Misplaced Pages

Talk:Thomas Sowell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:30, 20 July 2012 editThargor Orlando (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,066 edits Edit warring← Previous edit Revision as of 13:51, 20 July 2012 edit undoArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits Attention Everyone Still Arguing Over Media Matters and ConsensusNext edit →
Line 333: Line 333:


:::::No he was banned for copyright which had nothing to do with his dispute resolution decision (if it did it would have been removed) BLP was determined to be fine in a previous discussion and the how can an RS be undue when it's used once in an article? This doesn't pass any kind of test, you are trying to use impose your POV by removing the material. It's ridiculous on its face. :::::No he was banned for copyright which had nothing to do with his dispute resolution decision (if it did it would have been removed) BLP was determined to be fine in a previous discussion and the how can an RS be undue when it's used once in an article? This doesn't pass any kind of test, you are trying to use impose your POV by removing the material. It's ridiculous on its face.

::::::No, she was caught because she was trying to use copyrighted material. The ban was for being a sockpuppet master. ] (]) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


:::::Sorry but this is going to dispute resolution, there's no reasonable way it can be justified by Undue. ] (]) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC) :::::Sorry but this is going to dispute resolution, there's no reasonable way it can be justified by Undue. ] (]) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been a few days and no valid reason for inclusion has been presented here on the talk page. The minor opinion of a known left-wing group dedicated to the destruction of conservative figures does not warrent inclusion on a BLP. If an event is notable it will have many other actual RS's to give it ]. Without adequate weight this violates ] as it gives an over-emphasized view of a minor event. ] (]) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


== Edit warring == == Edit warring ==

Revision as of 13:51, 20 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Sowell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChicago
WikiProject iconThis 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
???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.
WikiProject iconSkepticism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconEconomics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

To-do list for Thomas Sowell: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2010-09-09


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Assess : Prepare for Good Article status
  • Cleanup : Essay length content that needs to be summarized
  • Expand : More well referenced criticism
  • Photo : Needs a free photo (preferably recent)
  • Wikify : Remove all content that is not encyclopedic in its style (See WP:Encyclopedia)

merge

I have suggested a merge from Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One because the book is apparently not notable enough outside the context of this topic to own to warrant its own Misplaced Pages article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This page is already too long. DougHill (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sowell categorized as "Republican"

In 30 years of reading and following Sowell, I don't recall his ever having self-identified as a member of the Republican party. Even if some of his views are aligned with the party and if he supports or votes for some of its candidates, these facts neither signify nor imply membership. Trackerseal (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Trackerseal

If it's not sourced, in a biography of a living person, out the statement goes. Some states have laws defining party membership in terms of voter registration (and, as I recall, California is one of those) while other states do not. In my state, it is quite unclear who is a member of what party, and there is a lot of crossover voting in primary elections and a lot of ticket-splitting in general elections. Where Sowell lives, it should be a matter of public record who is registered as a member of what party, if any. P.S. As I recall, but I don't have the source at hand, Sowell has written an article specifically distancing himself from identification as a "conservative," for reasons similar to those of Hayek for not accepting that label. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifying "Thought" section

I just took a try at wikifying the "thought" section. However, I think the font is too big for those long titles, and I liked the numbers before. I'll see if I can fix that. If I can't, please feel free to try. DougHill (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I myself liked the old numbers of the previous version which made the page appear less "loud". However since you reduced the font, it looks a bit better. I'll leave what you have done "as is." BonusDuke (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Extravagant idol worship

This is one of the least concise, least professional articles I've seen on Misplaced Pages. The entire (gigantic article) is a slobberfest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.182.180 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything in this article is factually correct. If you want a slobberfest then look up Krugman or Marx's articles. Or type in Marxism, reading those article you would have never thought that Marxism had endured any criticism. Even someone like Michael Moore does not have a criticism section. It is ridiculous.

l:So fix something. This is Misplaced Pages, after all. DougHill (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a big slobberfest but I don't know enough about the subject, and haven't the free time to research him, to fix it myself. Nevertheless, if DougHill agrees that this article is too in favour of the subject, he should have done what I'm about to do, namely stick a cleanup template on it. Lexo (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
To give an example of uncritical acceptance of the subject's views, consider this paragraph: "Sowell has stated that he was a Marxist during "the decade of my 20s." His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxism in favor of free market economic theory. His intern work revealed a correlation between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led to his conclusion that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared not that they may be causing higher unemployment of the poor by enforcing that law; their primary concern was keeping their own jobs secure." This is a non-sequitur and if it's supposed to be an example of Sowell's brilliance, it's not a good one. The fact that the Puerto Rican government employees Sowell met were timeservers does not invalidate Marxist economic theory, and nor does the fact that mandated minimum wages law caused unemployment. What it shows is that Puerto Rican sugar manufacturers got around the law, because presumably they hired people who didn't have to work minimum wage. I am not impressed that this subject even has an article of this size, let alone that it accepts waffle like this. Lexo (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I wonder myself what his being a Marxist had to do with the Puerto Rican sugar industry. However the story is true and appears in his biography 'A Personal Odyssey" - pages 131-132. On those pages he mentions the Puerto Rico situation and on page 132 explicitly states that he was a Marxist. QUOTE:
"I had remained a Marxist, despite being at the University of Chicago, but now my experience in Washington began a process of changing my mind completely as to how to deal with social problems."
The text in the article should state that Sowell remained a Marxist during his early college career and early days working for the federal government. page 131-132. That should fix the matter. Otherwise the article, while by no means perfect appears fine to me. BonusDuke (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wants to change the article for the better, go ahead and do so. Don't waste your time on the discussion page doing a critical review of the page; if you want to be a critic, there are ways you can reach more people and get more money for the pleasure. If you want to make a contribution to an online encyclopedia, go ahead. 188.74.111.222 (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Often people read a wikipedia article and find problems with it but realize that they are not knowledgeable enough in the subject to make changes themselves or they feel that the issues should be discussed to avoid rampant splurges of different people re-correcting it over and over as they battle for their viewpoint. For these reasons it seems to me that discussing problems on the TALK page is a perfectly reasonable way to participate in and contribute to the wikipedia process. Many people contribute to larger works by discussing topics with the people who create them or those who are have more expertise. It doesn't make sense to me to discourage people from attempting to be involved in that fashion. In the same way that you essentially say they are elitist jerks for being critics you are putting yourself in a similar role by claiming that you are superior because you're a doer not a talker. Many large works like dictionaries and such can benefit from discussion about even small sections. Having many minds involved is not only advantageous in that you can spread out the work and specialize in topics but also because you can have many points of view discussed on a single topic, which in my view gives you a better chance of doing a good job on that single topic than if one person wrote each article in a vacuum or if people simply wrote over each others' work constantly without explaining why or discussing the merits of different methods. Skiingdemon (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

...also, holy crap the Thought section of this article is totally out of hand. Someone (who's a much better and smarter person than me) should fix that :) Skiingdemon (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lexo: Sowell's experience with the minimum wage and sugar does go to the very heart of Marxian economics. First I would note that Sowell's conversion was well under way, but it took his inturn experience with the government for the scales to drop from his eyes. Second You claim "His intern work revealed a correlation between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry." Marxists have a specific idea about the "increasing misery of the proletariat" and its causes: unrestrained competition. So if the economic misfortunes of workers have different causes namely artificially high wages, then Marxian economics is wrong. Quibble if you wish, but Sowell's 1985 book on the subject, finished the job with devastating clarity and logic. Finally just because you don't understand the link doesn't mean there isn't one. As to the bureaucrats, the question is are the poor better off being in charge of their own interests or having those same interests watched over by bureaucrats who may or may not be interested in their well being and whose priorities may be in conflict with those they are supposed to be looking out for?99.168.86.65 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Spiker 22 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Spiker_22

The key point is to make sure that all statements in a biography of a living person are sourced. Look for sources, and fix what you can fix. Thomas Sowell has had a long enough public career as a writer about public policy that it ought to be possible for anyone with good library access to find much commentary about his writings and views and much independent reporting of details of his life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone found any new sources yet? There should be plenty of sources available for motivated Wikipedians to use to refine the perspective on Sowell in this article. Cite sources, and everyone can check what the sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying "I agree that this article is a big slobberfest", and then asserting "I don't know enough about the subject" is a contradiction-- how can it be a big slobberfest if you don't know enough about the subject? This immaturity also reflects the criticisms of Sowell in the article; the criticism in the article that states "In addition, some studies claim that welfare systems often reduce poverty, contrary to Sowell's claims indicating that welfare exacerbates poverty". In the first citation of Mr. Kenworthy's study, he states explicitly, ". . .redistribution may indeed reduce poverty, but only in the short run and only if poverty is defined in relative terms. . ." and that, ". . .nations with more generous social-welfare benefits tend to have higher poverty rates over the long run. . ." I'm going to remove this criticism as it misleads the casual reader.TheObservee (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a slobberfest because the only criticism of Sowell is from a political level, most of it being shameful. On an economics standpoint, just like Hayek and Friedman, people can't argue with his principles or conclusions because they're solid on an economical level. Politically, would be impossible to get unless one party controlled everything with an iron fist. Also, they are the myriad of people who call him variations on "Uncle Tom," which is just awful. If you can find a principled person with an economic leg to stand on who criticized Sowell in an articulate way, I'd love to see that. I think you're more likely to find a bridge in Brooklyn to buy. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sowell's view on IQ testing deserves to be in more articles.

I see I need to look up the latest writings by Sowell on race and IQ, as I don't have those sources at hand, and they would be good additions to quite a few articles on Misplaced Pages that currently don't fit the neutral point of view core policy. Thanks to the earlier editor, whoever you are, who found those writings. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertising tag on section is wrong tag.

If other editors want to do actual research and find writings that are critical of Sowell's thought, just look those up, cite them, and post encyclopedic statements of what those sources say to the article. Anyone is welcome to edit the article according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (taking care to follow the policies about biographies of living persons.) But please refrain from tagging sections simply because you disagree with them, especially if you don't post citations to sources that show the rationale for your disagreements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "Thought" section

It's pretty obvious that the section is too long considering that none of his "thought" was influential and some of it (welfare promoting poverty) can be disproved with a couple of peer reviewed studies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an empirical question—for which we would turn to sources for an answer—just how influential Thomas Sowell's thought is. The article is not unduly long, still being well below the length at which Misplaced Pages alerts editors to article length as they do new edits, so new content could be added to the article with critiques of Sowell's thought. In any good encyclopedia, statements are sourced. In Misplaced Pages, by Misplaced Pages's rules, biographies of living persons must have sources for all contentious statements. So any editor who desires to document disagreement with Sowell's thought, or lack of impact of his thought, is welcome to do so, as long as the editor accurately cites reliable sources. You have mentioned peer-reviewed studies. They must have citations, which other editors here could use to check their content. What studies did you have in mind? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The two studies are prominently discussed in welfare's effect on poverty and they are "Do social-welfare policies reduce poverty? A cross-national assessment" and "Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies". CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What??? There are just as many peer reviewed studies that say the exact opposite thing. The fact that you use studies that are taken from Misplaced Pages and are from Mickey Mouse universities in in East and North Carolina (top economic schools) shows that you have no clue about the subject. The wikipedia article even says that there is still ongoing debate about this issue so your assertion that the issue is anywhere close to being absolute is laughable. Also the fact that you are a fan of Noam Chomsky confirms you economic illiteracy. Also the fact that you cite Media Matter, which is an indirectly Soros funded institute (proven), is desperate. It is common sense that welfare creates dependancy, most people work for economic incentives not because they like to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talkcontribs) 07:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then if they directly join issue with something that Sowell said, they would be appropriate sources over here. This is primarily a biographical article, so the best sources are the sources that write about what someone (here, Thomas Sowell) said or did, or what other persons think about what he said or did, but if there are sources, cite those and edit away. Of course it is to be expected that other editors may check the sources and perhaps add yet more sources with differing perspectives on Sowell's life and work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'm considering making a Criticism section but I don't know anyone who ever actually publicly criticized or debated Sowell. Maybe It should just be studies/sources etc.CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you found something. (I've followed some of the links shown as references in your latest edit to the article.) I wonder if other editors can confirm the text of the cited Sowell columns. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You found squat, CartoonDiablo. Media Matters is a leftist criminal front group that continuously violates its tax-exempt status as a non-profit U.S. entity, as radio commentator Mark Levin has frequently stated for several years. Anything appearing on their site and quoted in the Criticism section of this article is suspect and unauthoritative. You're trying too hard, and the fact that you even started this section may indicate that you're pushing a POV.—Quicksilver 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Quicksilver, please do not rush to assume bad faith (because that is against the rules of Misplaced Pages). If the sources are politically motivated, they still are competent evidence that some people criticize some points of view promoted by Sowell. It may be that you can find sources to back up that the criticisms are not factually accurate, but that would be your job, to look at what reliable sources there are on the issue. Misplaced Pages is not for personal insults, but for collaboratively learning the art of scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

MMfA is not a reliable source. They've been proven wrong so often it's mind-blowing. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, every conservative blog on the Internet, but the best one is NewsBusters, which is part of the Media Research Center. But, there's a lovely invention called Google that could do that for you. I'm just sayin'. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Basic Economics 4th Edition

The fourth edition of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics has come up. If I had the book (I plan on getting it in a few months,) I could update the information as it pertains to the published works section of this article. PokeHomsar (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. Do that..--Novus Orator 07:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thought, again

This is the most ridiculously bloated section I've seen in a long time. Who came up with section headings like this, "Intellectuals are “idea” workers, who often presume special wisdom and insight outside their area of expertise to guide others, while being unaccountable for results"? Besides ridiculously long, they are also argumentative. The entire section is nothing but a very favorable essay on Sowell's work including summaries and selected examples, and all of it is based on primary sources. This should be an encyclopedia, not a hagiography for someone who isn't even dead yet. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • An editor just reinstated one of the offending sections, with a subsection called "Ordinary citizens might benefit from analyzing issues and public policies in terms of costs, benefits and trade-offs, where scarce resources have alternative uses, rather than rely on lofty rhetoric from political leaders, activists and special interests" ("Titles should be short—preferably fewer than ten words", from the MOS: this one is 36 words). That very title for a section is warrant enough to place an "essay-like" tag on the article. The reinstated text is almost wholly based on primary sources--it cites one single secondary source--hence the "primary sources" and "original research" tags. Whoever wrote that section originally did not, in my opinion, have a firm grasp of some of WP's guidelines on sourcing and referencing, and I urge the editor who restored it to reconsider. Considering the utter reliance on primary sources, the lack of specific citations, the synthesis involved in connecting themes in Sowell's books, and the non-neutral tone, I have no option but to place a POV tag on the article. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this article could definitively use some work. What I would really like to see is an expanded criticism section. It seems like there are not very many intellectuals who have critiqued his work, and it would be interesting to find it that is truly the case.--Novus Orator 03:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The subsection on "trade-offs, constraints and incentives" needs to be there to go with the list earlier that introduces it. However, I agree that the section, and some of its headers, are too long and should be edited (including moving some of the material to other pages). I also agree that the page needs more criticism. DougHill (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Besides length (and excessive detail...) my problem really is with the sourcing. Criticism is fine, and Andrewlp1991 added some, but what should really be the first order of business is to summarize his work adequately, concisely, and in a neutral manner, based not on a reading of his work but on a reading of secondary sources. It's not like a song or a movie, or even a book, where WP allows a brief plot summary (really, original research)--these sections compare his books, synthesize information, make general statements about themes and topics, et cetera, and that simply cannot be: it is the essence of original research. Surely there are secondary sources available--encyclopedic articles, critiques, book reviews. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the case of representing what someone thinks, a popular writer like Sowell is the best source. Not his academic works but works for the general public. The concern in general with primary sources are some require original research rather than just reading the text, the text will be taken out of context by an editor or it is not easily seen if the editor is summarizing it well, and bias by the primary source. None of these are issues when the works are used to determine his viewpoint. In terms of NPOV, you can quote from When Work Disappears for alternate theories of why the ghetto is poor. Also, other works. --Javaweb (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Media Matters Criticism

The Media Matters criticism paragraph really needs additional sources to stay since it is a partisan source. It would be best if a secondary news source could be found that talks about Sowell's comments, but at the least, there should be a link to Sowell's comments. Drrll (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the issue was that Media Matters is a partisan source so there needed to be a third party to validate that the statements were actually said. I adding in two articles from the Washington Monthly which showed that Republicans agreed with Sowell's Obama/Hitler comparison. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any straight news references for the last sentence? The Washington Monthly references are from opinion pieces, not news stories. Drrll (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point to original commenter. After all, the Paul Krugman article doesn't contain any similar type of criticism, although it could easily be found! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.196.173.20 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Krugman criticism can be found in 10 seconds. Everyone on the right can rip his dubious economic remedies to shreds in 10 seconds. Anyone who has ever taken Economics 101 could do it. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source and using it as a basis for a "Criticism" section (which also against NPOV) is a WP:BLP violation. I've deleted the offending passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.32.238 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read points people raised and with regards to the media matters criticism and feel some things need to be clarified.
  • The claims are verifiable from Sowell's own work (with the citations given).
  • Media matters is used to verify that the criticism exists, not as a source for the criticism (thus it's irrelevant to remove it on the basis of reliable sources).
  • A "Criticism" section is not inherently a violation of WP:BLP and none of the content in the section was either.
  • I understand these are good faith edits but the section shouldn't be removed based on these grounds.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPs have a higher threshold for sources and I don't think Media Matters reaches it. Surely this criticism could be found in more reliable sources if it is indeed notable? –CWenger (^@) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The statements are cited in Sowell's own writing.CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
When not making "war" on Fox News, Media Matters spend lots of time and money attacking conservatives and other non-lefties, often with little or no attempt at honesty. They have been proved to be liars, over and over and over again. That MMfA has attacked a non-lefty is completely insignificant. Quoting a target accurately is a rather low bar (though they often fail there); honesty is a much harder standard. MMfA is a completely unreliable source.
I will remove MMfA-based attacks from any BLP, including this one, whenever I find them.
If there is any significance or validity to this attack, find a decent source (eg., not Soros-funded) making it; MMfA has neither significance nor validity.
If you insert the MMfA attacks again (without first establishing consensus on this page), I will report you for violating WP:BLP. Please take this seriously. CWC 04:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not they cite his own writing is irrelevant. The fact that they take issue with what he said is not notable. –CWenger (^@) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's notable, the criticism reached over to Sarah Palin defending him. I'm tired of people making blatant POV edits (ie Chris Chittleborough) and if this keeps up I might ask a higher wikipedia authority to settle this dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CD, You have repeated inserted a ref that searches mediamatters.org for "Thomas Sowell". That's not WP:V, that's trawling for attacks on a living person. You have repeatedly inserted refs to MMFA pages which intentionally deceive readers about Prof Sowell. (BTW, the Politico article is equally dishonest.)
Two people here have suggested finding reliable sources (read: not MMFA, not the Washington Monthly) for the criticisms you are so keen to keep into this article; you have simply reverted the unacceptable refs back in. You are violating WP:BLP. You are violating WP:V. Please stop. CWC 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
For anyone whose still citing Media matters as a non-reliable source see my earlier comment. Since the consensus is based on an obvious violation of NPOV, and since we can't seem to find a resolution I'll take it to the appropriate noticeboard. (edit: the discussion can be found here.) CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's time to tackle the Thought section

Base Problem

I think we can rewrite the Thought section to be around 1800 words and keep all the most important points (with a possibility of a new article for his work). Also I think it should be renamed to something along the lines of "Work and theories". This discussion should be to pick out the 4-5 most important things he's worked on and how to create a new section based on them. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous recapitulation of books' argument removed=

The majority of this section consisted of argumentative recapitualtion of arguments within the books cited. Inappropriate. Naterial redacterd. JTGILLICK (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

General Comment on Base Article

Misplaced Pages is not intended as a vehicle for self-promotion, commercial promotion, position promotion. Material to that end is best presented in some other venue.

JTGILLICK (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

peer-reviewed research?

Does Sowell have any peer-reviewed research into economics? All I could find were critiques of various economic figures. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

His list of publications is at http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html. There are a number of articles in peer-reviewed journals.--Yaush (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No one has every substantively rebuked Sowell's basic theories and principles because you just can't. It's why he gets denigrated on a personal level by being called some of the worst names in the book. It's what you do when you can't have a rational debate on the issues with someone. The amount of times this man has been called an "Uncle Tom" or variations thereof is mind-blowing. It's just so utterly offensive. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sowell has a lot of "Adam Smith in Theory and Practice" and "Marxian Value Reconsidered," but I meant in terms of actual research to advance economics or an economic theory. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

His "Basic Economics" is considered one of the greatest economic texts for the layman. "Peer-reviewed research" is a fig leaf. Economics is a truth profession. Human nature is what makes it so. Sociology is a field I have little respect for, which you may be confusing for economics here. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sociology is a truth profession. Human nature is what makes it so. Economics is a field I have little respect for, which you may be confusing for sociology here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.63.68 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Why doesn't the criticism section mention that a lot of his critics have referred to him as an "Uncle Tom" or variations thereof? I know it makes him look better, but it is a very common criticism, no matter how moronic and offensive it is. I can't find with a minute on Google any major person doing the criticism, but I'm sure someone knows of one. Most of them are blogs of unknown, at least to me, credibility. I don't want to click on them for fear of my IP address being tagged for going on what could be conspiracy theory websites. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

MMfA

Media Matters for America is not a credible source. I will remove such criticism shortly. Going to MMfA for reasonable and principled critique is like going to Alex Jones for the truth. It just doesn't happen. PokeHomsar (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sociology is not economics

Did you guys really put a criticism from a sociologist in the "Economic criticism" section? First of all, the criticism is a load of BS (most of sociology is, sorry, friends.) Secondly, it doesn't actually address Thomas Sowell's larger point. Sounds like whoever is writing the criticism section has never actually read Sowell, just those who criticize him. And all of the criticisms from the economics perspective aren't criticisms. They're the equivalent of people looking at Sowell's conclusions and going "Nuh uh." PokeHomsar (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposite = true. Economics is mostly just excuses for the rich and powerful to stay that way. All those greedy professors at state-sponsored institutions want to take your tax dollars, nevermind all those Koch brother employees running around... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.63.68 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Welfare studies in Criticism section

I've deleted the two studies referenced in the critisims section as I believe they violate WP:NOR. The studies were not in direct response to any of Thomas Sowell's work. Thus they were not "criticisms". The contributing editor that added them seems to have been using them to formulate his/her own personal criticism of Thomas Sowell and therefore the addition would qualify as original research. In the future the "criticism" section should be reserved for sources that DIRECTLY respond to work by Sowell. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another editor reverted my change. Please explain to me why you did so and discuss it with me here. Again, editors should not be adding sources they think are applicable, but rather sources that are directly related to the topic, which in this case is Thomas Sowell's work. If a source does NOT concern Thomas Sowell's work than it should not be included. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I also reverted your edits (primarily on the basis of content removal with no edit summary, my bad on this occasion but it would be helpful to include one, however brief). Having re-read the section I tend to agree with your analysis. danno 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your due diligence. I included an edit summary the first time I removed the section, but didn't the second time. That's my bad. I would just like the person that included them, and then ignored my edit to re-include them, to defend his/her position. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Thomas Sowell testifies at Bork hearings.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thomas Sowell testifies at Bork hearings.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Roberts Harris

I've just edited the para about Sowell's public confrontation with the late Patricia Roberts Harris. I'm now unsure about whether this incident is significant enough to mention in this article.

Sowell's account of the incident can be read via the Amazon page for A Man of Letters. You'll see that Thomas's real dispute is with the late Carl Rowan. Apparently, Sowell's column created a fuss, with the WaPo later publishing "an entire page" of denunciations of Sowell by Rowan, Harris and others. Sowell comments: "This was due, I believe, not only to what I had said, or even that I had revealed the dirty little secret of internal color discrimination among blacks in a white newspaper, but that I did so in a Washington paper ... oo many blacks in Washington were all too aware of ... internal color discrimination."

So we have:

  • Sowell's debate(s) with Rowan and other black activists/commentators — certainly significant, IMO
  • The particular column from Sowell which set off this particular spat and the subsequent page of denunciations — might be significant; would need secondary sources
  • Sowell's sharp response to Harris — I'm not convinced either way (but the bit about "no running hot water" in their house in Charlotte could be used)

What do other editors think? CWC 06:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

I've just removed the following paragraph:

The Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen reached conclusions inconsistent with Sowell's research of price gouging.<ref>Amartya Sen Poverty and Famines. An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford) 1981</ref>

Using a whole book as a reference for this claim is not good enough for a BLP. (BTW, our article about price gouging currently mentions Sowell and Walter Williams but not Sen, for whatever that's worth.)

We really need a secondary source that is entirely/mostly about Sowell vs Sen before we can cover this in the article. Cheers, CWC 06:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters, again

I contend that any use of Media Matters as a source in any article about a US conservative violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. In my considered opinion, citing MMfA re Sowell is like citing a KKK newsletter. I have therefore removed all mention of MMfA, again. See previous discussion above at #Media Matters Criticism and #MMfA, plus this NPOVN discussion. I see a clear consensus. Remember: If the only cite for a negative claim is a maliciously deceptive propaganda site, that claim does not belong in Misplaced Pages.

Can anyone find an acceptable cite showing that Sowell received significant criticism for his "Race and Politics" column? If not, we should remove that paragraph. Also, we should change the <ref>s to use {{cite news}} etc. Cheers, CWC 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update re MMfA: more discussion at my talk page, this Arbitration request (permalink), Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Cheers, CWC 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted Chris Chittleborough's changes. The BRD process is that if an edit is disputed and reverted, you get consensus for it before editing it again. You do not repeat the removal, and then offer to discuss whether it should stay removed. Should consensus be reached for removal of Media Matters sourced content it can be removed. --Escape Orbit 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Read the discussions from last year. We have consensus: no MMfA. Also, Escape Orbit, you just violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, which no amount of consensus can ever justify. This is not about a BRD process, this is about conforming to Misplaced Pages's core rules. Reverted. CWC 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion of this source in regard to policy is already noted. Your opinion is disputed. However you haven't grasped that content disputes are not a reason for edit warring, which is what you are doing. I invite you to revert your change in order to avoid any danger of a block.
In regards to the policies you refer to; there is nothing in any of them to say that criticism of a person's actions should not be included, or must be neutral. All that policy requires is that the criticism is notable, (i.e. not given undue weight), is presented neutrally and is verifiable. What MMfA has said is a matter of fact that can be verified in the cite. I don't see much wrong with the article's presentation of things, so the only matter up for debate it is whether their opinion is notable. Whether it is 'lies' is not open to debate, so I am concerned that this is the thrust of your argument. --Escape Orbit 17:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. Removing BLP violations is required, not edit warring, and silly talk about consensus does not change that.
And yes, it is OK and even desirable to prevent significant criticism in a BLP. That MMfA said something negative about a conservative is never significant. If something from MMfA creates a controversy that gets independent reporting, or causes significant events (eg., the DNC fund-raising letter mentioned in this article), we can and often/usually should report that ... but should rarely if ever cite MMfA in doing so.
Let me restate something I wrote above: If the only cite for a negative claim is MMfA, that claim does not belong in Misplaced Pages.
Now let me rephrase that: Any Misplaced Pages editor who wishes to include a criticism of a conservative coming from MMfA needs to find a good, notable source making that criticism.
So those of you who want to put lots of negative stuff about Prof. Sowell into this article should be looking for well-sourced criticism instead of reverting BLP violations into the article. Is that a big enough hint? CWC 12:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Something I thought of just after clicking "Save": as mentioned above, Sowell and Amartya Sen have conflicting theories about price gouging. Surely some academic economist has written a paper critiquing Sowell's theories that would be a good addition to this article? Cheers, CWC 12:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You're not following what I said. Your opinion of what constitutes a BLP violation is noted, and disputed. Your opinion of MMfA as a suitable source is noted, and disputed. I see no BLP violation in saying that the MMfA said something critical. There is a question of undue weight, but again that is a dispute of content that could be resolved through consensus. But if Prof Sowell chooses to employ himself as a political commentator on the internet, then it goes with the territory that what he says may be criticised by other political commentators on the internet, including the MMfA. Otherwise, despite you claims to the contrary, the content contains no lies and has no factual inaccuracies (unless you can explain where?). So your continued brandishing of BLP as a big stick isn't helping discussion (or your argument), and is not an excuse for edit warring. --Escape Orbit 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason we're using MMfA and not something more neutral and reliable? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How on earth does Media Matters' opinion pass WP:DUE? Of all the criticism engendered by Sowell we can surely find better sourcing. I recognize MMFA is WP:RS, however in this instance it is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. – Lionel 02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it does. We have sources that aren't MMfA already there, and CartoonDiablo, to this point, is the only person who wants to keep the MMfA part in there. We don't need it for the claim (if we need the claim at all). Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Attention Everyone Still Arguing Over Media Matters and Consensus

The case is has been decided and closed. Media Matters can be used and consensus is being misused by the editors who want to prevent it.

If editors continue to remove material based on questioning Media Matters as a RS or consensus based on it, it will result in sanctions. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you have any right or ability to threaten sanctions on anyone else. I was not part of the initial discussion, and there does not appear to be consensus to include it or not. Perhaps the entire section should be struck? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who made the decision, if you want to appeal it then by all means do so but don't violate it by reverting the article. And no, removing all criticism would be a worse POV omission then just removing Media Matters. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No one "made the decision." You went to a dispute resolution noticeboard with people who are not involved with you currently and are trying to apply principles of one person's thought regarding Media Matters as evidence of the consensus here. It certainly is not - there actually appears to be a fairly significant consensus here that the use of Media Matters is inappropriate in this context. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a third party made the decision which was needed because of a dispute. You can disagree with it, you can appeal it but it holds as legitimate based on the editing process. Here it is for reference:

  • Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Misplaced Pages article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments about consensus Based on the article's talk page, the biggest problem that I see is a misunderstanding of consensus by both sides of the debate. I saw a number of comments on the talk page about consensus that were wrong. A few things about Misplaced Pages and consensus: (1) Consensus cannot trump Misplaced Pages policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; (3) Consensus can change over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Misplaced Pages's "Don't revert solely due to non-consensus" disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. Debbie W. 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, as it stands Media Matters is an acceptable source and you can't use consensus to prevent it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A third party chimed in at DR, sure. The dispute was not involving me, and consensus can change, which it might just be... Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Well a few things. The fact that you weren't in the discussion is irrelevant, the parties to the dispute were and the issue was decided based on the rules of the site. Secondly, consensus requires an outside opinion in the first place. And even if consensus changes (or remains the same) it does not give carte blanche to violate NPOV.
As the decision points out:
(1) Consensus cannot trump Misplaced Pages policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
First, there was no "decision." A neutral third party chimed in, and now other people are chiming in. My suggestion may be to actually post this at RFC and see if other people will come in. There is no policy against removing contentious material, but there is policy regarding use of blog/self-published sources, which is a significant argument against using MMfA period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In effect it was a decision; a third party chiming in as well as me and others chiming making it a standard unless it was otherwise appealed in RFC. The Media Matters source is not self-published and blogs are not banned as sources on Misplaced Pages; they are just another medium which may or may not be used depending on the circumstances. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So why is it worth using here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it shows the organization's reaction to a controversial statement he made. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is it at all relevant? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Because they represented a criticism of the controversial comment? This is starting to sound like you're deliberately trying to draw out a non-issue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is the comment noteworthy of mention here? Is anything MMfA decides to cover worthy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The same reason why Sarah Palin's or the DNC's comment is noteworthy, this is last time I'm answering this question. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You haven't answered why. You simply state "it's noteworthy." Why is it noteworthy? Why is this statement worthy of being covered here? Is anything MMfA talks about worthy of note? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Given your lack of response over the last 2 days while doing other editing, should we assume you're retracting your protest over the removal of the MMFA-sourced section? Looking back over the discussions from last year, it actually appears you're the only person who actually thinks it should be included, so I'm not sure where the consensus you've claimed you have is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Given no further protest, I'm going to remove that section per the apparent consensus over the last year and the lack of any explained noteworthiness. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
There is further protest, that of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The only way to undue the decision is to take it up to arbitration. I'm reinstating the material and if you make such an attempt again you will be reported for conduct awaiting possible sanctions.
To answer your previous question, it's noteworthy because major politicians as well the DNC responded to it, and the validity of Media Matters' response has been upheld. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I love that you're dredging up a two week old conflict for reasons I cannot fathom. The consensus over the past year, based on what you provided for links, is that the section isn't worth keeping. You're the only one here continuing to defend its inclusion weeks later. Can you show links about the major politicians and the DNC responding to it, perhaps? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
We are now up to 5 days without a resolution on this. If we cannot bring up the evidence being requested, we should remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the issue addressed in the MediaMatters editorial hasn't been taken up by any other mass media, as far as I can see, then I don't see any reason to have it included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
And the criticism in question remains in the article sourced to non-MMfA groups, so it's pretty much dealt with. Still not convinced the criticism is worthy of merit, but the MMfA issue was the broader problem and it appears to have been solved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
-CartoonDiablo, after not checking in here for over 3 weeks, reverted basically without comment. Does anyone have any other input on this, or maybe CartoonDiablo would like to chime in? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Since Thargor has been so insistent I'll reiterate that the issue has been closed per dispute resolution and applies to everyone. Unless someone wants to go to mediation or arbitration to solve it then there is no discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution, of course, is not binding. You already tried arbitration, not a single arb wanted to bother with it. If you cannot justify including the material, we shouldn't have it. You'll note that we were able to have the information you wanted to add *without* using MMfA - why is that not acceptable for you? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes arbitration is only done when other options, including third opinion, mediation etc. have failed. As it stands, the editors here are trying to exclude an RS for obvious POV reasons, which is why the validity of MMfA was held up in dispute resolution and yet everyone still wants to remove it.
If Thargor Orlando or any other editor thinks they have a good case and aren't just doing it for POV exclusion via consensus, they can try mediation, or third opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Lionel is an unrelated party who chimed in up above. Cla68 is an unrelated party who chimed in above. You literally have no one supporting your side at this point. Where is the consensus for keeping MMfA? Heck, where is the consensus for keeping the criticism at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
@Cartoon: it is correct that the DR thread was closed. But consensus can change. Additionally, my reading of the DR thread was that pertained to whether MMFA is a reliable source. The current issue at hand IMO appears to be whether MMFA is WP:UNDUE. This is a different issue than the one discussed at DR. @Thargor: remember that discussions are not decided by a vote--but by strength of arguments. That said, Cartoon is arguing that MMFA is RS--but has failed to address the objection of MMFA on UNDUE grounds. Cla68 and myself have demonstrated how in the present case MMFA fails UNDUE. Since this is an UNDUE issue and not a RS issue, the prior dispute resolution doesn't apply. And since Cartoon has not offered a rebuttal to the UNDUE concerns of multiple editors here, we have consensus based on UNDUE that MMFA should be removed.– Lionel 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. CD also misunderstands the role of DR, believing it to be a binding issue as opposed to a resolution of a dispute he had with individual editors. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd also add that this is a BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Even though MMFA is a reliable source, for critical and negative content we need multiple reliable third party sources. – Lionel 00:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Criticism of the Hitler comparison certainly does not fail UNDUE. Rather, the removal of the MMfA criticism would violate UNDUE because it represents a prominent viewpoint. Also, there are multiple sources for everything in the controversy section (and the statements in the article are not really in question anyway because they accurately paraphrase statements in Sowell's columns, which are cited as sources). While the Rwanda comparison is less notable and I can support removing that part (though it is referenced, favorably, here, for instance), the Hitler comparison is well known, which is why references to it show up months afterward in places like this and this (and of course it was widely commented on at the time. Hugetim 20:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we prove the MMfA criticism is prominent specifically, or can we note that criticism using non-MMfA sources? I have no problem including the criticism if it's with valid sources. This is independent of the complete lack of consensus for using MMfA, BTW. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
An RS commenting on a notable event is prominent. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
They seem to be the first to criticize Sowell for the Hitler comparison, as is often the case in these sorts of incidents, and then other commentators followed. It also seems to be the most detailed critique. We can note the criticism using other sources, but I don't understand why you don't want to cite MMfA's views here, Thargor Orlando. Hugetim 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that other sources were not reliant on MMfA for the response (at least not explicitly), and I have no issue with referring to those sources. MMfA is not reliable, is self-published, is highly partisan, and really should be avoided in this context whenever possible. It's especially possible here when we have the DNC reference - a reliable, appropriate political respondent. To counter, we would never ever ever be okay with using NewsBusters to comment on liberal columnists for the same reason. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Serious claims require serious evidence. Partisan I get, but what evidence do you have that MMfA is not reliable, and what definition of self-published are you using which does not also include newspapers as "self-published"? Hugetim 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
MMfA has dedicated itself to the destruction of FNC. As reported in Politico], MMfA should not be considered a news organization in the least. They have a dedicated activist agenda and have no pretense of objetive reporting. Such a source can never be used as a reliable source for any factual information. Since they are actively targenting conservatives, anything they report on conservatives must be taken with a bag of salt. If something they report on is notable (ie has some weight behind it) it will have been reported in other mainstream sources, use those sources if it meets weight issues. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Arzel said it perfectly - they're not a news organization or a factchecking organization (like Factcheck.org or Politifact, for example), but a partisan subjective agenda-driven source. As for the difference between MMfA and newspapers, newspapers are places that do journalism, have a set of ethics, etc. MMfA is not, and does not claim to be, a journalistic enterprise. Nor do they claim to be a think tank, for that matter, which puts them in a different place than Brookings or Cato. There's no reason to ever use MMfA in a contentious article, if it's ever appropriate at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems like you are arguing they are a questionable source. Maybe, but only because they have an apparent conflict of interest. I see no evidence that they have a poor reputation for checking facts or that they lack editorial oversight. Hugetim 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
And I see no evidence that they have a good reputation for checking facts or that they have actual editorial oversight. They're clearly questionable, yes, and this doesn't even touch upon the complete lack of consensus or justification for addition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't happen to think using an RS once in an article makes it undue weight but I do think there is an effort at POV exclusion which is attempted to be justified by consensus. If anyone thinks that using an RS once in an entire article for about two words constitutes undue weight they can take it up in dispute resolution, third opinion or mediation but as far as I can tell it's a transparent attempt at a POV exclusion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
At this point, it's just as much about consensus as it is about BLP and undue weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, DebbieW, which CD is using to validate MMFA above is a banned sock abuser. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No he was banned for copyright which had nothing to do with his dispute resolution decision (if it did it would have been removed) BLP was determined to be fine in a previous discussion and the how can an RS be undue when it's used once in an article? This doesn't pass any kind of test, you are trying to use impose your POV by removing the material. It's ridiculous on its face.
No, she was caught because she was trying to use copyrighted material. The ban was for being a sockpuppet master. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but this is going to dispute resolution, there's no reasonable way it can be justified by Undue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been a few days and no valid reason for inclusion has been presented here on the talk page. The minor opinion of a known left-wing group dedicated to the destruction of conservative figures does not warrent inclusion on a BLP. If an event is notable it will have many other actual RS's to give it WP:WEIGHT. Without adequate weight this violates WP:NPOV as it gives an over-emphasized view of a minor event. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've just dropped in from WP:DRN to look at the dispute here. Thargor and Cartoon need to cut out this edit warring bullshit immediately or I'm going to request full page protection. You may have both skirted around WP:3RR, but if I were to report you at WP:AN3 I'm pretty sure the slomo edit warring would be evident enough for you both to get sanctioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I requested page protection before you got here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
End yet you continued to edit war over the tags. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people should be discussing on talk instead of simply removing tags they don't like. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people should be discussing on talk instead of simply adding tags they do like. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If you can look at this talk page and say I'm the one refusing to engage, there's a problem. Meanwhile, the guy who hasn't visited in three days chooses to canvass for changes as opposed to discuss. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories: