Talk:John Stossel/Archive 2

WP:WEIGHT

RFC

"Edit-warring without discussion on talk-page over violation of WP:WEIGHT. Intervention needed by admin. [THF] 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)" Well, without participation in discussion by THF, anyway. But the actual "edit warriors" are talking. Andyvphil 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking about this on the talk-page for four days, and have not edit-warred. THF 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. Croctotheface says he won't edit war and if you don't either, now that you realize that your gutting the crit section of material isn't agreed to, then I guess there isn't an edit war. BTW, I think the text you included in the RFCpol, and attribution, should be immediately below the template, so please don't move this thread unless you leave a copy of that behind.Andyvphil 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to RfC: Stossel is, by his own choice, a controversialist. His two books have subtitles of "How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media" and "Why Everything You Know Is Wrong", and those phrases reflect the tenor of his work. This fact is relevant in assessing the issue of how much weight to give to discussion of criticisms of his views. Controversy deserves more attention in the article when the article subject himself has gone out of his way to invite it. If editors think there's an imbalance, let them add properly sourced material about the allegedly underrepresented noncontroversial aspects of Stossel's life. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Original section

The "criticism" section violates WP:NPOV by its excessive length. This is Wikipedia, not the repository for a list of largely non-notable partisan attacks. If the issues can't be demonstrated to be sourced by neutral news organizations, they will be summarized in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. THF 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible solutions or responses:

1. This is not an issue, as enough of the significant content relating to Stossel is critical of him.
2. Break the criticism off into a separate article.
3. Beef up the other sections.
4. Trim the criticism sections.

I do not believe that any of the criticisms here are "non-notable partisan attacks." First of all, several of the criticisms were indeed reported on by "neutral news organizations", unless you are of the opinion that Salon and the New York Times are left-wing propaganda outfits. Second, ABC News apologized for several of these mistakes, indicating that they believe them to be notable enough to report on. Third, Stossel responded to several of the criticisms as well. I see plenty of acknowledgement from mainstream sources already in the text. I am, however, sympathetic to the possibility of creating a new article or trimming details from this one. Croctotheface 09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say all of them were non-notable. But I will trim the criticism section to delete those not sourced to mainstream news organizations. That FAIR attacks you is a sign that you're breathing more than anything else. THF 11:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this anti-FAIR sentiment should affect your editing the way it has. For one, there was no harm in the footnote from the first paragraph of the section. Croctotheface 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was redundant with the other FAIR link. FAIR gets one link per sentence. This isn't a page about FAIR's opinions about Stossel. I've kept three links, which is more than enough, given that there are also multiple links to EWG, Media Matters, and Media Transparency. I don't see newsbusters or the equivalent right-wing organizations cited that plentifully in articles about journalists and reporting organizations far less accurate than Stossel. THF 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again with the opinion. I appreciate that despite your very clear pro-Stossel opinions, you're making some attempt to be fair, no pun intended. What we're dealing with is an article about John Stossel that has a section devoted to criticism of him. Personally, I think the readers would be better served by removing that passive voice sentence with a bunch of citations and have it say something like, "Several individuals and organizations, including X, Y, and Z, criticized Stossel..." Regarding other articles, it would be appropriate to take matters such as those up at those article pages, not here. If MRC or whoever have evidence that a pundit or newspaper or whatever got stuff wrong, I'd be in favor of mentioning it. Croctotheface 11:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change. As you can see at the RFC at Talk:Sicko, it is nearly impossible to get points of view criticizing left-wing figures into articles, but I appreciate your looking there. THF 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about this article's excessive reliance on partisan organizations like Media Matters and FAIR for so many of the references. Media Matters and FAIR are very upfront about the fact that they advocate a particular political position. If there really is so much legitimate criticism of Stossel, why can't Wikipedia editors rely on respected news organizations like The New York Times and Salon.com for their references? I think there is obviously a problem with bias when editors consider thegreatboycott.net to be a reliable source. --JHP 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. FAIR and Media Matters are basically smear machines for the far left. They openly oppose anything that doesn't support the Socialist platform. JettaMann 08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) The nature of criticism of people who take a position on political issues will tend to be political. I would argue that think tanks like MM, FAIR, MRC, and AEI are capable of doing noteworthy things, and we can use material that they publish themselves as reliable sources about what they do. The main questions we should ask are: (1) Is the criticism significant? If Stossel or ABC are prompted to reply to it, I would submit that the criticism becomes significant by definition. In fact, you then have a mainstream media organization, ABC, reporting on it. (2) Is the criticism valid/intellectually honest? If Stossel got something wrong and a partisan organiation pointed it out, that is totally noteworthy in my book. Croctotheface 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quickly, as an addendum to the last point, if the partisan organization is trying to spin disagreement with Stossel as criticism of his professional practices, that would be an example of a criticism that is less valid and less strong and should be omitted. Croctotheface 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on conservative think tanks! They start with a conclusion, then pick and choose the facts based on whether they fit the conclusion. --JHP 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OSIM petition

I really can't imagine not including, at the very least, the extremely low standards that OSIM set for signing this thing. We can leave aside the other criticisms that it was designed to mislead by using a layout designed to look like a work from the National Academy of Sciences, and those other criticisms. It seems painfully obvious that Stossel was criticized here, legitimately, for misleading his viewers by referring only to the number of signatures on this petition and omitting the obvious difference in credentials between the people who signed the OSIM petition versus the UCS petition. That detail is so essential to the section that it really has to be included if we have any intent of being intellectually honest. Croctotheface 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the only people who discussed the Stossel story were FAIR -- everything else in that section is WP:OR or WP:SYN. FAIR has criticized dozens of Stossel stories, and this particular criticism isn't notable. There are two links to FAIR's hit page on Stossel, so interested readers can find this ammunition easily enough. THF 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that we can find a happy solution here. Honestly, I don't think the level of detail is necessary. However, I do think that mentioning these criticisms, in briefer fashion, is entirely fair game. This isn't a difference of opinion about an issue: it's a matter of Stossel quoting a misleading petition in a misleading way and thereby misleading the public. Croctotheface 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Has someone other than FAIR made the criticisms? We already acknowledge that FAIR criticizes Stossel on every aspect of his reporting, and I don't see any indication that this criticism is an especially notable one, even it may be correct. Is there some way you would like to rephrase that sentence? THF 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version, if I may say myself, is much improved. I removed a lot of the chaff from the criticism section so that it no longer overwhelms the article. You seem to agree that FAIR is a notable critic of Stossel's. I would agree that we should not mention every criticism they make; however, if we are looking to find one to use as a representative example, this serves that purpose quite well. Croctotheface 13:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

== External link ==

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1326/event_detail.asp is a webcast of Stossel talking about his "Myth, Lies, and Stupidity" book. I invite others to add it if they feel it useful. THF 11:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah, Andy, relax

Gutted content? I made no effort to gut content. Instead, I sought to distill the criticisms down to their essence. I really don't think we lose anything by reducing to a briefer level of detail. I'm not going to edit war, but I hope that you can self-revert. I really feel that my last version is the best one. Croctotheface 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just you. THF, too. I don't agree that "the briefer versions do not leave out anything important". The shorter version of the "pesticide" story, in particular, leaves out everything that was important. Andyvphil 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I think my edits to the pesticide business actually present a stronger criticism. Are you saying that what was important was Stossel's attempts to deflect the issue? I'm not totally opposed to including those, but I think the E. coli business dilutes a strong criticism by mixing it with a much weaker one. Croctotheface 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section of this article is not a playpen for critics, and "presenting a stronger criticism" is not the criteria for how it should be written. From your version you don't know what Stossel said, you aren't given his explanation of why he said it, and you are misled as to why he was reprimanded by ABC. Not only do you not highlight the "stronger, more substantial parts of the criticism", you miss the strongest legitimate criticism ("arrogance"(true), not "he lied"(dubious)) entirely. And you are not given the evidence that FAIR, etc., overreached in their criticism. Andyvphil 14:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just too much detail. Obviously, a very long section would have a fulller treatment, but it's at too high an expense, as it causes the criticisms to overwhelm the rest of the article. My goal is not to present stronger criticisms for the sake of effectively criticizing Stossel; my goal is to present strong criticisms because only strong ones are worthy of inclusion. I expect that I don't agree with THF about many things, but he's correct that it is not appropriate to detail, in an encyclopedia article, each and every time a watchdog group criticizes Stossel. We can make the editorial judgment that certain aspects of the criticism are less worthy of inclusion because they are not strong. Regarding "what Stossel said", I'm not opposed to quoting him, but it's not necessary to quote him at great lengths, as the article did before. I'm not sure that "why he said it" matters, and I'm not sure that the other version actually explains that anyway. I'd be fine with saying that he was reprimanded for "arrogance", but the phrasing should be a lot more succinct. And who cares if FAIR overreached? It's irrelevant here; this isn't an article about them. Croctotheface 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the section is criticism of Stossel, and FAIR's tendentiosness is precisely on point. As is "why" Stossel said what he said -- he was criticized for lying, he claims he made an honest mistake. And he was reprimanded by ABC in connection with this incident -- it's worthwhile to get it right... I haven't even looked to see what you've done to the article proper,if anything. Gotta run. Andyvphil 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It says right at the top that FAIR criticizes Stossel. I don't thin any reader would leave with the impression that they don't because we omit a fairly weak and irrelevant criticism they make. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, would basically hold that it's inappropriate to remove any information that indicates that FAIR criticizes Stossel. The logical conclusion of that is that we should report on any and all criticism they make of him. The bottom line is that if your issues can be addressed in a succinct manner, we should do it. If they can't, the undue weight problem trumps. I don't disagree that the issue would get a more detailed treatment if it's dealt with in two medium-sized paragraphs rather than a single medium-to-small paragraph. However, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to be as detailed as possible. Croctotheface 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I think "that it's inappropriate to remove any information that indicates that FAIR criticizes Stossel." Nor did I complain that you "omit a fairly weak and irrelevant criticism they make." I complained that your version failed to include the minimum information necessary to understand what happened and, indeed, misled as to what happened. Andyvphil 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say it was inappropriate, but the logic you used leads to that conclusion. You said that the E. coli business with FAIR should not be omitted because material that establishes FAIR's tendency to criticize him is relevant by definition. That argument, if we accept it, would open the door to the idea that it would be inappropriate to omit any criticism FAIR makes of Stossel. On your second quote, obviously you're not complaining because you want to include weak criticism as opposed to strong criticism. My argument is that we should omit the E. coli business because there's not a lot of meat there. If FAIR criticized Stossel for wearing ugly ties, I would hope we would make the correct judgment to exlude it.

More to the point: it is simply not necessary to include all of the detail you wish to include. I am not opposed to adding small details, in a concise manner, to the version I had. However, you did not choose to do that. You simply reverted me because I "gutted the section". I'm willing to meet halfway here, but if you are just going to stubbornly insist on the exact version you reverted to, then you're not making a good faith effort to collaborate. Croctotheface 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say "the E. coli business with FAIR should not be omitted because material that establishes FAIR's tendency to criticize him is relevant by definition"? I don't remember saying anything about the "E. coli business" specifically, but I will say now that it is necessary to mention the bacteria as well as pesticides in order to make sense of Stossel's error and explanation of his error. And, no, I'm not going to start over again from what I've already explained is a fatally flawed and misleading treatment of the subject. "From your version you don't know what Stossel said, you aren't given his explanation of why he said it, and you are misled as to why he was reprimanded by ABC." What part of that don't you understand? Andyvphil 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How does mentioning bacteria relate at all to what he said about pesticides? They're separate criticisms. There is no advantage to quoting him at ridiculous length as opposed to paraphrasing him. If you feel that my version represents what he said inaccurately, then please explain how. If people want to read the quotes, they can use our handy footnotes to find them. Croctotheface 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"[P]lease explain how"? Ok, this is your version, before you, JHP and I modified it:

On the 20/20 report "The Food You Eat" on 4 February 2000, Stossel said that researchers found that organic and non-organic produce had roughly the same levels of pesticides.[18] The Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered that the researchers hired by ABC had not tested any produce for pesticides. On 31 July 2000, the New York Times picked up EWG's story[19] and ABC suspended 20/20 producer David Fitzpatrick for one month and reprimanded Stossel.[20][21] On August 11, Stossel apologized.[22]

(a)One advantage of quoting over paraphrase is that it doesn't introduce gratuitous error. Where did you get that "roughly the same" business?

(b)One reason to mention the bacteria testing is to show that Stossel had results but misquoted them which is not the same as claiming to have research when you have none.

(c)Again, you version implies Stossel was reprimanded for false reporting. He was not. He was reprimanded for inattention to the substantiated claim that he had made an error, going so far as to defiantly repeat the error without checking it.

(d)There are apologies and then there are apologies. The reason the quote Stossel is to allow the reader to determine whether characterizations of what he said, such as FAIR saying he "lied" or your characterization of his apology as an "attempt to deflect the issue", are accurate. Andyvphil 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not insert any instance of "attempt to deflect the issue" into the text. Regarding (a), my paraphrase was less accurate than one that said "no residue" rather than "roughly the same". While I do not consider that "gratuitious error", I'll happily concede the point there. That does not speak to the advantage of quotation over paraphrasing, but to my making an error. I have no idea what (b) has to do with anything. I agree that my initial version should have been more specific with regards to (c), which is why I changed it. I don't see the need to quote Stossel in (d), but it's brief enough that I don't have a major objection. The current version is a bit longer than I consider ideal, but it's not so long that I have a problem with it. Croctotheface 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What you did do was say on this page that Stossel attempted to deflect the issue. The question is, when faced with an assertion like that (or EWG's assertion that he "should be fired for violating the most basic ethical standards of journalism") can a reader of this article reach a reasonable conclusion as to whether the accusation is true. Your proposed text failed that basic test of adequacy. The prior version did not. Andyvphil 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I typed a response to this, but considering that you are responsible for the most recent version of the section and that I expressed that I had no objection to the current form, I don't see what there is to argue about anymore. I don't have any interest in "winning" an argument for the sake of winning it--that's not really in the spirit of a collaborative project like this one. Croctotheface 15:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I like the idea of keeping the section short and tossing out unnecessary details. I have reworded it a little because I felt it was slightly unbalanced and a little misleading. One of the changes was to replace the phrase "pesticide contamination" with "pesticide residue". The word contamination is incorrect because contaminate means, "to make impure or unsuitable by contact or mixture with something unclean, bad, etc."[1] However, as The New York Times wrote, "Most of [the report] reflected conventional wisdom among scientists....[Stossel] 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."[2] --JHP 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with yourTHF's statement that "The 'criticism' section violates WP:NPOV by its excessive length." Lengthy coverage of criticism, if NPOV, need not be detrimental to the reputation of the subject. It may in fact show that the critics have more to answer for than the criticized. And it is guaranteed that the criticisms will be reinserted time and time again, usually in unbalanced form, if an adequate NPOV treatment is not present. Andyvphil 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right that a criticism section can, by virtue of length, overwhelm the article. Per WP:NPOV, an article whose content is unduly weighed toward one aspect of the subject (for instance, criticism) does pose a neutrality problem. The issue we as editors have to solve is what kind of weight is "undue". For my part, I think that we should take care to prune unnecessary detail and verbiage where we can. Croctotheface 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andyvphil that the length of the criticism section doesn't violate WP:NPOV. However, I don't think the article should list all criticism that anyone has ever made against Stossel. Instead, we should use editorial judgment to determine which criticism is significant and which is not. Also, I think limiting each criticism sub-topic to one paragraph, as is now being done, is a good goal.

I'm not too fond of the Praise section. I understand it's an attempt at balancing out the criticism, but the existing quotes just don't seem that significant to me. It would be more significant if the Milton Friedman quote was moved to that section. In fact, I think I'm going to move the Friedman quote now. --JHP 09:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current praise section is fine. I'm too lazy to check the prior section, so that could just be the result of your good work. I agree with the rest of your post, as well. I do not think that the current length of the section violates NPOV, but there is no question that it it possible for such a section, on length alone, to violate the policy. I would hope everyone here would agree that a criticism section that were ten million words long would unduly skew the article toward criticism. To that end, it's important to do what you say, exercise editorial judgment as to what criticisms actually merit inclusion and which do not. I'd only add to that what I've been saying the whole time: that we should phrase the criticism in the most concise way possible. Croctotheface 15:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reformat criticism section?

Perhaps what we need here is a reorganization in formatting criticism. It seems to me that we're running into issues with NPOV Article structure, which reflects itself as a weight problem. I suggest we reorganize the "Praise and criticism" section and break it up by the inclusion of criticism and praise into the article's other sections. Add "awards" & "praise" content into the section under work or under a particular topic or issue. Remove the criticism header and break things down based on critical issues addressed by Stossel over the years. First discuss Stossel's position on the issue, and then discuss the criticism for that issue. I should not be able to look at the TOC and see a list of criticisms - I should see a list of issues Stossel has addressed over the years and I can then read about those issues, his position, and such criticism of that position. Under each issue, proper weight should be given to Stossel's position and the criticism of that position. Morphh ^(talk) 13:34, 05 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the criticisms currently in the article are not about disagreeing with Stossel's position on an issue. They're mostly criticisms where a person or group alleges that Stossel lied, hid the truth, or violated journalistic ethics. Croctotheface 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it appears it is in regard to particular issues - Pesticides and organic food, Global Warming, Education, Televangelism, Other criticism. The article could outline the most prevalent topics he's discussed over the years (which I expect include these or else they would currently fail weight). Why couldn't these each be titles of critical topics, instead of topics defined as criticism? The section titled "Other criticism" could be rolled into the "Work" section along with the praise. Point is.. I'd like to see us get away from a defined criticism section in this article if possible - (see WP:criticism). I see this as being needed to allow the article to progress toward higher Wikipedia standards. Morphh ^(talk) 15:29, 05 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have no objetion to devoting more space to work Stossel has done on certain issues and the positions taken on them. However, it's really apples and oranges. It's one thing to say that Stossel has said that there's insufficient evidence to support the notion of global warming and then quote people who criticize him for saying that. It's something else entirely when Stossel trumpets a bogus letter and petition in support of his point of view. I understand that criticism sections are "discouraged" because they can be "troll magnets". However, I don't think that your solution really would integrate the criticism that is currently at this page in an appropriate way. Croctotheface 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree some the praise and controversies section could maybe use some work, although I think it's useful to have a section on controversies and important to distinguish between criticism and controversy. In particular because there have been some very specific controversies in which Stossel has been involved, I think this section is helpful in explaining each situation. On that note, I reorganized the controversies section to make it more clear. I moved the part about global warming, which seemed misplaced to me in the section on contrarianism, and merged it with another paragraph on global warming that was already located in the controversies section. I then created a "global warming" sub-head, since this is quite a big issue. I also created a sub-head for "conflict of interest." What remains misplaced is the part that gives Stossel's own assertion that he has received criticism from the right. I think this needs to go somewhere else, maybe in the section on praise (make that into praise and criticism), because the other parts are actual controversies, not just criticisms. They discuss particular claims made by Stossel whose accuracy have been disputed - this is very different from a criticism for a particular view, and I think criticism needs to be in a different section than controversies. Langtry (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and cleaned up the sections in a way that I think makes more sense. I hope others will agree. I created a new section devoted to "Controversies," under which I added a sub-head for "Global Warming," (well, I did that in my last edit), and one for "Galbraith and Stossel," thus making this section easier to read. I kept the "Awards and Praise" section from earlier (it had been, "Awards, Praise and Controversy,") but changed it to "Awards, Praise and Criticism." I think this helps make the article more balanced and more logically organized. In this way, the praise is right next to the criticism so readers can digest and weigh them together. It also allowed me to move the part about Stossel's assertion that he is also criticized by the right, which was out of place before. In addition, I find that the controversies section is more balanced now that each point is explained more specifically - it's no longer presented as just criticism, but more clearly articulates Stossel's stance as well as the criticism. I hope others will find this helpful in making the article more NPOV as well as easier to read. Langtry (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We need more opinions about the tweaks to the language

It might be the case that we need to restructure some of these sentences. However, using "indeed" the way that the article does can only add POV. Basically, "Group A said that Stossel is bad because of reason X. Indeed, Stossel..." clearly agrees with the idea that Stossel is bad, in the voice of the encyclopedia. I'm not sure what "mushification" is, except that my goal is to make the language neutral. I haven't removed actual content, except the the business about a bachelor's degree, which readers can go read about at Oregon Petition if they so desire. Croctotheface 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, what Stossel did in ignoring the complaint about his error was "bad". That's why he was rebuked by his employer and why he apologized. It's uncontroversial that his failure to reconsider his false statement, when EWG had proof it was false, was "bad" and Wikipedia is not obligated to treat this as if it were in doubt. Now, EWG and MediaMatters embedded the true bill of goods in a pile of manure, and it is understandable that Stossel didn't pick the nugget of truth out of the pile of shit, but you've made it clear that you consider this incident too trivial to justify context. Andyvphil 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that readers get the same information regardless of whether we say "indeed" or not. Therefore, given the choice between having the article express an opinion (which you concede it currently does) and therefore violate WP:NPOV, or having it not express an opinion, I would prefer to have it not express an opinion. Croctotheface 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your preference for badly written mush isn't binding. And you've ignored the fact that I've pointed out that there is no WP:NPOV issue. There are not two "conflicting verifiable perspectives" on whether or not Stossel screwed up. He did, and we don't have to treat it as a controversial issue. Andyvphil 01:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The degree to which what Stossel did is "bad" is certainly a matter of opinion. Based on your comments, it seems that you believe that the article could say, "Stossel's conduct in this case was bad." I have a hard time seeing that as neutral writing, and the "indeed" that you insist must be included belongs in the same category as that kind of sentence. The article gains nothing from "indeed" and would lose only POV by removing it. Croctotheface 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, actually, I think somebody could hold the opinion that what Stossel did was not a big deal. I don't personally hold that opinion, but we need not hit readers over the head with the idea that he was BAD. Let's just explain what he did and seek nether to minimize nor maximize the severity. The readers can decide what's good or bad, important or unimportant. Croctotheface 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already expressed the idea that what Stossel did was understandable -- he blew off criticism from a source that is usually, and in this case was simultaneously, full of crap. But he screwed up in this case, and got his ass in the wringer. I think this should be said with clarity and pungency, and I reject the idea that pungency is not NPOV. Andyvphil 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that your version is "pungent" in that it reeks of POV. If you mean "pungent" as in "to the point", I don't see how "indeed" is more to the point, unless the point you want to make is that Stossel is bad. Our personal views are irrelevant here, except that you previously said that the idea that Stossel was bad was not in doubt, and that it was unambiguously and universally clear that Stossel did something bad. Therefore, you said, the article could present an opinion to that effect without attribution. If there is indeed no doubt that Stossel did something bad, can the article say, "Stossel did something bad"? If it can't, why can it say "indeed" to substitute for that kind of statement? Croctotheface 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section remains a Media Matters attack piece

I knew it would happen. As soon as John Stossel has a new TV special that conflicts with Media Matters' view of the world, Media Matters finds something to criticize (e.g. the fact that progressives' already well-publicized positions didn't get equal time), and then it becomes a new sub-section of this article's criticism section. Again I ask, why do Wikipedia editors have to rely on an openly partisan advocacy organization like Media Matters, rather than the mainstream news media, as a reference? Should a consistently critical partisan organization really count as a reliable source? Somewhere above, several editors had a discussion about when criticism becomes significant enough to become part of this article. I don't think the new Health Care subsection qualifies. The problem is that the criticism section is consistently being used as a mouthpiece for certain partisan organizations which always criticize Stossel (e.g. FAIR, Media Matters). This is making the entire article unbalanced. I propose that unless editors can get references from mainstream news organizations pointing out factual errors or unethical behavior in Stossel's reporting, the Health Care sub-section should be removed from the article. Can I please get input from other editors before I make such an edit? --JHP 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that I believe the editors who keep expanding the criticism section with the latest Media Matters attack on Stossel are in violation of Wikipedia policy. --JHP 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They're a reliable source for what they do. We can certainly count on them to reliably supply their own opinion. We are not counting on them for facts so much as their interpretation or criticism of Stossel based in fact. If their criticisms are so far off the mark so as to abuse the sources they rely on for facts, then we can employ editorial judgment and remove that material. Croctotheface 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because an organization criticizes Stossel does not mean it deserves mention in the Wikipedia article about him. In fact, it is a violation of two of Wikipedia's official policies, WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV. --JHP 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should reprint each and every criticism. You seemed to be saying that MM is not a reliable source because it was partisan. I replied that it is a reliable source for its own partisan information. If their criticism is legitimate enough to mention, then we can cite them making it. If it's not, then that's a different matter. Croctotheface 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Certainly they are reliable at stating their own opinion. Anybody is reliable at stating their own opinion. However, they are reliable primary sources regarding their own opinion, but WP:BLP requires that the views of critics come from reliable secondary sources.

What I meant when I asked whether a consistently critical partisan organization should count as a reliable source was, do they meet Wikipedia's guideline regarding reliable sources? According to WP:RS, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.... Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves."[3] I really don't think Media Matters meets this test. --JHP 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that MMfA has substantial editorial oversight. If they say something that is factually incorrect, then obviously we don't include it. If their issue with Stossel is centered on disagreeing with him about an issue and not on his journalistic practice, then I say we omit it. If Stossel engages in questionable professional practice, and criticism is coming from partisan organizations, then we can talk about it. Again, we need not print information on each and every criticism, but that's not what's at issue here. Croctotheface 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, what about the Health Care sub-section? Is the criticism substantial enough to remain part of the Criticism section? The criticism section already makes up roughly one-third of the article, and WP:BLP says "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics." WP:BLP is not a guideline; it is an official policy that we, as editors, are required to follow. --JHP 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed the Biography of Living Persons Violation tag at the top of the article because I feel that a disproportionate amount of space has been given to Stossel's critics, specifically Media Matters. Giving a disproportionate amount of space to criticism of living persons is a violation of Wikipedia policy. It was the addition of the Health Care subsection that prompted me to add the tag. Media Matters' primary complaint is that their side didn't get equal time in Stossel's special. However, Stossel never made any pretension of being impartial. He was proposing a different solution to America's health care problem. In fact, if you look at journalism as a whole, Media Matters' position gets far more than equal time while the subject of Health Savings Accounts has been largely ignored by the press. I don't think this "our side didn't get equal time" complaint is significant enough to be included in this article. Also, the letter on michaelmoore.com is a primary source, but WP:BLP requires reliable secondary sources.

I am going to remove the Health Care subsection and the Living Persons Violation tag unless I get objections. If you do object, please propose a remedy to the policy violation of a disproportionate amount of space being given to Stossel's critics. --JHP 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I object and I point to the obvious remedy, contained in the NPOV policy: We report all the notable opinions. If Media Matters got something wrong, I'm sure we can count on the corporate media to provide rebuttals. (The right wing hasn't exactly been shut out of the media -- quite the opposite.) For example, you refer to "progressives' already well-publicized positions". That's your opinion. My opinion is that, considering the widespread public support for a single-payer system (i.e., socialized medicine), it's quite telling that that position gets so little media attention. At any rate, my opinion, like yours, is completely irrelevant to this article. Find some notable commentator who says "Stossel did a great service by publicizing the horribly neglected defense of the status quo to counter all the socialist propaganda that bombards us daily." I'd consider that viewpoint ludicrous but I'd expect that some right-wing mouthpiece like George Will or Michelle Malkin would say it somewhere. That reference could then be added to the section. The same is true of material that disputes the MMfA criticism on any specific factual point. Don't try to achieve a spurious "balance" by depriving the reader of information. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JHP, there is just way to much in this article and much of it doesn't deserve the WP:WEIGHT. The health care section is ridiculous. This article needs a major rewrite. I made suggestions above on formating. Until we get some control on this - the section is just going to become a running list of every critical thing. Keeping the criticism section cleaned up is a half way point but we're not even achieving that. Morphh ^(talk) 11:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I created a sandbox of some major changes that I think would bring this article to some degree of proper weight and neutrality. It still contains much of the criticism or at least a reference to all criticism - just reorganized and greatly summarized. It could still use a bit of work and copyediting but it is an example of what I think this article needs. Please take a look and discuss. Morphh ^(talk) 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The current format, in which specific topics are assigned to subheadings, is more useful to the reader. Some readers will be primarily interested in only one or two subjects, and I'd rather they be able to find specific points in the table of contents. Beyond that, you're proposing deletion of substantial information.

I've seen other instances in which criticism from Media Matters for America meets with this type of response: "They're partisan! They're unreliable! Quoting Media Matters is POV or undue weight!" There often seems to be more effort devoted to trashing Media Matters than to addressing the substantive points at issue. In the specific case of Stossel, Media Matters makes some assertions as to matters of fact and expresses some opinions. If any of the MMfA assertions are false or even disputed, it should be fairly easy to find sources controverting them. As to opinions, I suggested above that pro-Stossel opinions would be an appropriate addition to the article. (A side note: Nobody ever seems to question the White House or The New York Times as reliable sources. Well, the White House has lied to me. The New York Times has lied to me. AFAIK, Media Matters has not lied to me. So, which source should I consider reliable?)

There are passages in the current discussion of criticisms in which the text drifts too much toward adopting a criticism as opposed to merely reporting it. Some cleanup along those lines would be appropriate, but not a whitewash that loses a significant amount of information. JamesMLane t c 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that this is a Encyclopedia Biography and not some blanket website about Stossel. If someone is looking for a particular controversial point, I think they can find it in the summary format and use the reference to find more information or they can just use Google - that's what the Internet is for. There should not be a list of controversial topics in the TOC - this goes against many points of policy (see NPOV article structure, weight, BLP, criticism, etc.). Yes, the change would cut out a significant amount of information, but the main question here is does the article merit the inclusion of all this material. It is too much and overwhelms the article with criticism. I don't have a problem with Media Matters and including such information, but we can do it in a way that is not overwhelming and bias in structure and presentation. Including the lead, we have approx 18k of prose with almost 2k of praise / awards and 9k of criticism. That's half the article devoted to criticism with an article structure and TOC that violates NPOV article structure. Morphh ^(talk) 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically reject the mechanistic approach to NPOV that counts the number of characters or paragraphs in each section and implies that they must be equal (or comparable). The undeniable fact is that Stossel is a controversialist. Accordingly, he attracts more criticism than other TV personalities, more than other Emmy winners for that matter (compare Rachael Ray). Covering the criticisms is a significant and important part of his bio. If, after you scour the Internet and your local library, you can't find any well-sourced favorable information to augment what you currently count as 2k of praise, then that's the just way it will have to be. You'd be justified in complaining about bias in the article only if editors were removing well-sourced passages that praised Stossel or disputed his critics' assertions. If you think there've been instances of that, please identify them. JamesMLane t c 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you there and I didn't mean to imply that POV was just a matter of equally presenting praise and criticism. However, the amount of content for criticism weighed in relation to Stossel's biography is unbalanced. I also don't think we should remove any points of criticism. I think we need to summarize the criticism and better integrate it into the article per some of the policy concerns stated above. There is no need to drum on for a entire paragraph on this or that criticism. State the criticism and move on to the next criticism or integrate the criticism with the point being discussed broadly elsewhere in the article. As it is now, it looks like a list of attacks, which presents bias and offers extended context that amounts to undue weight in the biography of Stossel. Morphh ^(talk) 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the criticisms that have been in the article for most of the past year. My particular complaint is the Health Care section that was added in the last week. The section is counting the number of minutes Stossel gave to people on different sides of the issue. Does the Michael Moore article count the number of minutes he devoted to Health Savings Accounts in his movie? (If it does, it shouldn't.) Good editing requires making judgments about what criticism is significant and what is just nitpicking. Also, the section uses a primary source in violation of WP:BLP, which requires reliable secondary sources. For what it's worth, John Stossel was not endorsing America's current health care system. Quite the opposite, he enumerated its flaws and suggested a solution that is based on the economic theory of supply and demand. --JHP 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see two passages in the article that have a similar problem, namely, stating a fact but in a context that implies a criticism, without attributing the criticism.

• One of them is the one you mention about the allocation of time in the health-care show. I suggest rewriting it along these lines: "MMfA criticized Stossel on the ground that he gave nearly four times as much air time to free-market advocates as to supporters of a single-payer system. [citation]"
• The other is in the "Awards" section. After noting his collection of Emmys, our article states: "However, since his economic views have swung towards libertarianism, the stream of awards has dried up." As an objective fact, that may well be true, but the selection of that fact clearly implies an opinion. Maybe the stream dried up since he got married and it's his wife's fault? We can retain that passage, with proper attribution and citation, if some notable source, similar to MMfA, has said something like, "The industry is biased against libertarianism, and Stossel's adoption of that POV has caused the industry to shaft him when it comes to awards." If we don't have a notable source expressing that opinion, then the statement should be deleted.

Overall, I don't know what you mean about "context". The context is that Stossel continues to generate controversy. If he stays on the air, we can be confident that, sometime in 2008, he'll air a show that draws a significant amount of flak. Any such notable controversies that he's involved in belong in the article. There's no artificial maximum number. Let's give the readers the information, including the pro-Stossel information that I keep suggesting (fruitlessly, it seems) be developed and added. JamesMLane t c 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a need for a John Stossel controversies article. Not sure if that would fall into the POV fork category though. I've seen it done on other articles but that does not mean it is the best way to go. Just a thought. Such may allow for a more balanced article structure and content, without losing the detailed information. Summary style in this article with a main link to a full article discussing controversies. There is enough content to do it. Morphh ^(talk) 2:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

JamesMLane, if you want to add pro-Stossel content as you are suggesting, then go ahead. My role on Wikipedia has primarily been as an editor, not an author. You're not making a proposal, but expecting other people to do all the work are you? Let me point out that notable sources are not the requirement for WP:BLP. Reliable secondary sources are the requirement. You are correct that there are no artificial maximum number of controversies set for an article, but you are incorrect when you say that any such notable controversies that he's involved in belong in the article. Good editing requires making judgment calls about what criticism is significant enough for the article and what is not. Furthermore, we are required to abide by WP:BLP. Wikipedia has much stricter standards for biographies of living people than it does for other articles. --JHP 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me and I expect the average person that within Stossel's biography, the specials themselves would have much more weight and topic. We do little to discuss the special, we just jump right to the criticism of it. Perhaps it is just easier to find criticism and more difficult to expand the rest but it really unbalances the article. I agree with JHP that we should find secondary sources for this... if there are none, this really goes toward undue weight and should be removed. Morphh ^(talk) 2:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That just goes back to James's point about why Media Matters should be considered unreliable. As he says, it's odd that nobody would argue that the New York Times (or Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Post) are reliable sources, and yet they get things wrong all the time. More in the overall picture here, I would agree that criticism sections can pose a weight problem, though I don't think that this one does in its current form. Our responsibilities are to only devote attention to criticism that has merit and to be as succinct as possible in describing it. If, for instance, Media Matters had done 300 separate items, reporting on all of them in some detail would pose a weight problem. That is not what's at issue here. I'm a bit confused by the direction of this discussion: on the one hand, I'm getting a vibe that editors have fundamental problems with the nature of the section. On the other, JHP asserts that he does not object to an otherwise identical version of the section with the health care item deleted. I suppose that what I'm asking, then, is, "What question are we trying to answer?" Is this about a way to undertake a major reorganization of the article? Or is there consensus that the section and article are basically fine, but this one, particular item may have to go? Croctotheface 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not expecting other people to do work that I recommend. It's a volunteer project and volunteers work on what they think is important. All I'm saying is that, if some editors think it important that action be taken to remedy the allegedly improper ratio of criticism to praise, they should take the action of adding information, not removing it.

I'm also against shunting the information off to a POV fork, which is what a John Stossel controversies article would be. (See Wikipedia:Content forking.) The approach of creating a daughter article to address part of the subject in detail, leaving a summary in the main article, is appropriate when the main article is getting too long and needs to be shortened. That's not the case here. There's an instructive example in the handling of the Hillary Clinton article, which is much longer (currently 108kb while Stossel's is < 32kb). Nevertheless, the editors there decided to dismantle the separate Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies article and re-integrate as much of the material as was properly sourced. See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies#Proposal to dismantle this article for a discussion.

JHP comments: "Let me point out that notable sources are not the requirement for WP:BLP. Reliable secondary sources are the requirement." Your second sentence is true as far as it goes, but you're overlooking the role of notability. There are actually two different standards:

• For assertions as to matters of fact concerning a living person, reliable sources are required.
• For determining whether a particular opinion should be reported in Wikipedia, however, the notability of the spokesperson is relevant. The basic standard is: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation, emphasis in original.) An important qualifier is that we don't try to report every opinion that anyone has ever expressed about an article subject. The same section of the NPOV policy states, "It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." Whether an opinion can be attributed to a "prominent" adherent is the test for determining whether it should be reported, under the "Undue weight" section of the NPOV policy. That's why criticism by Media Matters is on a different footing from the exact same statements if made by some pseudonymous contributor to Democratic Underground.

It's in this context that I respond to your statement, "Wikipedia has much stricter standards for biographies of living people than it does for other articles." When it comes to reporting criticisms, we need reliable sources to establish that the criticism was actually made, and even then we don't include it if made by someone nonnotable, but we don't need a reliable source establishing that the criticism is well-founded. Such a source usually couldn't be found. For example, because I happen to have the Clinton article open, I note that, among many other examples, it says this about her position concerning the Iraq War: "This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal." You can certainly find a reliable source to report the frustration, but it's not conceivable that you could find a reliable source to say that Clinton's antiwar critics are right (or that they're wrong). All you can do is report the notable POV's and do so neutrally. (I think that particular example isn't quite so NPOV as it could be, but I'm not going to get involved in editing the Clinton article right now.) JamesMLane t c 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not this is addressed to me, I'll fire off a quick reply. We certainly can and should use editorial judgment to omit criticisms that are not particularly strong or well-founded. Hillary Clinton and other public figures like her are criticized every day by notable people. We can't and shouldn't indiscriminately report on every such criticism. I'm not saying that we as editors are responsible for agreeing or disagreeing with the point of view of people who criticize her, just that we need to ascertain that there is some foundation to the criticism. Croctotheface 08:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Empowering Wikipedia editors to decide which criticisms are well-founded, in an area of controversy, would be an invitation to endless POV warring. As an example, my personal opinion is that the criticisms of John Kerry's Vietnam record were not particularly strong, were not well-founded, and in fact had no basis or foundation. His accusers contradicted their own previous statements and contradicted official Navy records. Should Wikipedia therefore refuse to mention their criticisms? Does the current state of Wikipedia, which does mention those criticisms, constitute a judgment by this project that the criticisms were well-founded? No, and no. The criticisms were notable. Therefore we report them, politically motivated garbage though they were. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article because of BLP concerns and many of the edits were a result of that call; though some may agree while others may disagree, the edits were for the overall betterment of the article. Could some things have remained...possibly. Now, the analogy with John Kerry is not a good one. The issue with Kerry was national issue and was covered by all media outlets worldwide. That one issue touched on his credibility (not knocking him, just pointing out the realities of what happened), his ability to potentially lead, his character, and many other aspects of his run for president. However, the individual issues pointed out in this article are not carrying that wide a scope on/for Stossel. Wikipedia points out, and I will look for it and bring back later, that not everything that is mentioned about a person is "encyclopedic" or deserves being mentioned (possibly notability). A good example of this is the Cindy Sheehan article. The editors quickly remove and have cited why, both pro and con entries. They continually say that not everything she does deserves mentioning. Just like in this article, not everything is newsworthy. Again, a controversy is not a controversy unless it is a controversy. Meaning, if I see a person with bad hair and say so...it is not a controversy of the town just because I say so. But...if the whole town starts talking about the hair, and people respond and react to the gossip, then it is a controversy. Just because one organization complains or criticizes a person does not make it a controversy. The community is somewhat justified in determining whether something is a true controversy or even if it is encyclopedic. It happens everyday in wikipedia in various articles. Just my $0.02! --Maniwar (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Croctotheface. JamesMLane is essentially arguing against editorial decision-making. With the Kerry example, the Swift Boat issue got widespread news coverage and probably cost him the election. After all, he was ahead of Bush before the Swift Boat issue caught on. That alone makes it notable. On the other hand, if the National Review says John Kerry has bad breath, it shouldn't be added to the John Kerry article even if it is true and even though it comes from a reliable source. By JamesMLane's standard, if any author added the bad breath claim to the John Kerry article and has a reliable reference, no editor should ever be allowed to remove it. I think Wikipedia editors should occasionally ask themselves, "Would Encyclopædia Britannica or World Book Encyclopedia include this fact?" Editing requires making decisions about what should be included and what should not. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians see editing and think it's censorship. That's a very childish attitude. These long lists of criticisms and controversies that are in many Wikipedia biographies would never be allowed in a real encyclopedia. It just shows you how many POV-pushers are on Wikipedia. --JHP 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar's response concerning the Swift Boat smears confirms my point. Maniwar doesn't try to defend the proposed standard that we should "omit criticisms that are not particularly strong or well-founded"; instead, s/he points, correctly, to the notability of this particular criticism. Stossel is much less notable than Kerry, so nothing said about Stossel will get as much coverage as the attacks on Kerry, but the principle is the same: We don't exclude a criticism on the basis that we personally disagree with it. There's no policy that requires a criticism to have been voiced by more than one source or to have been covered by the corporate media as thoroughly as the attacks on Kerry were.

As for JHP's response, I'm certainly not contending that all criticisms must be included. My opinions are: (1) the allegation that a prominent politician has bad breath isn't worth including; (2) the allegation that a prominent journalist is distorting facts in support of a preconceived bias is worth including. If you can't see any principled distinction between those two examples, then I probably can't explain it to you.

I also don't accept the proposal that we restrict our coverage to what an old-line print encyclopedia would include. That is definitely not Wikipedia policy. No "real encyclopedia" has two million articles or anywhere close to it. In the unlikely event that that suggestion were ever to become policy, we'd have to begin by deleting something like 90% of our articles entirely, before we even moved on to heavily pruning the remainder. We are far more comprehensive than the encyclopedias you mention. If you think there's a problem with POV-pushing in a specific article, the solution isn't to try to expunge anything controversial; it's to make sure that all significant POV's are presented accurately and fairly.

Finally, I think we have to consider this question in context. Stossel is a controversialist. Given the nature of his work and his entire public persona, the controversies are more important to his bio than they would be to that of, say, Peter Jennings -- another prominent ABC News on-air personality whose work was of a substantially different nature. Stossel has been churning out controversial reportage for more than ten years. I assure you that this article doesn't come close to listing all the things he's been criticized for. JamesMLane t c 08:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack

It seems to me that too much of the article is about his opinions. I think the whole article should be greatly cut down so that it gives the basic information about him. For instance near the start there is discussion of school choice which seems to be mainly people pro and con on the issue using the article to argue back and forth. It would be enough to just have a section mentioning his views on various issues without going into details on the arguements pro and con. This goes for his supporters as well as his critics. Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stossel is notable primarily because of his opinions and the controversies they engender. Reporting such matters is more important in his bio than it would be in others.

More to the point, if you look at the rest of this page you'll see an extensive ongoing discussion about this whole subject. In the course of that discussion, everyone has been proceeding through trying to reach consensus, in accordance with Wikipedia policies, and not through edit warring. In the middle of that, you've jumped in with wholesale deletions of some of the sections under consideration. This would be a good place not to apply the rule of "be bold".

The school choice passages could use some editing to remove duplication. Nevertheless, the reader is best informed when Stossel's views are presented in his own words, or in reasonable paraphrase, and not just palmed off with a link to the article on Libertarianism. The criticism section isn't a generalized defense of the government's role in education, but a particularized critique of Stossel as a journalist, alleging that he misused sources and demonstrated bias in his allocation of time to each side. Stossel's rebuttal is also included. All this information is quite relevant to an article about a journalist.

I agree with some of your edits, but I'm reverting the wholesale deletions. JamesMLane t c 08:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too upset. :-) However, I do think the article has way too much discussion of issues -- from both points of view. The article is supposed to be about him, not a place to debate his views. Steve Dufour 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article shouldn't include generalized debate about whether Stossel is right or wrong on a particular point. For example, by this edit to another article, I removed such "Criticisms" that were constantly being inserted by a now-banned user. His general pro-libertarian screed didn't belong in an article about a left-wing politician; similarly general anti-libertarian screeds wouldn't belong in this one.

The actual text isn't open to that objection, though. Stossel is quoted in his own words. The criticisms aren't focused on disagreeing with his views, but on analyzing his presentation of them. There's obviously quite a bit that could be written pro or con on the proper role of the free market in health care, for example. That's what I'd consider to be excluded by your point that the article isn't "a place to debate his views". JamesMLane t c 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

Following a WP:BLP notice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Stossel I adjusted the balance of the criticism section. I noticed that the whole article needed help so I ended up cleaning it up. There is a lot of good stuff here but it's just gotten messy. Overall I tried to make it a better article without removing any significant points or any references. Please see that discussion for further explanation. Wikipedia can be proud of this article now, IMO. Feel free to further improve! Wikidemo 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see User:Andyvphil is making some revisions to the newly shortened controversy list items. All for the better, IMO. Thanks. Wikidemo 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I like many of the changes and they satisfy my concerns of article structure and a desire for a more direct and summarized criticism. They may need a few touch-ups for accuracy. The only thing I don't care for is the bullet format - I'd prefer they be in paragraph form. I actually agree with much of what James stated, which I think the problem comes down to lack of other content to balance the article. The best fix would be to expand the article to include more about the biography of John Stossel. I do think the article structure needs to be changed regardless and that we could create more direct and summarize prose that would help balance the article until it can become a higher quality article with sufficient content. As it was, I do think there was a NPOV issue for weight, article structure, and balance. It is not that the other content doesn't exist, we have just failed to supply it. So while most of the article is probably a start or B class, the criticism is much more flushed out - which creates a very unbalanced article with a lot of weight on criticism, since the other content is so minimal. Odd problem... Morphh ^(talk) 0:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! This article has gone through more change in the past 12 hours than in the entire previous year. I haven't read through the text yet, but glancing at the section headings I'd say it looks much better. --JHP 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I second I second Morphh that the article definitely needs building and improving, but it's on the right track at the moment. Wikidemo did a good job at getting it that way. --Maniwar (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see some good work. Sometimes an article just needs a catalyst. I shortened the lead by removing the new mention there of factual errors. There is some talk in WP:LEAD about whether or not there should be citations in the lead, and the feeling seems to be you should give a strong reliable source for any contentious/derogatory material even if true so it doesn't look like a POV piece. That leaves us with the option of either citing and justifying the claim in the lead or just saving it for the body. I thought it's just simpler to keep it to the body - nobody can lead without realizing he's a controversial figure. I think the lead does a great job at giving a quick take for someone who doesn't know who he is. No attempt to slant things here, I actually have zero personal opinion on his merits as a journalist. Wikidemo 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that was something I added in as it only said he had attracted criticism for his political views, which I thought was an inaccurate statement. You have removed that particular statement so it now sounds correct and has less POV. Morphh ^(talk) 3:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Worked on formating the references - got through half of them. Once we get these cleaned up, we should really look at cutting back the external links. I think we have way to many. Some should be cleaned up if they are being used as footnotes, others could be added to "Further reading", others we could just delete if they don't add any real value. Morphh ^(talk) 3:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My overall reaction to Wikidemo's pruning is that it hasn't been done in a biased manner, but that some useful information has been lost. I prefer the more expansive version. The pruned version eliminates the dates of the incidents, specifics about who complained and on what basis, etc. The expansive version had subjects grouped by subheadings, so that a reader who wasn't all that interested in, say, pesticides could readily skp that section and not be worried about missing anything else.

After I wrote the above, I encountered Maniwar's complete deletion of three of the topics. I find it telling that, in reaction to his edit, my first impulse was to go back to the full versions of these three paragraphs. I believe that the full versions will make it much easier for me to assess whether the subject belongs in the article. I report that reaction as evidence that restoring much or all of the excised detail would be advisable. JamesMLane t c 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though I somewhat address this in my other post here I want to respond. This was removed much earlier but then restored by Andyvphil (granted he did break the 3RR) and I had to remove it again. It is currently being discussed below. I do not see that these three have caused controversy with or for Stossel. If so, then it needs to be supported by mainstream media. There is some concern that MediaMatters may not be a valid source as they have, more than most, distorted the news or the issue to paint their point. If each truly was an issue, other media outlets would have carried it and would have pointed out how it was a controversy. Too many times editors insert information and interpret, thus leading the reader in how to think. The issues are saved below and a discussion is taking place about them...though, they must be looked at individually and not as a whole. Again, my other post (here) touches a little on this as well. But they should not be replaced unless the general consensus is to do so and they are credible controversies with sources other then Salon or MediaMatters. --Maniwar (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Salon.com being used as a source. Nor would I have problems with The Nation or The American Prospect, which are both left-wing publications. (I lean Democratic, after all.) You can have a political point of view while still being a reliable source. Media Matters seems to be an entirely different animal. It's entire raison d'etre seems to be to destroy the reputations of journalists it disagrees with. I believe the same is true for Accuracy in Media and Media Research Center which are conservative "media watchdogs". The viciousness of these three organizations suggests that they are motivated more by contempt for those journalists they disagree with, than by a fair and honest discussion of ideas. --JHP 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to use some judgment about each source in the context of the particular point being supported. What's notable to me, here and in other contexts in which I've seen Media Matters disparaged, is that Media Matters isn't being cited because it's allegedly independent and nonpartisan. Media Matters isn't so much being cited ("we wouldn't believe this except that Media Matters said it") as it is being credited ("it was Media Matters that developed this particular information"). If a well-known organization like Media Matters makes a statement about something like a DoE report or screentime allocation -- i.e., something that's readily falsifiable if it happens to be false -- then it's highly likely that Stossel or someone partial to him would point out the mistake. It's not as if we're citing a Media Matters report that Stossel was overheard in a men's room complaining that his quarterly payola check was late. In the latter case, the alleged bias of the organization conveying the report would be relevant.

Maniwar writes that the passages about health care, etc. "should not be replaced unless the general consensus is to do so and they are credible controversies with sources other then Salon or MediaMatters." I've already explained why I disagree with the second condition. As to the first, is it your position that when one editor deletes something, it can't be restored unless there's a consensus to do so? It would be just as logical to say that when one editor adds something, it can't be deleted unless there's consensus to do so. In general, consensus decisionmaking is notoriously weak about how to resolve the no-consensus situation. We have RfC's, etc., but there's certainly no overriding principle that establishes deletion as the default. The much-overused BLP policy doesn't enact that rule where the issue is importance and undue weight, as opposed to determining whether a negative statement is backed by a citation. JamesMLane t c 03:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is very easy to present objective facts in a way that misleads readers. That's what Media Matters does. For example, Media Matters complained that "During the program, Moore was interviewed on air for a total of 1:40, while the five free-market advocates were interviewed on air for a total of 6:24."[4] What Media Matters conveniently omits is that Stossel spent a very large part of the program describing the problems of sick Americans who can't get insurance. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would have loved that part of the show, because it showed how screwed up America's health care system can be. Media Matters also omits that Stossel did a report on Sicko one week earlier and interviewed Michael Moore then, too. (He probably did one interview with Moore but split it over two weeks.) In addition, since John Stossel is an advocacy journalist and he was advocating Health Savings Accounts as a potential fix for America's high health care costs during this particular episode, it's not unreasonable for him to have given more air time to experts who can explain the benefits of Health Savings Accounts. --JHP 04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example of Media Matters' distortions. Media Matters says, "Stossel failed to report that the World Health Organization ranks both countries [Canada and Great Britain] ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems."[5] Media Matters is talking specifically about his Good Morning America appearance, but Stossel explained on 20/20 why the World Health Organization report is misleading. In addition, three weeks prior to Media Matters' criticism, Stossel had also discussed the World Health Organization report here. Stossel wrote, "The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem. Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada. When you adjust for these 'fatal injury' rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation. Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy. Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how 'fairly' health care of any quality is 'distributed.' The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[6]

Media Matters is being blatantly dishonest. After Stossel has already stated that the U.S. ranked low on WHO's health care study and explained why their health care study is flawed, Media Matters comes back and accuses Stossel of not telling people that the U.S. is ranked low on the WHO health care study. So here's the question, does Stossel get lots of criticism because he's a bad reporter, or does he get lots of criticism because there is ONE very outspoken organization that is not being honest in its characterization of him? Here's another question I have asked several times in the past, why do Wikipedians keep going back to Media Matters as their "reliable source" whose claims are very often unsubstantiated by any other organization? --JHP 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points Morphh ^(talk) 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Misleadingly named" Union of Concerned Scientists

I noticed that the recent changes to the criticism section (generally well done, by the way, as I'm all for conciseness) had a parenthetical remark calling the Union of Concerned Scientists "misleadingly named". I would hope that we would all agree that this is opinion and is not appropriate per WP:NPOV. Croctotheface 08:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we discuss this quite a while back. I believe Andyvphil wanted it in there but I think everyone else disagreed. Would have to look through the talk history. Morphh ^(talk) 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly who is it that thinks UCS is not misleadingly named? Andyvphil 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to a reliable source? It's been challenged so at a minimum you would need that to include it. But even with a citation it's inherently POV to call an organization "misleadingly named." By that standard the Republican Party is too, and the Democrats. Wikidemo 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Croctotheface tends to challenge as "opinion" anything that looks to him like opinion even if it is uncontroverted fact. If a fact is unpalatable he seems to think Wikipedia ought not state it too clearly. But, again: "Exactly who is it that thinks UCS is not misleadingly named?" And, no, claiming that you are a "republican" or a "democrat" is not falsifiable in the way that claiming you are a "scientist" is. Besides which the UCS admits its members include non-scientists (see its website). Statements of uncontroversial fact ("The earth is not flat.") do NOT require citation, but if you want citation of the observation that UCS' name is misleading see the Wikipedia UCS article which, last I looked, had a section which included that complaint. Andyvphil 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making this personal by calling me out by name, but near as I can tell, every other editor who has commented on this issue has agreed with me. You are alone in your opinion. Croctotheface 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this? Please don't insert that statement again until you have some sort of consensus that it belongs. Thus far the consensus has been against it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Croctotheface. Furthermore, even in the case of an organization that I believe has a misleading name (e.g., Free Republic), I would not support this kind of comment in an article (i.e., a comment by which Wikipedia adopts an opinion instead of merely reporting it). The opinion could be reported where appropriate -- i.e., in the article about UCS, not in every article that mentions UCS -- provided it meets the other standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JamesMLane t c 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly who is it that thinks UCS is not misleadingly named? Andyvphil 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want it exactly, one such person is named James M. Lane. He's a lawyer living in New York City.

Now, exactly who is it besides you who thinks this subject is worth any further discussion? JamesMLane t c 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So James M. Lane believes (a) the UCS is a group of scientists? Or, (b) that its name does not claim it to be a group of scientists? Or (c) that it is not sometimes mistakenly thought to be a group of scientists, because of its name? Andyvphil 23:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from Democrats and Republicans, we would have to flag as "misleadingly named" the AARP (members are mostly not retired), any organization named "Citizens for..." (don't require citizenship, mostly started by advocacy groups), most high school members (Spartans? Trojans? Vikins? -- NOT), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (many non-mother members), FAIR (they're not after fairness, they're after balance issues), so-called "Right to Life "organizations, Freemasons (not masons), etc. Frankly, I don't see any value here in making a claim about the name of the organization other than to discredit them. To the extent any such claim about a membership organization is true and relevant it should be addressed in the article about the organization because it would apply to every mention of them, not just here. That's why it's best in general just to wikilink to the organization and not try to have a description of hit here other than the bare minimum to identify it if it's not famous. Wikidemo 23:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're playing on my weakness. More than most people, I tend to continue pointless conversations like this one, thinking that with enough sweet reason even the most obdurate person will see the light. Because of this overoptimism, I've wasted huge amounts of time online, on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

The name does not imply that every single member is a scientist. No reasonable person would take it that way.

Now, as to the points you're dodging: (1) It's clear from the silence here, by you and others, that no one besides you thinks this cause is worth pursuing. (2) It's absolutely positively undeniable, at a level that your "misleadingly named" charge could never be, that George Bush received fewer votes than Al Gore in the 2000 election. Does that mean that every article referring to Bush as President should also note that he attained that office despite losing the popular vote? No, of course not. (Those other articles shouldn't note the widespread opinion that the election was stolen, which is more analogous to your opinion here, but even the undisputed fact doesn't merit being mentioned in all those other references.)

The article about Bush should note that Gore won more votes. The article about UCS should note that membership is open to anyone. The article about Bush should report the opinion that the 2000 election was stolen. The article about UCS should report the opinion that its name is misleading, if (as is clearly the case with the theft of the 2000 election) the opinion is notable. Here's a hint: Your opinion to that effect doesn't count. JamesMLane t c 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the Union of Concerned Scientists except that they keep sending me mail asking for a donation. (I am not a scientist.) Even if "misleadingly named" is correct, it has the bad smell of POV-pushing. I say remove the phrase. --JHP 02:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add that this is not an article about the Union of Concerned Scientists. Even if the phrase "misleadingly named" belonged in Wikipedia—which I believe it does not—it should be in the Union of Concerned Scientists article, not the John Stossel article. --JHP 03:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lane writes: "The name does not imply that every single member is a scientist. No reasonable person would take it that way." The first sentence is simply and obviously false, and the last time I looked into this (circa July) I Googled "Concerned Scientists" and "misleading" and I found, in passing, several exchanges where misguided but apparently not unusually unreasonable people were asserting that some emanation of the UCS on the subject under discussion was dispositive inasmuch as the other side had quoted a lay source wheras the UCS position was the opinion of scientists. The links were not useful for my purpose at the time and I did not save them... but is anyone doubting me on this? James M. Lane?

Wikidemo comments "name is no more misleading than most ; issue not relevant here" and wites "Aside from Democrats and Republicans, we would have to flag as 'misleadingly named' the AARP (members are mostly not retired), any organization named 'Citizens for...' (don't require citizenship, mostly started by advocacy groups), most high school members (Spartans? Trojans? Vikins? -- NOT), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (many non-mother members), FAIR (they're not after fairness, they're after balance issues), so-called 'Right to Life' organizations, Freemasons (not masons), etc." Both halves of his comment are, I think, wrong, and the rest is strawman argument. UCS' name is on the cusp of two maximums -- it is unusually misleading and the misleading claim is unusually relevant. Indeed, MADD and AARP are equally misleading, but being a mother, or retired, does not make a claim to expertise the way that being a scientist asserts a claim to expertise on issues of science. I've already pointed out that "Republican" and "Domocrat", never mind "FAIR" and "Right to Life", do not make falsifiable claims, and sports mascots make no claim at all. My claim is that UCS is virtually unique (though if it turns out that "Citizens for X" are largely aliens I would there, too, support a "misleadingly named" tag on passing references), and failing to address my point seriously will not convince me not to add this information to articles when it is convenient to do so. Andyvphil 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong or straw man at all, it's to the point. In fact, it's exactly the same thing. Lots of membership organizations make claims in their name as to who their members are. Many of these claims are demonstrably untrue. But that does not mean they are misleading. Misleading and falsifiable are very different issues. The truth of that statement has absolutely nothing to do with this article, anyway. It's merely an attempt to discredit the actions of an organization indirectly by disparaging their membership standards. Look, I can't see Wikipedia ever permitting pejorative adjectives like "misleadingly named" in front of large extant organizations. It's not going to happen. We're way into marginal issues here. Wikidemo 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If not "misleadingly named" before, how about "(not a union of scientists)" afterwards? ... You may be right that it cannot be done but that is not an answer to the assertion that it ought to be done. Your argument of extrapolated consistency was not a strawman argument until I explained why I thought UCS was an exceptional case. To repeat it without fully addressing my response is classical strawman behavior. The misleading effect of naming UCS without properly identifying it is an established political controversy (eg, [7]). In two rounds of discussion no one has seriously questioned the fact ("By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute'."-WP:NPOV) that UCS' name misleads.(Mr. Lane has retreated into the ambiguity of the language -- he asserts that the name is not misleading not because it does not lie but because it does not do so convincingly. This is akin to saying that cigarette commercials that employed individuals wearing white coats were not misleading because no reasonable person would think they were actually doctors. Until he responds to my observation that misled "reasonable person[s]" are easy to find I don't see any reason to characterize what he's said as "serious dispute".) Wikipedia's text ought not mislead. Andyvphil 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to believe that it's necessary to mention any "established political controversy" whenever you mention someone involved in that controversy. In other words, Bush's election in 2000 was controversial, so every time we call Bush the president, we need to mention that some people think he wasn't elected legitimately. As others have said, the correct place to discuss a controversy regarding the UCS name or membership is at the UCS article, not the John Stossel article. By your standards, the AARP is "not an association of retired people". I don't see how UCS makes a "claim" that can be "falsified" by calling themselves a union of scientists, and AARP does not make a similar claim regarding their membership. Croctotheface 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to believe that it's necessary to mention any "established political controversy" whenever you mention someone involved in that controversy." [Personal attack removed] I've already said that AARP's name is "equally misleading", but added that it generally need not be tagged because no false claim to authority is being made. And, never mind the fact that asserting that Bush wasn't legitimately elected is looney, referring to him as "President" desn't require a helpful note because he is President ("a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute") irrespective of what happened in Florida. Andyvphil 22:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

UCS advocates for science-related issues. AARP advocates for retired person-related issues. I can't help but think that when an "association of retired people" speaks out on a number of issues relevant to retired people--pensions, Medicare, Social Security--they claim a degree of authority, both in terms of subject matter expertise and in terms of speaking for their membership of ALLEGEDLY retired people. I don't see how you can take the position that AARP does not present itself as an authority on the issues it's concerned with. Croctotheface 10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we still discussing this...? The consensus is to leave it out. The further beating of this horse only serves to increase wikistress. Let it go Andyvphil, you fought a good fight but it's done. Morphh ^(talk) 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Ran across Stossel on UCS' name, one more indication that my concern about this is not idiosyncratic.

The key word in "Union of Concerned Scientists" isn't "Scientists" — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — but "Concerned," and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing. Its own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology.[8]