Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 2 October 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 which strive to expose "conservative misinformation in the media." However, John Stossel is a libertarian, not a conservative.

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/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 Misplaced Pages, 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...

File:Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.PNG

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 Misplaced Pages 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. "

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 Misplaced Pages 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. He also argues that cousins should be allowed to marry one another , given that first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease.

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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:

• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (progressive organization)
• Media Matters (progressive organization)
• Media Transparency (conservative watchdog)
• Common Dreams (progressive organization)

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

• CrooksAndLiars.com
• uggabugga.blogspot.com

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages entry must 1) do justice to this controversy, 2) describe the reasons for it, and 3) provide appropriate links where Misplaced Pages 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.'" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A final point: this Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Example:

Embedded Hyperlink

He also reported that ...levels.

Footnote

He also reported that ... levels.

Notes

"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..." Media Matters for America describes itself as, "...a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center..."

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 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 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 (UTC)

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 . <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 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? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages publishes opinion all the time - we just have to attribute it. Morphh 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages reader be so informed. The exercise of editorial judgement (opinion) is fundamental to this project and cannot be avoided. "That not misleading Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ("Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, Andyvphil 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Chill out. Remember, no personal attacks. 24.184.68.234 05:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 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)

WP:WEIGHT

RFC

"Edit-warring without discussion on talk-page over violation of WP:WEIGHT. Intervention needed by admin. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

(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)

"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. 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 and ABC suspended 20/20 producer David Fitzpatrick for one month and reprimanded Stossel. On August 11, Stossel apologized.

(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." However, as The New York Times wrote, "Most of reflected conventional wisdom among scientists.... 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." --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 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 Misplaced Pages standards. Morphh 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article about him. In fact, it is a violation of two of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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." 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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. "
• 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Rodham 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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, "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages therefore refuse to mention their criticisms? Does the current state of Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages biographies would never be allowed in a real encyclopedia. It just shows you how many POV-pushers are on Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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." 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 ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems." 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."

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 their 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages—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 Misplaced Pages 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, ). 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" are easy to find I don't see any reason to characterize what he's said as "serious dispute".) Misplaced Pages'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." 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 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion

I've removed some of the controversies from the article for discussion and consensus. I would like to question whether they are true "controversies". Did they create a controversy or was it just one organization making these charges? Can we find mainstream media sources (NY Times, Washinton Post, USAToday, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) to support this "controversy"? Anyway, lets look at them individually rather than cooperatively.

1. Stossel claimed in a 20/20 special that charter schools are better than public schools, and argued for a school voucher system. Media Matters for America criticized Stossel for omitting Department of Education findings to the contrary. Stossel defended his conclusions.
   1. Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
   2. Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
   3. Was this a national controversy?
   4. Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
2. Critics claim a conflict of interest for Stossel donating profits from his public speaking engagements (as per by his ABC contract) to among others a charity that produces a program that features him.
   1. Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
   2. Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
   3. Is this a national controversy?
   4. Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
   5. And are these sources credible, reputable, and such?
3. Stossel was criticized over a 2007 20/20 segment on health care for giving disproportionate weight to interviewees supporting increased privatization, and for misidentifying increased government spending.
   1. Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
   2. Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
   3. Was this a national controversy?
   4. Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?

oops, forgot to sign. Let's discuss below this point...individually. --Maniwar (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I have no opinion except to wonder whether these are long standing encyclopedia material.

• I would venture to guess no, that it does not warrant that it is significant enough or encyclopedic enough. I would also question if they are truly controversies outside of one organizations criticism. --Maniwar (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• I tend to agree that these three are not particularly useful illustrations of "controversies" or for illustrating (an apt thing to do, in my opinion) that Stossel is a controversial figure. Keep in mind that I recently reworded each and put them under the "controversy" header - the header used to be "criticism" for what that's worth. Perhaps something is there and I missed the gist of things when editing them. More likely, there really isn't anything there and when you remove all the impressive sounding fluff there's nothing inside, like shaving a skinny cat. For me the question isn't the number or even the credibility of the critic, but rather the verifiability of the claim and the seriousness and relevance of the alleged lapse of journalistic standards. These three examples fail by that standard. To take the health care example, who cares if an advocacy journalist gives undue weight to one side's views over another's? That's what they're supposed to do. Misquoting a televangelist and getting sued for it (an example still in the article) is a more substantial issue.Wikidemo 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "misidentifing" data, in the health care example, is pretty substantial. If he was playing fast and loose with facts to better support his opinion, that's a substantial issue in my mind. The conflict of interest business, based on the wide swath of people criticizing Stossel for it, definitely merits inclusion in my mind. That's clearly something controversial. I agree that this should not be a numbers game, though, and that we should look not to the person or organization making the criticism but the degree to which there is foundation and relevance to the criticsm. Croctotheface 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding item number 3, the answers are Yes, No, Maybe (in the sense that ABC News broadcasts nationally, otherwise no), and No. Since John Stossel practices advocacy journalism, it actually should be expected that he gives disproportionate weight to the position he is arguing for. --JHP 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that "misidentifying increased government spending" statement is a result of a bad edit. It is not backed up by the references and it did not appear in the September 23 version of this article. --JHP 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the charter school bit because even if it didn't qualify before, Stossel made it a notable controversy by responding to it. It seems to me that omitting pertinent government measurements from a report is a much bigger deal than not providing equal time, or giving money to an organization that you also work for. ←Ben 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think part of Stossel's responce was that he did not omit pertinent government measurements in his ananlysis - he just found it to be invalid and didn't include it in the report. He replied as to why the studies were not valid as they were adjusted for demographics and per the report's own statement "to ascertain the difference between the two types of schools, an experiment would be conducted in which students are assigned to either public or private schools". So this is more just a matter of opinion on how pertinent the study is and if it meritted inclusion in his reporting. Again this goes toward the advocacy journalism. Stossel didn't think it was worth including but MM did. Morphh 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but I will admit that there are more serious controversies which we are missing. ←Ben 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on what is so hard about explaining why you think they deserve staying in the article? Do not re-insert these controversies without first discussing them, individually, here and then getting a consensus feel of the editors. To respond something does not make it notable. If you can't answer the simple questions posed above, then it makes me wonder whether they belong. Here is an excerpt from Notability for those of you unfamiliar with it:

I think these above may fail based on that. I advise that we all go back and read WP:Notability. --Maniwar (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on notability but just looking at the points, I think 1 & 3 could be summed up by just saying that he has been criticized for lack of balance in reporting, using education and health care stories as the source. 2 could be integrated into "Publications", where they discuss "Stossel in the Classroom". Morphh 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability, as a rule, applies to articles, not content within them. In other words, John Stossel needs to be notable for us to have a John Stossel article. For content within articles, the standard is verifiability]. Croctotheface 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Croctotheface is correct. We should be careful not to confuse the Misplaced Pages policy with the English word. The policy only governs whether an article should be created or not. If John Stossel picks his nose, the fact should probably be left out because it's not notable. But, there's no policy governing it. --JHP 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, notability is not the standard. And also right, there is no clear standard ad verifiability doesn't really tell you. There is a hole in policy space about what you should actually put in an article and what to exclude. There have been some proposals that got nowhere, one of the latest being relevance, another proposal over at WP:RS having to do with the credibility and relevance of sources as they relate to the statement being sourced. But it's a rather subtle issue and some people think there shouldn't be a standard because leaving it up in the air for editors to figure out, debate if necessary as in this discussion, promotes a healthiert environment for article-building than a cookbook approach of what you put in an article. So we're left with a lot of policies and guidelines we can extrapolate from, and appeals to common sense and the real world and what is the best for giving people what they want and need when they read an article on Misplaced Pages. We'll all agree that JS picked his nose is too trivial to mention. But should we say (in less partisan language) "JS is the subject of a biased agenda-driven smear campaign?" or "JS is a tool who stirs up controversy without serious attention to the facts?" or should we only allow things that are drier and more neutral, even at the risk of failing to call an elephant an elephant? Good stuff. I think there are 10-15 different criteria that are worth looking at but after filtering out for verifiability and reliability of the claims, it all boils down to does a serious lay-reader really need to know this, and does the reader want to know. Wikidemo 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other comments that the quoted policy doesn't apply to these issues. The key is this paragraph:

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. (from Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline)

Inclusion within another article is what we're discussing. As for Wikidemo's examples, I would include fair representations of both points of view -- the major facts that are cited in support of the charge that Stossel's critics are mounting an agenda-driven smear campaign, the major facts that are cited in support of the attacks on his journalistic integrity (or lack thereof), and reports of (properly attributed) opinion(s) each way, so that the reader gets at least some idea of who's expressing each opinion as well as the asserted grounds for it. JamesMLane t c 04:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, we are all over the place and I want to refocus us and actually get something accomplished with this discussion. I'm asking for a consensus since one editor "seems" to be trying to control the article. Based on this consensus I will remove or leave the above non-controversies from the article.

• Remove - per (possibly) BLP concerns, per NPOV and/or notability. Additionally, there is no credible mainstream media coverage "showing" that it was, in fact, a controversy outside of one organizations criticism. Criticism doesn't mean it's a controversy. --Maniwar (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Remove - Add sources for 1 & 3 to the lead paragraph in that section that comments on "alleged distortion of facts, balance of coverage of fact". We could use the sources for 2 after "claimed conflict of interests". I would say that 2 is probably the strongest of the three if you choose to keep one. Morphh 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like those suggestions and will definitely adopt. --Maniwar (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remove item number 1. See my comments on Media Matters as a reliable source below. --JHP 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep item number 2. It has multiple references from reliable sources. --JHP 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Remove item number 3. It has one reference from a partisan, misleading, unreliable source. No other organizations have made this criticism. Media Matters' CEO, David Brock, has admitted to intentionally lying and intentionally defaming people—such as Anita Hill—in the past. To quote Amazon.com's review of one of his books, "David Brock made his name (and big money) by trashing Anita Hill as 'a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.' But it was Brock's reporting that was nutty and slutty, he confesses in the riveting memoir Blinded by the Right. He absolves Hill; claims he helped Clarence Thomas threaten another witness into backing down..." While Media Matters CEO David Brock has changed his politics, there is no reason to believe he has changed his dishonest methods. --JHP 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any subjects from MediaMatters which can not be found in a different source, such as the Brill's Content article? Acct4 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think we need to greatly clean up the external link-farm we have. Please read through external links guidelines. Here are the links that I think should stay.

• ABC News Biography
• John Stossel's 20/20 Web Page
• John Stossel's Newspaper Columns

Here are some that I think could stay but they are listed in the references and I'm not sure what additional value they have in the External links.

• Support John Stossel by Competitive Enterprise Institute
• John Stossel profiled by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
• John Stossel profiled by Media Matters for America

I'd get rid of everything else. If it has good info not stated in the article, consider including the material and using the link as a reference. Please review - Morphh 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference. I'm happy with the external links as they are now, but your proposal is also acceptable. --JHP 01:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would keep most of the current links, although I'd re-order them so that his "official" bio preceded the IMDb-type listings. That's not to say that I'd keep all of them. NNDB pages are generally worthless, and this one should go. The "Support John Stossel" page is dubious because it doesn't seem to have been updated since 2004. Still, I don't see any reason to delete, for example, the TV.com listing. It has a compilation of Stossel's guest appearances on other shows (). That's a level of detail we don't need in the article but we can make it available to the reader -- a perfect setup for an ext link. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Other controversies

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting I see some controversies which look to be considerably more disturbing than the ones in the article:

• According to the parents involved, he coached a bunch of kids to stage answers to questions he asked during a 6/29/01 ABC News special. "He also went on the attack against the parents, saying that they had been 'brainwashed' by environmental activists, whom he characterized as 'the totalitarian left' (O'Reilly Factor, 6/27/01)."

• According to James Galbraith, he misrepresented Galbraith's views. Stossel denied he did so, but fixed the misrepresentation in a later broadcast.

• According to people he interviewed, his staff was cherry-picking interviewees for a broadcast on biological explanations for gender traits and roles. Although his staff spoke to people with opposing views on the subject, he only included the views with which he agreed.

• He blamed a Brown campus rape on political correctness. In his report he said, "If nobody had sex except when they were totally sober, I bet there would be a lot less sex on this campus." What he left out of the broadcast was even funnier:

Stossel reportedly "responded with an obscenity" when a student questioned his journalistic integrity, mocked a student who quoted Brown's discipline code--"I'm glad for $30,000 you learned to read"--and tried to provoke one woman by asking her, "If I were dating you, and put my arm around you and put my hand on your breast…."

• His own quote should be included in the free markets section: "I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer," he once declared. "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market" (Oregonian, 10/26/94)

• "In a 20/20 report on the allocation of medical research dollars by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 'Lobbying for Lives' (10/11/99), Stossel claims that Parkinson's disease kills more people than AIDS." -- not even close.

• Stossel claims that labor's complaints about rising CEO salaries are unreasonable since "factory wages were up, too-- up 70 percent" in the last 15 years, when they fell 6% in real terms; 55% without the inflation adjustment.

Now I only looked at two articles about him on the FAIR web site, but this makes me ask: Are we including the most important controversies? ←Ben 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this comes back to the Notability question posed by Maniwar above. While we have editorial judgement on what to include and how to include it, I'm not sure it is really up to us to decide what is "important". If it is important then it should be notable as discussed above and we should decide the best way to include it. If it is not notable, then we really need to think about if it is proper to include it... even if someone deems it important. We should then consider all these in relation to weight in the article. Morphh 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two used to be in the article. I don't know when they were removed. Some of these look like intentional mischaracterizations of what he meant. For example, with the "markets are magical" quote, are you also going to criticize Adam Smith for his analogy of an invisible hand? Stossel's view of the market is actually backed up by economic theory, but the phrase "markets are magical" makes him look like a nut if you take it literally. If someone says enough things on record throughout their career, it will often be easy to make someone look bad by taking quotes out of context. Regarding the last item, the press judges things using nominal dollars all the time. That's why every few years a new movie sets a new box office record. (If you adjust for inflation, no movie—not even Star Wars—has beaten Gone with the Wind.) That's why the press has been reporting that gas prices have been "setting new records" for years. Only a few months ago did gas prices actually surpass their previous inflation-adjusted peak. Stossel has actually done stories recently telling people that the press often fails to adjust for inflation, but he has made the same mistake himself. --JHP 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say this, but the below edit conflicted with mine and made the same point. However, it's a long post, so I'll just just reiterate here that we need verifiability, not notability, to include content at this article. Notability is for articles, and verifiability is for content. John Stossel passes notability guidelines, so the notability question is answered. If another topic here passes notability guidelines, then we can make it the SUBJECT of ITS OWN article. If the topic passes verifiability guidelines and whatever other rules we set up as far as what we should include here, then we could discuss it in this article. Croctotheface 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies in general and which to include

What people should look at in my opinion is how significant the controversy is to Stossel's career, and how relevant and useful it is to explaining who he is and what he does. Not how important the issue is in the wider world because truly, these are all tiny controversies compared to the big issues he's covering like health care, global warming, education, etc. None of these are important enough for even two words in the master articles about these subjects, so I don't think they can be justified here on this basis. Again, what they are useful for is to shed light on his biography and his career. That's one of the reasons I removed the headings and the detailed blow-by-blow details that tended to argue what's true or not on the substantive issues. The other reason is balance. In an article about a regular journalist, somewhere between zero and ten percent (made up numbers here, just for illustration) could reasonably be devoted to controversy. For an advocacy journalist like Stossel, what's reasonable? 20-30%? We can't let the controversy section outweigh the positive section describing his career trajectory and current work. The weight of the controversy section goes to word count, strength of the statements made, and also just plain screen space. A headline calls attention to itself and makes a lot of white space, making the section seem bigger than it is. It's a better use of the limited space devoted to this to cut through things and get straight to the facts.

That all implies we have to cherry pick from the controversies. There are probably dozens if we listed them out. What three, or five, or six, are the best? If you're trying to illustrate something a few well chosen examples is a lot more effective than a laundry list. "Best" is probably a mixture of how important the issue is to the world (a minor but not predominant factor), how controversial Stossel's actions truly are, how scandalous / negative his action are if the accusations are true, the strength of the accusations and the number and substantiality of the poeple making them, and finally, how good the whole controversy is at adding context and depth to the overall article. Some of these overlap the concept of notability from WP:N and that can be a reference point, but notability is not the applicable standard. That's for whether the article belongs in Misplaced Pages or not in the first place, not whether a particular factoid belongs in an article. -- Wikidemo 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that we need to discriminate and that we should not include every controversy or criticism. However, balance is not good for its own sake. If a number of criticisms are similar, but we judge that they are verifiable and important enough to talk about, then we should not include them based on the idea that more of the article should be "positive" than "negative". If his disputes with people are why he is well-known and are the basis of most of the independent coverage of him, then they should consist of most of our coverage as well. If, say, five or six criticisms differ on the specific facts but are essentially the same, for instance that Stossel ignores or spins facts that go against his conclusion, then we can group them together under that larger umbrella. Rather than five different bullets for five different cases where Stossel ignored facts, we have one bullet describing that issue of factual accuracy and poining to a couple of examples. Regarding your specific standards for comparing controversies or deciding how important a given controversy is, I think they're a fine way to look at the issue. Croctotheface 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying he ignored facts can be problematic. Did he ignore the facts because he wanted to mislead his viewers? Or did he ignore the facts because he justifiably felt they were overwhelmed by contradictory facts? Or did he ignore facts to simplify the subject? Or did he ignore facts because of time constraints? Or did he ignore the facts because he didn't know they even existed? Saying someone ignored facts implies malfeasance, and will likely be interpreted by readers as such, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving stuff out. --JHP 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. A lot of techniques used in debating and politics, like accusing someone of ignoring facts, just don't apply to biographical overviews of a person and their career. I do like the suggestion of grouping multiple events and instances of criticism not by the policy issue but by the specific type of claimed journalistic lapse. That's much more helpful in evaluating who he is and what he does. To use a kind of silly example, if I want to know what's so outrageous about the Jerry Springer, it's most relevant to group things under topics like audience chants, fake fights, and secret lovers revealed, not the actual subject of the show - midget love affairs, hot for teacher, etc. Same here, the relevant topics are misidentifying interviewees, citing bad data, etc., not the environment, education, and so on. Wikidemo 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that Stossel be required to mention each and every fact that may come to bear on his reporting. But omitting facts necessary to understand the issue is certainly a problem. Not properly explaining the difference between the UCS petition and the Oregon Petition, for example, is certainly a case where criticism was justified. Croctotheface 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that, in that instance (and several others), the criticism was justified, I don't think our article should say that. We can lay out the facts about what he included and what he omitted, along with any attributed evaluations of his choices (he's a corporate shill! he's making complex issues understandable!). We can leave it to each reader to draw his or her own conclusion. JamesMLane t c 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm not advocating saying that the criticism is justified. I think the current text is fine. JHP said that ignoring facts does not make the criticism important by definition. I responded with that example to illustrate a case where omitting facts was certainly an important issue. Croctotheface 07:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, they may be small in the grand scheme of things, but any one of several of them could sink a typical journalist's career. ←Ben 07:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's no strict definition of what is "a controversy" or "a criticism." Some of those listed are just "some guy disagrees with Stossel."

The guide somewhere says in bios of living persons to err on the side of presenting them in a good light. In that light, is it really "good" to list all the various official sounding claims being made by some group? I changed most of them to just "x has criticised the report". I figure we aren't the mouthpiece of every fringe group -- they have websites, if you want to read all about why the scientists at "FAIR" say Stossel is wrong, they have a website.

In fact it's particularly unfair to Stossel becuase he hss his own website and he permits criticism on there. He says it's "freedom of speech" even if someone says "you suck!" He said that on the air once.

We don't need to repeat or make judgements on the various people who criticice. The article is useful, the references are good. The impression I get from from the complete list of controversies is that he's some kind of target -- some of these groups "just hate him!" That comes through loud and clear, there's no need to keep adding "details" about what the guy at this place says and what the guy from this other place says.

I thought about that removal of the "Concerned Parents in California" yes, it's "in" not "of" my mistake there. That's fine, I don't go for the reason too much though, they did call themselves that, they signed the letter with that name. But that's fine, it's not important. Someone else improved paragraph adding the part about how the "revocation" was timed to just before the broadcast so they couldn't fix it and had to remove it. good job.

There's that other thing where "FAIR" says some report is discredited... I'll take a look at those references. I have a feeling there's a little more to this story. I'll remove or add edits if needed.

The point I think is that this is the encyclopedia article of a living person, it's not the place to air out every complaint anyone has ever made. I know some people hate him and are on a mission to put in little digs but believe me there's plenty out there to read on those other websites that are referenced here, so there's no need to go overboard. SecretaryNotSure 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know more about the "discredited" report just take a look at this article circa a couple months ago. The information used to be here. But on other issues you're going in precisely the other direction. "I changed most of them to just 'x has criticised the report'."??? It does not fulfill the purpose of this article to set its readers the task of constructing their own NPOV treatments of available material. Andyvphil 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar misunderstanding 3RR

The following showed up on my talk page:

this is an "unofficial" cautioning. Please watch the 3RR on this article and discuss before continually reverting. You have officially broken the 3RR and if reported could be banned. I just want to give a friendly caution to watch it and discuss on the talk page. Some of the issues you keep re-inserting, the consensus is to leave out, so watch that as well. Happy editing. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar also commented "now now Andyvphil, watch the 3RR. Removing non notable non-controversies and will further discuss on talk page" on this edit, undong my edit undoing his previous deletion ("Undid revision 160244213 by Maniwar. Consensus first, deletion afterwards.") of the stubs left by Wikidemo of previous material. Apparently Maniwar believes that if he deletes 4 things I can only restore 3 of them without violating 3RR. This is an error. Andyvphil 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is about what should be in the article. If someone challenges what's in an article and can show there's no consensus for it to be there, it's fair to remove it until the consensus can be developed. One doesn't need consensus for making the challenge or for every act of editing it takes to handle the matter. Regarding edit wars, it takes two to fight as they say. Andyvphil, you've done a lot of good work on this article, and most of your edits have been accepted. It would help if you can take a step back and realize that there's nothing that urgent here time-wise. If your position is the better one it will prevail.Wikidemo 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If both I and BenB4 restore a section I think Maniwar has been put on notice that he does not have consensus for removing it. And this is in the context of your having just stubbed the material in a manner which sometimes obscured its significance. And (partially because I've been on Wikibreak) I don't think the issues have been adequately framed or aired. Examining the "controversies" for their individual significance may be an error -- perhaps what we really need is a section (or subarticle) titled "The Media Matters Campaign to Discredit Stossel" "Stossel and his Critics". If criticisms of him are unfair (the underlying facts not significant) that may be exactly what the article should show. Andyvphil

Although I disagree and have checked with several that on a BLP, the onus is on you to prove why it should stay in the article, but I see that an edit war will ensue. So, to be civil, and to AGF, I'm going to pursue consensus. Having said that, you make a good suggestion about "The Media Matters Campaign to Discredit Stossel" being a section. Although I'm not versed on this particular subject or Bio, this does seem to be the case with many other articles and has been suggested that MM main campaign is to discredit media figures they do not agree with or like. I think that would do better service to the article with mention, briefly, of each campaign against Stossel in it. --Maniwar (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, the "misidentifying increased government spending" claim is not backed up by the sources. According to WP:BLP, something like that should be removed immediately and WP:3RR would not apply to those who remove it. WP:BLP also says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." This is not specific to the John Stossel article, but to Misplaced Pages in general: I have often found that authors take the opposite approach; they insist that the burden of evidence is on the shoulders of those who remove existing content. It tends to make editing Misplaced Pages very difficult. --JHP 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The focus of an article on John Stossel is rightly John Stossel, not the rightness of his beliefs or the integrity of his opponents. JHP makes a good point. Contentious poorly sourced material about living people is deleted on sight without discussion. We're all working to better the article. The most sensible approach I think is to sit down and consider which among the many controversies are the most germane to include. If you really wanted to show that he's been sloppy or manipulative with the facts on major issues, there are some stronger examples in the wings than these. Wikidemo 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's a particular four-word phrase, like "misidentifying increased government spending", that you believe in good faith isn't supported by the cited source, you can remove that phrase. You aren't given a license to remove the whole paragraph if the rest of it is properly sourced, though. In any event, such BLP considerations aren't generally at issue here. Well-sourced passages are being removed on the stated bases that the information isn't important enough or that the article doesn't have enough counterbalancing praise for the subject. Those are not BLP issues. JamesMLane t c 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My restoration of the three deleted topics was not a vote of confidence in the newly minted stubbed text (E.g., I had no knowledge of whether "Stossel was criticized...for misidentifying increased government spending."). My observation was that Wikidemo, and Croc before him, had attempted to summarize material they did not fully command, with the result that they not only got some things wrong, but (pace Mr. Lane) they had deleted material that might serve to indicate why someone had been justified in inserting the topic in the first place, and it seemed Maniwar had arrived just in time to make decisions to delete multiple topics, based on the depleted text. Andyvphil 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you try being civil, for once, please? And not making it personal? Croctotheface 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't recall any problem with my trimming. I left out details you thought were important. That is quite different from saying something incorrect. Croctotheface 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not incorrect? Again you're having a problem with the bald statement of inconveniant fact. And apparently a memory issue. See this edit. Do I have to remind you what's wrong about the "Pesticides and organic food" section? Andyvphil 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I said "roughly the same" when in fact the correct phrasing was "zero". I hardly think that distorts the issue. It's obviously better to be exactly right, but the fact that somebody can make a minor error does not, as you seem to think, disqualify them from editing Misplaced Pages. Croctotheface 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo made minor errors and I would not be tempted to disqualify him from editing the encyclopedia. But it's just incredible that at this late date you still don't understand that the major problem with your edit was not that you misquoted Stossel but that you indeed "distorted the issue" and left out the important thing he actually did wrong what he apologized for. Andyvphil 10:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we order the controversies chronologically?

I would like to know why Wikidemo objects to putting the controversies in chronological order. The only "changed content" other than adding dates concerned some serious questions about Wikidemo's edits that I raised on their talk page. Acct4 04:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of some compelling reason not to order them chronologically, in date order makes the most sense. I agree with you Acct4. Ossified 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't put words in my mouth. Where did I ever say I objected to putting things in chronological order? Here's the reversion I made, and if you read the edit summary it's because your "last edit changed content extensively" and did not just "add dates and order chron." I don't know whether you were having an edit conflict or you were deliberately trying to revert things but the edit I reverted restored at least three sections to an earlier version, including a BLP violation, and because it came with a reordering that turned nearly the entire section red in the difference comparison, it would be very difficult to actually see what else it changes. If you want to put things in chron order I have no objection but please don't mix that with a content edit. Wikidemo 04:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, but I immediately discussed the issue on your talk page, if that makes any difference. I do not think there is any BLP violation -- if that is true then by that standard the criticism section is nothing but BLP violations. I do not believe that there is any kind of a policy or guideline against mixing reorderings with content edits. If you had no objection, then why didn't you make the changes you wanted starting from the chronologically ordered section instead of reverting everything? Acct4 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the entire section showed up as changed. I would have no idea what to change back. If you get an edit conflict when saving it's really up to you to resolve it. Presumably you can reorder chronologically a lot easier than I can go through the entire section word for word to figure out just what changed. There's no policy on these kind of editing issues, just practicality. Wikidemo 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I would, but I think if I do that it could be a WP:3RR violation, I'm not sure. I think it should be reverted back and we should discuss your deletion and changes. Acct4 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the controversies should be either in order of significance (which would put the organic food one first) or in reverse chronological order (because people place a higher importance on recent events than on much older events). Either way, the things readers are most likely to care about should come first because the stuff that appears first is most likely to get read. --JHP 08:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the pesticide thing more important than showing Galbraith saying the opposite of what he had said? If we can't even agree on what to include, I hardly think we're going to agree on a full ordering. Chronological presentation is completely unbiased. Acct4 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent) I don't really care for the chronological presentation as I think it will continue to keep this bullet format and attrack trolling inserts. I'd like to see this section turned into some form of paragraph stucture based on similar types of criticism as stated in the lead sentence of that section. So discuss how Stossel does not provide balance in his reporting using health care and education as examples with rebuttal from Stossel on the points. Include another paragraph on how he has been criticised for misrepresenting facts and include the pestisides, healthcare, etc, along with any rebuttal or appologies. While we've done well improving WP:MOS and WP:NPOV, I don't believe this chronological bullet presentation is the best way to move forward. Morphh 13:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate sections is better than a run-on paragraph because it helps the reader who wants to focus on only one or a few specific issues. To that extent I'm in agreement with JHP, who had the reader in mind in urging that "the things readers are most likely to care about should come first because the stuff that appears first is most likely to get read." The trouble comes when we try to guess what the readers "are most likely to care about". That's why we should go back to topical subheadings. Instead of our guessing, and inevitably getting it wrong for some readers (because not all of them will care about the same things), we can make it easy for each individual reader to select the portions that interest him or her. Chrono order (not reverse chrono) is the normal default for recounting past events and should be used here. JamesMLane t c 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "run-on" paragraphs. I think we can write sufficently tight and good prose to present each argument in well written paragraph. Sections introduce issues of article structure again with focus on topic, which creates the problem we started with. Each section would need sufficient content to justify a section so each gets unnecessarily expanded to a good size paragraph, resulting in many of the issues that we are trying to address. This is an encyclopedia and shouldn't be written as if someone is looking for one particular criticism of Stossel. While we want it to be included in the article, it needs to integrated into the context of the article and not stand out like a section saying look at me.. I'm the criticism about Global Warming. A reader could search for Global Warming or review the controversy and find the content discussing it. The web would be the first place to search for something specific, which would bring up articles on the searched criticism. Morphh 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The software has an automatic TOC function because of a general opinion that readers are served by having specific sections or subsections of the article marked out by headings and readily accessible through the TOC. This simple organizing device doesn't give undue weight to any part of the article.

I simply don't understand the statement, "This is an encyclopedia and shouldn't be written as if someone is looking for one particular criticism of Stossel." I would say: This is an online encyclopedia and shouldn't be written as if everyone is looking for the same thing. Instead, it should try to accommodate a variety of preferences, including the readers who want a quick overview, the readers who want a detailed and comprehensive treatment, and the readers who want a detailed treatment but only of one or more specific subtopics. JamesMLane t c 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Be serious - I'm not arguing against a TOC or having sections. Obviously having sections is important for a reader but would you expect to see sections like you describe or chronological bullets for criticism in a paper encyclopedia? It is not automatic in the sense that the editors have to use judgement to define what is and what is not a section, which will give weight to whatever the editor decides to give weight to. Consider the WP:NPOV policy on article structure and the WP:MOS. We should not have a header for each and every issue in Stossell's life. The headers are meant to organize the major content. Sections for each criticism is the problem that we started with by having large sections giving undue weight in context and structure in the biography of John Stossel. The readers can get a quick overview from the lead or the section lead, can read more detail in the section and even more detail in the references. We should not break each criticism down into sections based on the POV of the content or arrange the headers to unduly favor lists of criticism. See the NPOV policy that states: 'Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight. "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself; ref Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Misplaced Pages:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section). /ref Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue; ref For example, some contributors advise against article sections devoted entirely to "criticism," although some assert that such sections are not always inappropriate. For more on this issue, see Formatting criticism. ref Morphh 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If we were to follow the advice in the authorities you refer to, the three paragraphs in the sections describing his reporting career would be overwhelmed, and I don't think anyone thinks that would be better. I would prefer that we refrain from removing legitimate criticism because "the section has become to long" or the like. If there are many criticisms that means that they have come about through error, neglect, or bad luck, and if they are supported by reliable sources, then they should appear in the article. The proper way to address the problem of too much reliably-sourced negative information is to add reliably-sourced positive information, not to delete the former. Acct4 07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the three paragraphs in the sections describing his reporting career do not conflict with weight or represent a POV article structure. I don't disagree that we should not remove legitimate criticism from reliable sources. We're describing the structure here, not the content. However, as to the content, the arguments in sections above are in regard to what is "legitimate", if MM or FACT alone are reliable sources for criticism, and how much should we summarize or expand the criticism with regard to NPOV weight policy. Morphh 11:53, 01 October 2007 (UTC)

One section per paragraph is too many sections and would make a mess of the page layout and the TOC. One section for all of the assorted criticisms is reasonable, and if it gets longer than one section can handle that's a good sign there are too many criticisms represented. No, we do not repeat all legitimate criticism of a person, just as we don't include all legitimate positive facts about their life. This is a short article that hits the main relevant points, not a book length biography or a collection of indiscriminate details. The total number of words and screen space is indeed a concern with NPOV. You can't let the derogatory information in an article grow out of proportion to the primary information about a person. It's apparent that some people's contributions on this page serve mainly to discredit Stossel rather than to create a better and more informative encyclopedia; we can't let that overwhelm the article. Wikidemo 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section (better renamed "Stossel and his Critics") need NOT be "derogatory information". And, why should this be a "short article"? Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. If the content is useful (e.g., as a comprehensive corrective NPOV treatment of the material that turns up when you Google Stossel) there is room to include it. Andyvphil 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions

That's ridiculous. Name a single issue from one of the six you just deleted which does not go to credibility as a journalist. The BLP policy only says to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information, and the reliability of the sources is not in dispute as far as I know. There is nothing in WP:BLP which says to delete properly sourced information. If you have a problem with the balance, you add a NPOV notice, right? You don't just go deleting accurate information, right? Rtp4 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The person who left this recent edit summary needs to take his or her own advice:

This is getting insane with this nit-pick criticism from FAIR and MM - undue weight... discuss this further on the talk before this edit war turns into a article lock.

I did discuss it, just above. Why didn't you? There are plenty of "nit-picks" in FAIR and MM articles, but these are not those. Every single one of them is a very serious mistake that journalists are expected to avoid. Rtp4 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed again. If the editors who insist on piling up all of this derogatory material cannot exercise some restraint on their own, this is indeed going to have to be resolved by administrators by locking the article, and ultimately, mediation or arbitration. I am here as one who is neutral to him and his claimed faults as a journalist, trying to work with this article on its own merits. The five or six "criticisms" removed, mostly recent additions, are non-issues. They are for the most part partisan organizations disagreeing with statements or conclusions in his pieces, simple pundit fodder. Whether right or wrong, this kind of derogatory information cannot be allowed to overwhelm an article about a living person. I don't think the administrators who write and enforce BLP are going to be any more sympathetic than I am to efforts to chronicle every criticism that can be sourced. I cannot foresee any result other than some reasonable limit on the extent and nature of material critical on Stossel. It would be a lot more dignified if his detractors on this page could make some attempt to find these limits using their good sense instead of having them imposed on them.Wikidemo 22:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask: Name one of the events you deleted that would not call the integrity of any journalist into serious question. I believe that you have ignored this request because you are utterly unable to do so. And you have not identified any section of the BLP policy which allows you to remove properly sourced statements, as these all are. Serious errors of fact are not "pundit fodder." Serious systematic bias is not "pundit fodder." Both are career-wrecking moves for any non-celebrity journalist. If you are as sure of your convictions as you say then I think you had better file for mediation because I know your deletions are blatantly against policy and I will continue to revert them. For the third time, if you are truly concerned about article balance, then why are you not looking for properly sourced material to add to the other sections? Rtp4 00:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument being used for excessive deletions

Over and over we see comments on this talk page stating that not every criticism of Stossel can be included. Just since I last looked at the page, the changes include "The point I think is that this is the encyclopedia article of a living person, it's not the place to air out every complaint anyone has ever made" (from SecretaryNotSure), and "I don't think the administrators who write and enforce BLP are going to be any more sympathetic than I am to efforts to chronicle every criticism that can be sourced" (from Wikidemo).

I would like to make a personal request, for the sake of my blood pressure, that people stop attacking this straw man. Please bear in mind two points:

• There are many, many notable criticisms of Stossel that no one has tried to add to the article.
• No one is even arguing that "every complaint anyone has ever made" should be included.

For any specific instance, we can discuss whether it should be in the article. That discussion should, however, address the merits, and not attempt to impute to some editors views that they do not hold. JamesMLane t c 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No straw man here, rather a direct claim that the criticisms are excessive and against BLP. If you want to get technical, none of the criticisms are notable. Notability is the standard for which subjects deserve their own article, not which criticisms belong in an article about a living person. That is a matter of several overlapping policies and guidelines including verifiability, neutral point of view, and BLP. People are indeed arguing that any criticism that can be reliably sourced should not be removed. BLP addresses this in several ways and is explicit on the point:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics

The criticisms I have deleted are specifically the ones least relevant to the subject's notability, that overwhelm the article. For the most part they do side with the critics.Wikidemo 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.reason.com/news/show/33014.html
2. http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003
3. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp
4. Smearing Education Choice
5. http://archive.salon.com/media/feature/2000/02/25/stossel/
6. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/dowie/3
7. http://www.thegreatboycott.net/John_Stossel.html
8. http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=761
9. http://mediamatters.org/items/200709160003
10. http://mediamatters.org/items/200709150001
11. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/gratzer.htm
12. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/about_mi.htm
13. For example, adverts, announcements, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be notable for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources. For examples of other circumstances also agreed by consensus to override this presumption, see Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.
14. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
15. Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. (See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography for the attribution and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Misplaced Pages:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
16. Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
17. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
18. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
19. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
20. See Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics