Talk:John Stossel/Archive 3

Consensus Discussion
The result was remove--User: (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaking final closed decisions with content decisions, which remain open because Consensus can change. 1of3 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC) nb: Above was struck because 1of3 was determined to be the sock puppet of a banned user, not because 1of3 withdrew the comment, which was in                substance correct, IMHO. Andyvphil 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Actually Maniwar's mistake is that he thinks he's a little tin god. A little context here: Maniwar put a "archived discussion" template around this section, which begins with an admonition "The following discussion is archived. Please    do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." Rather than follow the admonition he was responsible for, he added this box, with his assertion that "The result was remove". Some of this stuff survives even in Morph's severe truncation, so I added the comment, in his little box, "Not so." He then removed my comment, saying "Do not edit a     closed consensus discussion. Please follow directions." Well, sauce for the goose... I removed his "result" comment, replying "Follow your own     instructions. There is no basis in policy for a solitary "closing comment"     that I know of. This is not an AfD." Whereupon he restored his comment to    its special priviledged position, threatening, "revert again, and I will report     you for spam. Consider this a warning for disruptive editing. Do not change my     edits!" The irony of that demand seems lost on him. And this is the second time this paragon of chutzpah has threatened to "report" me, on specious grounds. And..."spam"? Andyvphil 11:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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. oops, forgot to sign. Let's discuss below this point...individually. --User: (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 2) Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
 * 3) Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
 * 4) Was this a national controversy?
 * 5) Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
 * 8) Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
 * 9) Is this a national controversy?
 * 10) Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
 * 11) And are these sources credible, reputable, and such?
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
 * 14) Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
 * 15) Was this a national controversy?
 * 16) Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?

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. --User: (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 B4 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 [randomly] 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   (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced, but I will admit that there are more serious controversies which we are missing. &larr;Ben B4 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:

Notability
 * "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still be non-notable – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

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.

Notability is not temporary Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.

Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. I think these above may fail based on that. I advise that we all go back and read WP:Notability. --User: (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   (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  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 Notability)"
 * 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. --User: (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   (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like those suggestions and will definitely adopt. --User: (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)
 * Next step will be:

{ {Discussion bottom}}
 * 1) Remove 1 and 3 per discussion
 * 2) Although consensus is to remove, the suggestion to move # two into paragraph format and verify that main media organizations carried showing that it was a controversy will be adopted in liu...if this is not satisfactory, it will be deleted, again per discussion.

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 B4 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   (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 B4 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! --User: (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. --User: (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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  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  (talk) 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   (talk) 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., Words_to_avoid, Pro_%26_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_%26_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   (talk) 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   (talk) 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"? Wikipedia 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)


 * I have said this all here before in one way or another, but the specific sections I removed are:
 * 20/20 segment on "stupid" public schools. Only action complained about is that he says charter schools are better and argues for a voucher system, a mainstream position.  Only party cited as complaining is Media Matters, a partisan pundit media outlet.  That is not a controversy.
 * Health care. Only action complained about is that he interviewed more people who support his position than oppose it.  Only party cited complaining is Media Matters.  Not a controversy.
 * Gender differences. Only action complained about is that he decided against using an interview that contradicted his thesis, and that he chose interview subjects who agreed with him.  Party complaining is FAIR, a partisan organization.  Not a controversy.
 * Parkinson's disease. Only action complained about is getting fact wrong about death rates.  No party is described as complaining, though FAIR is a source.  Not a controversy (it is OR to go through record to find examples of journalistic mistakes, and irrelevant to the biography).
 * CEO salaries. Only action complained about is factual misstatement.  No party is described as complaining, sourced to FAIR.  Not a controversy.
 * The relevant WP:BLP policy section is:
 * 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'
 * That comes from the balance section of WP:NPOV, which BLP explicitly incorporates as being particularly important and stringently enforced. The controversy section is overwhelming the article, and instead of cooperating in keeping this in line some editors are simply continuing to add more criticisms.  BLP prohibits this, and does not require expansion of the article as an alternative - that is not my place here.  I am here to fix a BLP problem, not to write the article.  I have re-noticed this page on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  You are threatening to edit war on it rather than discuss, which is not a good sign.
 * -- Wikidemo 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wikidemo here. These entries offer very little to Stossel's notability, offer no secondary sources, and give disproportionate space to critics in regard to NPOV weight.  If any of these things get any mention, it should only be as a source to the statements that critics charge him with unbalanced reporting and factual misstatements.  Let's focus on the main controversies in a paragraph form, with references to other points in the lead statement for the section.  Morphh   (talk) 2:44, 02 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikidemo, you're introducing a new supposed policy, namely that a criticism from a "partisan" organization doesn't create a controversy and doesn't merit any mention here. There is no such rule.  The policy about reporting opinions states: "It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."  (from Neutral point of view)  Thus, the test is whether an opinion can be attributed to a "prominent" adherent, not whether it can be attributed to a nonpartisan adherent.


 * I will also note that the mass attack on MMfA and FAIR continues, and continues to disregard context entirely. For example, with regard to Parkinson's diseaase, Stossel either did or didn't say that it kills more people than AIDS, and the official death statistics either do or don't contradict him.  Does anyone think FAIR just made up the quotation? or that FAIR made up the public health statistics?  It's one thing to say, "FAIR opined that the allocation of time to the pro and con sides was improper."  There you have at least an argument that FAIR's ideological orientation is relevant to point at issue, because there's a judgment call to be made in a TV program of limited length.  It's clearly wrong, though, to lump that in with a case in which FAIR is simply being credited as the person or entity that pointed out certain objective facts.  There's a difference between FAIR (partisan or not) and some anonymous blogger.


 * By the way, the people running FAIR and MMfA are all alive. The BLP policy applies to talk pages.  Does this constant unsubstantiated disparagement of these two organizations violate BLP with respect to their principals? JamesMLane t c 03:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These organizations define themselves as partisan. Morphh   (talk) 3:56, 02 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "partisan" is the right word, but I hesitate to voice even so tentative a disagreement because I'm afraid you'll go zooming off into a defense of your statement. The important point is not whether they are or are not partisan.  The important point is that, under the Wikipedia policy that I quoted, whether they're partisan is immaterial.


 * It's quite obvious that, if you characterize MMfA and FAIR as partisan, then you'd have to characterize Stossel himself as partisan. Yet there he is, quoted in our article about Sicko.  The editors working on that article are apparently unaware of any new rule under which only nonpartisan opinions can be reported.  There was discussion on Talk:Sicko about whether to include a reference to a Stossel piece that mentioned Moore only in passing, but once Stossel wrote his Wall Street Journal piece directly attacking Moore, it went into the article, apparently without objection.  The Wikipedia article also includes an attributed response to Stossel's criticism.  That seems to me to be the correct approach, one we should emulate here. JamesMLane t c 04:17, 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)
 * LIES! Lies in fact! Since when can a journalist go on national TV and blatantly say Parkinson's kills more than AIDS in a piece complaining about how much funding AIDS gets and not be known far and wide for the shame in newsrooms across the country? Since never!  I would like you to please try to step back and get some perspective, because so far, your statements are showing precious little congruence with common sense. Rtp4 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning: you are being uncivil.  Please stop. Wikidemo 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I most certainly am not. I am complaining about the veracity of your statements, and not about you at all. That is explicitly allowed and encouraged by WP:NPA  If it is making you uncomfortable then I suggest you put more effort into the truthfulness of your argument.
 * If I am coming off as frustrated, you are correct, I am very frustrated. I have asked you repeatedly to identify any of the points you deleted that would not bring any journalist into disrepute.  You haven't bothered to respond.  Wouldn't that frustrate you? Rtp4 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your | edit history shows you have been a registered member here less than seven hours. Your very first edit was to revert a deleted criticism, your second to expand an existing one, your third to set up a talk page, and your fourth to add two completely new criticism paragraphs.  You restored more criticism, and in your very first talk contribution ever on Wikipedia you called my statement "ridiculous", then later, "insane", told me to "take my own advice", reverted the deletions again, said I am "utterly unable" to defend my position, and in the edit for which I gave you a civility warning, criticized me for a claimed lack of common sense.  That is your entire history here - anything I left off was a mere correction or amplification on one of the above.  Your account so far has been for nothing other than adding criticism to the biogrophy of Stossel, and arguing and edit warring on the subject.  So no, I don't think I have all the info on your frustration.   I am not even a supporter of Stossel or an insider on this page.  I'm trying to help out with a problem here, neutrally, and you are attacking me for getting in your way of adding criticism.  If you are indeed a new wikipedian I urge you to slow down and familiarize yourself with some of the policies and norms here.  If you have been around a while and just created an account, doubly so!  We are here to write good articles, not to slant articles against controversial figures.  Wikidemo 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also add that by shouting "lies!" in bold and ALLCAPS, you're either adding some humor or indeed accusing someone of lying. I hope it's the former - accusing a Wikipedian of lying is clearly uncivil.  Accusing a living person of lying, even on a talk page, is clearcut BLP violation.  Please clarify.  Wikidemo 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, saying "LIES!" is not supposed to be funny or calling anyone a liar, it is saying that the statements are lies. I created this special-purpose account so that my main account wouldn't be tarnished by such mischaracterizations.  I have added material to other sections of the article -- have you?  You don't seem to understand the difference between WP:BLP and WP:NPA, the latter which I would like you to please study carefully. You have mischaracterized my statements -- not once was I complaining about you as a person, only about your edits. I am not going to waste any further time on your attempt to change the subject until you respond to my original question. Rtp4 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikidemo, but you have failed to convince me that there is no straw man argument here. I will assume from your response that you are denying my request and that I will just have steel myself to more infuriating comments.  I need to get a flu shot soon anyway, so maybe my GP will put me back on the blood-pressure meds while I'm there.


 * As for your quotation from policy, I agree completely with the reference to criticisms that "are relevant to the subject's notability". I've addressed that aspect several times on this talk page, although those intent on deleting criticisms haven't chosen to respond.  If you'll forgive me for quoting myself, one such comment was:
 * "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 is in the news a lot more than he otherwise would be precisely because he produces shows that are not objective journalism. His shows argue for his point of view, with the inevitable result that he stirs up controversy.  In particular, people who disagree with him are more likely to point out his imbalances, distortions, and outright lies than they would be if he were nonideological.  Some readers will come to this article having never heard of Stossel.  The article should tell them about the kind of shows Stossel does and about the significant criticisms that have been made. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If he is so controversial and the criticism is significant, then it should be easy to find secondary sources from his competition (FOX, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WSJ, etc.). In many of these criticisms, I don't see sources of John Stossel "in the news" or the "controversy", just MM and FAIR criticism.  So again... are these relevant to the subject's notability?  He's been with 20/20 for 25 years, a bestselling author, and some barely known self-defined partisan attack organizations are what is being used (in great detail) for an encyclopedia biography to define why John Stossel is notable.  They don't merit the weight for the detailed inclusion.   Morphh   (talk) 3:28, 02 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My experience is that the corporate media, like the ones you name, engage in comparatively little such criticism of each other. (They express disagreements but they don't often attack each other's journalistic standards.  They seem to think, probably with some justice, that it's "inside baseball" stuff that their mass audience doesn't care much about.)  I don't agree with the dismissal of MMfA and FAIR, for reasons I've stated in this edit and others.  Finally, there's no basis for charging that these organizations are being used to define what makes him notable.  The article should certainly report his broadcast career, his Emmys, his books, etc.  JamesMLane t c 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To the extent we have a standard it is that criticism sections have to be relevant to the subject's notability. If I accept the argument, his notability is for raising controversial subjects, not for being a bad journalist.  The so-called "criticisms" sections I deleted are not about his taking controversial positions, or even about his being controversial.  They are simply about alleged failures of his journalistic integrity. Even if true they do not go to his notability, it is simply saying he is bad at what he does.  If we've already established that he gets his facts wrong, adding a second or third or fourth incident as a litany does not add to our coverage, it simply adds WP:WEIGHT to the partisan claim that he is a bad journalist.  Wikidemo 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any standard that requires this kind of hairsplitting. He's not being criticized for generalized inaccuracies; he's being criticized for decisions he makes in pursuit of his advocacy journalism -- the imbalance of opinions presented, the selectivity of the factual presentation, and the outright lies.  I simply don't understand how, in a bio of a jorunalist, someone could argue that particular subjects should be excluded because "[t]hey are simply about alleged failures of his journalistic integrity."  That's not peripheral; it's absolutely fundamental.  Nor do I think we've "established that he gets his facts wrong".  Some readers would consider that point established after one incident.  Others wouldn't be convinced by five incidents.  There's no numerical quota on criticisms.  The significant criticisms should be included.  Some of Stossel's critics (or, perhaps more precisely, ABC's critics) find his subsequent mistakes quite significant.  The significance is that, in the face of his prior record, he remains as an ABC correspondent with a high salary and, even more striking, with the continued freedom to shape his broadcasts as he does. JamesMLane t c 09:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we've cut to the chase here and found the real question, the answer is a simple "no." Wikipedia is not about assessing people's abilities or integrity in their profession.  IIn bios we report what their profession is, their relevant accomplsihments and details.  Why they did it, what effect it has, what people think of them, how it has influenced people.  But we don't get into arguments over how good they are at doing it, or whether their opinion is true.Wikidemo 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that Wikipedia shouldn't adopt any particular assessment of the bio subject's abilities or integrity. We report opinions rather than adopting them.  We give a fair presentation of each significant opinion, properly attributed, along with a statement of the major facts upon which each side relies.  Thus we do "get into arguments" in the sense of providing information about those arguments, because many readers will want some information of that sort.  We don't "get into arguments" in the sense of telling the reader which conclusion we draw.  We don't say either "John Stossel is a bought-and-paid-for corporate shill" or "John Stossel is a fine reporter who's being unfairly attacked by ideologues."  I haven't seen anyone arguing seriously in favor of the latter type of edit, though.


 * I also agree with you that we don't undertake a general inquiry into whether the bio subject's opinion is true. This article is not the appropriate place for a comprehensive pro-and-con debate about whether education should be privatized, whether AIDS research funding should be decreased, etc.  All that should be considered for inclusion here is material related specifically to Stossel and to his forays into these subjects.  JamesMLane t c 10:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's my belief that "John Stossel is a fine reporter who's being unfairly attacked by ideologues." Not exactly sure what "type of edit" I'm not making, but NPOV should work fine. Andyvphil 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I gathered you held that opinion. My point is that, as best I can remember, you haven't edited the article to insert an assertion that your opinion is true, just as I haven't edited it to add my view that he's a shill.  Either statement, if included in the article as fact instead of attributed opinion, would indeed violate NPOV.  (At least we can agree on something.) JamesMLane t c 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Media Matters is not a reliable source
I am copying stuff I already posted above to here because I'm sure it has been overlooked by many people. WP:BLP requires reliable secondary sources in biographies. So, with that in mind, here's a little info about Media Matters:


 * 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)

Posted regarding the Health Care Criticism section:


 * 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 [Canada and Great Britain] 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 its characterization of him? Here's another question I have asked several times in the past, why do Wikipedians keep going back to Media Matters as their "reliable source" whose claims are very often unsubstantiated by any other organization? --JHP 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In summary, Media Matters is headed by a guy—David Brock—who has a history of trashing the reputations of people he disagrees with. He freely admits this in one of his own books. In addition, having actually watched Stossel's recent reports on Health Care, I found it very easy to catch Media Matters distorting Stossel's journalism. --JHP 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I, for one, didn't overlook your attack on Media Matters for America (MMfA). Nevertheless, I can understand your feeling, because I can't escape the conviction that you and others have overlooked several things that I wrote.  The most important is that your application of "reliable sources" to the presentation of controversy is totally mistaken.  You've overlooked the distinction between facts and opinions.  I addressed the point in this edit; I won't recopy it, but it applies to much of what you've repeated here.


 * Your character assassination of Brock refers to his time as a Stosselesque hired liar for the American right. He didn't just "change[] his politics"; he recognized that, as compared with liberals, conservatives had devoted much more effort to manipulating the media, including the creation of their "noise machine" and their willingness to distort and lie.  He decided he belonged in the reality-based community, which is why the right-wing American Spectator decided it had no further use for his services.  At any rate, I find it telling that, in all your relentless criticism of MMfA, there's not one single instance in which you can point to a false statement concerning a matter of fact.  You disagree with the organization's interpretation, spin, emphasis, etc., but MMfA hasn't issued any knee-slappers remotely comparable to Stossel's false claim to have tested produce for pesticides or his false claim that Parkinson's Disease kills more people than AIDS or any of several others.  If Brock is so dishonest it should be easy for you to catch him in something comparable in his many attacks on Stossel.


 * Health care: MMfA makes an allegation about the allocation of time on the show. That's the factual statement and I haven't seen anyone dispute it.  Now, how significant is it that Stossel gave so much more time to the free-market people?  That's a matter of opinion.  It's not a matter of MMfA saying something that "misleads the readers".  MMfA is allowed to criticize this particular show without trying to take account of every other show Stossel has ever done (let alone every article or book he's ever written).  It's certainly open to Stossel's defenders to present properly sourced information that would support a different conclusion, such as that Stossel does some pro-left shows and some pro-right shows and so overall he's balanced.  I doubt that that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised if some right-wing columnist has said it is.  Finally, if you think that Stossel's choice of whom to interview is "not unreasonable", fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  Others disagree with you.  We can report the conflicting opinions (attributing each to a prominent spokesperson), and state the facts on which each side relies, and let the readers form their own judgments.  (Your comment is an illustration of the very distressing tendency on this page for editors to decide that the article shouldn't report an opinion if they, the editors, disagree with it or consider it "not well founded".  That approach is not consistent with NPOV.)


 * WHO rankings: MMfA was, as you yourself note, commenting on Stossel's Good Morning America appearance. The MMfA statement about that appearance was, as far as I know, true.  That Stossel presented additional information in a different telecast or in a written article may well be true but it doesn't mean that MMfA's description of the Good Morning America appearance was an "example of Media Matters' distortions", let alone that it was "blatantly dishonest", as you charge.  Here again you haven't pointed to any factual inaccuracy by MMfA.  Plenty of people would have seen Good Morning America without being exposed to the other commentary, so MMfA has a basis for choosing to analyze the Good Morning America appearance on its own.  That's precisely the kind of judgment call that Stossel himself makes.  For example, to cite one of the passages under dispute here, Stossel was doing a show about gender differences and decided not to include some experts whose views differed from his.  Let's assume that nothing in that particular show was an outright lie.  There remains the fact that there were additional truthful statements he could have presented, just as MMfA could have chosen to do a comprehensive analysis of the entire Stossel oevre on health care.  In both instances, someone made a selection of which facts to report.  You would scream bloody murder if the Wikipedia article about Stossel made the leap from that choice to stating that he had engaged in "distortions" or that he was "blatantly dishonest" -- and you'd be right to object.  (By the way, as I noted in an earlier comment, BLP applies to comments on talk pages.  Under some of the militant interpretations of BLP that I've seen, any editor would be justified in deleting your attack on MMfA from this talk page.  I won't do so because I don't agree with those interpretations.  You're protected by the distinction between fact and opinion that I mentioned above.  Your comment is not a BLP violation, but neither is a passage in the article reporting (without adopting) an opinion that Stossel is dishonest and unreliable.)


 * The alleged "campaign" against poor John Stossel: You ask, "does Stossel get lots of criticism because he's a bad reporter, or does he get lots of criticism because there is ONE very outspoken organization that is not being honest in its characterization of him?" First, Stossel gets plenty of criticism outside MMfA.  If you look at the list of references you'll see that criticism can be found in The Nation, Brill's Content, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, as well as from organizations like FAIR, Media Transparency, and the Environmental Working Group.  Beyond that, I should think the answer to your first question is pretty obvious.  The main reason Stossel gets lots of criticism, compared to other reporters, is that he does "advocacy journalism".  Michael Moore gets lots of criticism, too.  The big difference is that Stossel works for a large established news organization that has standards for objectivity, fairness, conflict of interest, etc., and that applies those standards to its other reports, but that doesn't apply them to Stossel.  Offhand, I can't think of anyone else in the employ of the major corporate media who is officially allowed to be such a partisan while nominally serving as a journalist.  Judith Miller was fired from the Times for much less than what ABC lets Stossel do.  (Obviously, I'm not counting people who write opinion columns or who appear on Point/Counterpoint-type programs, where advocacy is expected.)  I think Stossel would draw more criticism than most reporters just on that basis, even if he were scrupulously accurate in his facts.  But, of course, he's not scrupulously accurate -- far from it.  It's not every day that the likes of ABC has to issue a formal apology for a false report.  Whether it's fair to conclude that Stossel is "a bad reporter" can be debated, but it's undeniable that he presses his advocacy to the limit of what he can get away with.  In the process, he gives his critics plenty of ammunition.  As a result, he gets criticized.


 * In conclusion, I suggest again that, if you think a particular criticism from MMfA or any other source is ill-founded, the solution is not to try to expunge it from the article. The solution is to add reports of opposing opinions, properly attributed to prominent spokespersons per WP:NPOV.  People who see an alleged "imbalance" in the article should right it by providing more information, instead of by removing information.  I would guess that some such information could be generated if people would devote to that task a fraction of the effort that's going into attacking MMfA and FAIR. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of this criticism along with a rebuttal doesn't merit devoting detailed content. Aside from major controversies such as the pesticides, many of these should not be expanded in regard to specific issues (to do so would violate NPOV weight).  "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."  I'm not saying we should remove it altogether, but appropriate weight must be applied to the criticism, particularly in a BLP.  Take the major issues (those with good secondary sources) and provide some detail and then take all the other issues and write them into a single paragraph.  This would provide appropriate weight to Stossel's controversies in his biography, while maintaining the points that he has been criticized for additional issues or topics (detailed in the references).  They are examples for distortion of facts, balance of coverage, and conflict of interest.  Each issue does not merit it's own point by point as, based on sources, some criticism is from an extremely small minority.  Morphh   (talk) 14:22, 02 October 2007 (UTC)


 * JamesMLane, I did not overlook what you had written. I just realized you were wrong. You wrote, "The most important is that your application of 'reliable sources' to the presentation of controversy is totally mistaken. You've overlooked the distinction between facts and opinions." However, to quote WP:BLP, "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources...". It does not say "facts claimed by critics"; it says "views of critics". Views can be opinions or someone's characterization of the facts. Furthermore, you don't seem to know what a secondary source is. Media Matters is a primary source regarding its own opinion, not a secondary source. Therefore you cannot use a Media Matters article as a source when adding Media Matters' opinion to the article. If you have a New York Times article reporting Media Matters' opinion, then you can add Media Matters' opinion to the article by using the New York Times as your source. Media Matters would be the primary source and the New York Times would be the secondary source. Only the secondary source is allowed to be used as a reference regarding critics' views on living people. When the issue at hand is a violation of WP:BLP, you keep going to other Wikipedia policies and citing them as if citing them allows you to violate WP:BLP. It does not. We are required to adhere to all Wikipedia policies, and adhering to one does not allow us to violate another. In summary, when it comes to facts, reliable sources is the requirement. When it comes to the views of critics, reliable secondary sources is the requirement. Let me also say that I noticed your little comment on your user page that says you are "Biased against the right wing". While I commend you for your anti-right-wing bias, it has no place on Wikipedia. Your comment that David Brock was a "Stosselesque hired liar for the American right" suggests that your bias is playing a major part in your editing of this article. By the way, I'm the guy who originally added the Brill's Content article to this article. --JHP 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing, Media Matters is not a living person by any stretch of the imagination. (By that standard, the Republican Party and Altria would also be "living people".) David Brock is a living person, so I tried to rely heavily on a book review of his own book. However, I felt it was necessary to point out that an unreliable source is repeatedly being used as a reliable source in violation of WP:BLP. In order to do this, I needed to point out the history of Media Matters' founder and CEO. I felt caught in the middle of a catch 22 situation. There is other interesting stuff on the Web about Brock and Media Matters that I intentionally left out. --JHP 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to respond in detail (RL concerns intrude), but let me ask one quick question. Under your interpretation of BLP, it would seem improper for the Sicko article to mention Stossel's criticism of Moore by citing to Stossel's Wall Street Journal article (or, as some might choose to call it, Stossel's attack piece).  One would have to wait until some other source cited Stossel.  Is that your view?  It seems to me to be clearly wrongheaded, both in this article and in that one, but I want to make sure I understand your position. JamesMLane t c 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting predicament. As you phrased it, yes, I would say if Stossel's criticism of either Michael Moore or Tracy Pierce was mentioned in the SiCKO article, and Stossel's article was used as the source, then the criticism should be removed if the criticism is a view rather than a fact. (I would tend to presume Stossel's criticism belongs in the "view" category and Sanjay Gupta's criticism belongs in the "fact" category, because of the types of journalism each man normally engages in.) However, Stossel's criticism of the movie could remain, because a movie is not a living person. However, if you could not decouple criticism of the movie from criticism of the person, then WP:BLP would take precedence and the criticism should be removed.


 * As I look at the Sicko article, however, I don't see Stossel's article used as a source. Instead I see the letter from Julie Pierce hosted on michaelmoore.com used as a source. In this case, the BLP section on self-published sources might apply. (If michaelmoore.com hosts Julie Pierce's letter, is it self-published?) In this case WP:BLP says, "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if...it does not involve claims about third parties". Here's the real kicker. Stossel wrote a response to her letter here. I would say that's not self-published, because ABC News is the publisher. (I think self-publishing refers to personal web sites, blogs, and books from vanity presses.) If we judge that they are not self-published, perhaps we could use Julie Pierce's letter as a source for Stossel's original criticism, and then use Stossel's response as a source for Julie Pierce's response. Sorry if that's too much of an iffy answer. As WP:BLP says, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." I would say if in doubt, take it out. I am willing to bet there are WP:BLP violations in the Michael Moore and Michael Moore controversies articles, but I haven't looked through them. --JHP 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any "predicament" here. Of course Stossel's criticism can be considered for inclusion in the article.  (Not every criticism of Michael Moore can go into the article, but a criticism from a prominent spokesperson like Stossel would at least be eligible for consideration.)


 * You wrote:
 * "One more thing, Media Matters is not a living person by any stretch of the imagination. (By that standard, the Republican Party and Altria would also be 'living people'.)"
 * Under American law of defamation, at least, using that as a rough analogy to the application of WP:BLP, your parallel wouldn't necessarily be true and would probably be false. If you wrote, "The Republican Party has a history of shamelessly distorting, using half-truths, and outright lying to advance its political goals," there's no individual who could recover for defamation.  Responsibility for what the Republican Party says is too diffused.  If you wrote the exact same thing about Media Matters, however, it's likely that Brock would be able to state a claim, or at least would be able to satisfy the requirement of showing that the statement was about him, given the extent of his control over what Media Matters does.  If you made a similar statement about Sicko, it's absolutely clear-cut that American courts would treat that as the equivalent of a statement about Michael Moore for purposes of defamation.


 * The passage in our Sicko article is:
 * "John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal on September 13, 2007 entitled 'Sick Sob Stories' that claimed Tracy Pierce's husband, featured in 'SiCKO,' would not have been saved by the bone marrow transplant denied by his insurer."
 * That appears to me to be citing Stossel for an implied criticism of Moore. Not having read Stossel's piece or seen Moore's movie, I'd read that passage as meaning that Moore claims the insurer denied coverage for a transplant, so Pierce didn't get the transplant, so he died, and Stossel says Moore is inaccurate (is misrepresenting/is deceiving/is presenting out of context/whatever) because the insurer's decision had no effect on Pierce's survival.  That's certainly a criticism of Moore as a journalist.  I can't imagine on what basis anyone could argue that no such criticism can be included in an article about Moore or one of his movies.  Are you saying that only secondary sources count?  The article about Sicko can't quote Stossel, but if some Republican presidential candidate, in a televised debate about health care, responds to a question about Sicko by giving a paraphrase of Stossel's argument, then that could be quoted, as a secondary source?  That would be ridiculous.  To apply the distinction to one of the examples at issue here, suppose Vanity Fair or some such magazine does a profile of Stossel.  The Vanity Fair author includes a passage like this: "FAIR criticized Stossel for his report on medical research in which he said that Parkinson's Disease kills more people than AIDS.  In fact, said FAIR, the CDC statistics show that AIDS is the 14th leading cause of death, while Parkinson's isn't even on the list of the top 150."  We would then have a secondary source, which, I think you're saying, is to be preferred.  But, in fact, this hypothetical secondary source would be wrong.  Here's what FAIR actually wrote:
 * "The most recent (1997) mortality report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists HIV/AIDS as the 14th leading cause of death in America; Parkinson's does not make the list, which includes the top 15 causes. Stossel did not reply to FAIR's inquiry about what data he based his claim on."
 * In my hypothetical, there was an editing error at Vanity Fair, whereby "15" became "150", converting Stossel's false statement into a grotesequely false statement. Why should we prefer secondary source to primary when we're citing the source for the expression of an opinion?  Using the garbled article would be unfair both to Stossel and to FAIR.  I go into this at some length because I'm trying to understand your position.  Are you saying, for example, that we can't quote the FAIR press release that exposed Stossel's uncorrected error, but that we could quote some other publication that referred to the FAIR press release? JamesMLane t c 06:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, then I think you could put both sources, but use the correct data. I think the idea behind the secondary sources is that such circulation means that it is something worth including in the article (it is notable per distribution) and secondary sources usually provide some balance and fact checking on the data they publish.  By providing the additional secondary source, you're showing that it was important or relevant to more than just an organization that has a mission in criticizing him.  It is the job of MM or FAIR to do this, they're essentially paid to criticize Stossel and others, but Vanity Fair or the secondary sources are usually not.   Morphh   (talk) 12:29, 06 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My experience is that, when it comes to a criticism of a controversial public figure, secondary sources are more likely to garble the criticism or omit qualifications and reservations that were carefully included in the original. I would give more credence to a FAIR press release about Stossel, or to Stossel's article about Moore, than to any media report about the FAIR press release or the Stossel article.  As for bias, certainly FAIR has an agenda, but the Wall Street Journal does, too. JamesMLane t c 07:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't make the rules. I just enforce them. However, Morphh is correct regarding the reason why reliable secondary sources is the requirement for including criticism. By insisting on reliable secondary sources, it helps distinguish minor criticism from significant criticism.


 * You wrote, "The article about Sicko can't quote Stossel, but if some Republican presidential candidate, in a televised debate about health care, responds to a question about Sicko by giving a paraphrase of Stossel's argument, then that could be quoted, as a secondary source? That would be ridiculous." The standard is reliable secondary sources, not secondary sources. A presidential candidate does not meet Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source, so it still couldn't be used. Please don't use straw man arguments. They have no place in honest debate.


 * Also, in the first paragraph you say, "Of course Stossel's criticism can be considered...". However, you don't back up your assertion with any Wikipedia policies whatsoever. --JHP 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be drawing no distinction whatsoever between (1) assertions concerning matters of fact, and (2) expressions of opinion. I continue to believe that lumping the two together is both illogical and contrary to Wikipedia policy.


 * Your carping at my example doesn't address the fundamental point. If you think that a statement by a politician would/should be treated differently, then look at the example I gave of a profile in Vanity Fair.  It's published by a big corporation and it makes most of its money by selling ads to other big corporations so that the latter can try to get people to buy crap they don't need.  In other words, it has all the indicia of reliability that many Wikipedians seem to value.  We would still do better to cite to Stossel rather than to a mainstream magazine's paraphrase of Stossel.


 * I do, of course, agree with you that we have to exercise some judgment about the significance of criticism. The key is that we exercise judgment.  We can't just say that anything from Vanity Fair or the like is significant while nothing from FAIR or Media Matters is significant unless picked up by the corporate media.  This would lead to the conclusion that criticism of John Edwards's haircut is significant while criticism of his stance on immigration is comparatively minor.  Media attention is one factor we have to consider but we can't just count up Google hits, multiply by each outlet's circulation, and come up with an objective numerical score for each criticism.


 * When I state that Stossel's criticism of Moore could be considered for inclusion in the Sicko article, you charge me with not citing Wikipedia policies. I didn't think  I needed to keep citing the same policy over and over, having done so only a few weeks ago.  Upon reflection, however, I note that few people on this talk page actually address the policy.  Therefore, I can see much merit in your criticism.  I hope readers who have paid attention will accept my apology for the repetition.  Here's what I wrote in a previous discussion of this subject:


 * JHP comments: "Let me point out that notable sources are not the requirement for WP:BLP. Reliable secondary sources are the requirement." Your second sentence is true as far as it goes, but you're overlooking the role of notability.  There are actually two different standards:
 * For assertions as to matters of fact concerning a living person, reliable sources are required.
 * For determining whether a particular opinion should be reported in Wikipedia, however, the notability of the spokesperson is relevant. The basic standard is: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."  (From Neutral point of view, emphasis in original.)  An important qualifier is that we don't try to report every opinion that anyone has ever expressed about an article subject.  The same section of the NPOV policy states, "It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."  Whether an opinion can be attributed to a "prominent" adherent is the test for determining whether it should be reported, under the "Undue weight" section of the NPOV policy.  That's why criticism by Media Matters is on a different footing from the exact same statements if made by some pseudonymous contributor to Democratic Underground.
 * It's in this context that I respond to your statement, "Wikipedia has much stricter standards for biographies of living people than it does for other articles." When it comes to reporting criticisms, we need reliable sources to establish that the criticism was actually made, and even then we don't include it if made by someone nonnotable, but we don't need a reliable source establishing that the criticism is well-founded.  Such a source usually couldn't be found.  For example, because I happen to have the Clinton article open, I note that, among many other examples, it says this about her position concerning the Iraq War: "This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal."  You can certainly find a reliable source to report the frustration, but it's not conceivable that you could find a reliable source to say that Clinton's antiwar critics are right (or that they're wrong).  All you can do is report the notable POV's and do so neutrally.  (I think that particular example isn't quite so NPOV as it could be, but I'm not going to get involved in editing the Clinton article right now.) [end excerpt from previous discussion]


 * Stossel is a prominent critic of Moore's and his opinions about Sicko can therefore be considered for inclusion in that article.


 * The standard I keep returning to is service to the readers. There are millions of people who use Wikipedia who've never heard of John Stossel.  (No, I don't have a citation for that assertion.)  Some of them may come to this article in the hope of getting a quick grasp of the subject.  Including pro-and-con views on some of the controversies aids their understanding. JamesMLane t c 07:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some rewording edits of the "controversies" section. Someone else removed some of the, which I don't have a position on but it looks fine. Someone, I'm sure, will look at my wordings and say "that guy is making Stossel look good" or presenting the issues in the best light in favor of Stossel. That's probably a correct assessment! This is a bio of a living person. (didn't someone mention that before?) However, the comments are accurate and well supported, including the part about how he got a reprimand instead of being suspended because he tried to correct the mistake -  It's also pretty clear it was a mistake, not intentional (but some don't agree, I know, but remember we're presenting in in the best light) that's right from the sources. I know some might not agree and just "have to" have the little digs in there.SecretaryNotSure 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your rewording makes the article worse in several respects. Because of the protection, I can't correct it, so I'll start a separate thread below where we can discuss what we'll do when the protection expires. JamesMLane t c 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)