not.

    At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the term "pressure group" does carry for some hypersensitives an inherently pejorative connotation (for some people, I've learned, facts are not admissible if the facts are not "nice").

    Accordingly, I'm going to change the language to refer to "advocacy group", which I believe meets the objections that Andyvphil had to using "interest group" (as an advocacy group is more clearly an organization) and it also does not strike most people as a negative term either. Unschool 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'm basically fine with any term for this. The biggest plus in my mind for "interest group" is that it's where we have the relevant article. I don't really see "pressure group" as pejorative, though, so I don't much care which of the three terms we use. Croctotheface 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, then, Croctotheface, I guess you're not a hypersensitive! Some people think that public discourse should be made without any "pressure" (utter fairy tale nonsense, of course) and thus if their pet organization is so named, think that their motives and/or methods are being impugned. Anyway, I only changed it because one editor had already removed the term "pressure group", and in their edit summary, wrote "removed POV", or words to that effect. Unschool 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it was two editors. My next iteration was going to be "lobbying group", but "advocacy group" is good. The second kneejerk revert also undid my correction of the unsourced statement that OISM is funded by GCM, [personal attack removed] Andyvphil 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Chill out. Remember, no personal attacks. 24.184.68.234 05:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. [personal attack removed] Andyvphil 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    There's no reason to make it personal. The goal of discussion pages is to work collaboratively to reach a consensus about improving the article. Calling me a hypocrite is not the least bit productive in approaching that goal. If you want, make a request for comment and invite editors who are not involved in the dispute to weigh in. Croctotheface 07:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    Archiving

    This talk page takes forever to load. I propose archiving all threads begun before the end of July 2007. That's the first 22 threads, through "Interest group vs. Pressure group" but not including "WP:WEIGHT" or thereafter.

    I would just be bold and do it, but this page has been so contentious that I thought it would be more prudent to float the suggestion first. JamesMLane t c 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Sounds good to me. Morphh (talk) 18:58, 02 October 2007 (UTC)
    Me, too. Andyvphil 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    Me, too. I thought of proposing this two weeks ago when I archived my talk page for the very first time, but I thought "I'll wait until we settle this little issue regarding the criticisms section, first." Little did I know... --JHP 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Assessment comment

    The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Stossel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

    Looks pretty good - some things I would consider
    • Add infobox
    • Consider a Reference section and using cite.php source format per FA criteria recommendations
    • There should be not space between a "." and the ref per WP:FOOT
    • Lots of external links - consider reducing (once a reference section is created - if one of these sites is used as a reference, perhaps it doesn't need to be an external link).
    NPOV looks well balanced Morphh 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    Last edited at 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Stossel/Archive_1&oldid=1050331143"