Talk:NPR/Archive 1

This page is focused on NPR, which gives a very limited view of what is meant by "Public Broadcasting"

The page itself is excellent as is the new/public affairs side of NPR.

Most public broadcasters are mainly funded through the public purse, as is the radio side of the Canadian Braodcasting Corporation/Radio Canada.

I hope that you'll find someone far more knowledgeable than I to elaborate on this page without detracting fom the valuable information about National Public Radio.

I removed A Prairie Home Companion because it is distributed by Public Radio International, not NPR.


 * Clipdude 16:25 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"a rather amusing article"?
NPR "aired a rather amusing article"? Which article on WP? Or is it a "amusing segment" on the radio? Why amusing? --Menchi 23:55 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it really correct to describe NPR as "a loosely organized network"? How is more 'loose' than other media networks? --User:Ike9898


 * Yes. Compare with NBC -- with rare exceptions, NBC affiliates must carry NBC programming, in the time slots designated by the network. NPR affiliates, on the other hand, are provided with a cafeteria menu of programs that individual station managers can pick from and insert wherever they please. What time is The West Wing on? Thursdays at 10, 9 Central. What time is Car Talk on? Umm, what station do you listen to? --Calton 23:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPR relations with Jewish community
I removed the following:


 * The network's relationship with the Jewish community has been poor for many years. Jewish community leaders complain that NPR consistantly slants news programs toward an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel position -- such as referring to Arab terrorists as "militants" -- and refuses to retract factual errors.

While this may indeed be true, I've never heard that such criticisms represent the views of the entire Jewish community, or even substantial portions. Some citations for such assertions would be helpful. older &ne; wiser 02:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * but, the text you removed did not say "the entire Jewish community", so why did you reword it that way? I daresay no community would ever be "entire" when it comes to opinions. You have a POV, dude.
 * &mdash;added by anon 68.174.107.130 on 23 August 2005


 * "The Jewish community" implies either "the entire Jewish community" or at least a population which represents the entire community. Without a reference, the contention is unsupported and doesn't belong.--RattBoy 00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Contradictory as it may sound, NPR is a private nonprofit
According to its own website, NPR is an independent, nonprofit. For what it's worth, the CPB website indicates that it is also a private nonprofit corporattion. older&ne;wiser July 2, 2005 13:50 (UTC)
 * I think private in this case means that the corporation does not sell stock to the public. To be fair I have never heard of a public non-profit corporation in the United States. I don't think a 501c(3) can sell stock.--Gbleem 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought the words private and independent are used to dispell the misconception that public radio is directly controlled or mostly funded by the government.--Gbleem 17:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How are "The Delicious Dish" NOT "disinterested" and "monotonous"?
See, for instance ("monotonous co-host of Delicious Dish") and  ("comedian... plays monotonous co-host") As for disinterested, watch a skit yourself and make that determination. The original description was correct and is not NPOV at all.

Iike you news
I wish I could download it on my computer. So I may listen to it while writing.

merge from NPR and Commercialization
In IMHO, the recent addition of text merged from NPR and Commercialization has severe problems.


 * It cites no sources. Whose opinion are we reading here?
 * It doesn't define "commercialization." It appears to be saying that news reporting is somehow more commercial than "cultural" programming. I don't view that as a universal definition at all.
 * The "cultural programming" that has been replaced by news over the last 20 years on many NPR member stations was often programming of the "classical music" genre. However, those programs were often generated at the local level. One classic example was WGBH's Morning Pro Musica with the late Robert J. Lurtsema. Member stations did drift away from such programming, largely (I suspect) in response to a public that was more interested in newsy stuff that they couldn't get on commercial radio. But that doesn't support the thesis that NPR has become more commercial.
 * If one wants to seriously discuss the commercialization of NPR, one must focus on the greater reliance on corporate sponsors, the resemblance of funding promos to commercials ("Continuing support for Healthiness and You is provided by Doctor Ben's Liver Pills. Doctor Ben. When you want to be better looking, sexier, and wealthy beyond belief, call on Doctor Ben."), and concerns about whether or not the funding sources affect the choice of stories to cover or not.
 * It's terribly written. There are sentence fragments, incomprehensible phrases, and spelling errors that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, NPR, and the American system of public education. ("Weather???")

I'll leave it in place for a day or so, but if nobody steps to the plate and fixes it (my triage corps advises me that the patient cannot be saved, so I'm not going to try), I'll remove the whole bleeping thing.--RattBoy 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should give a little more of my rationale. Articles_for_deletion/NPR_and_Commercialization says, "The result of the debate was merge and redirect." However, a review of the "votes" shows that the majority did not simply support "merge;" if the POV violations and poor sourcing couldn't be cleaned up, the majority supported "delete." Because this represents the consensus of those who reviewed the article, and for the reasons given above, I'm removing the whole section. If anyone wishes to resurrect it, I suggest that they riff off of the paragraph that begins with the sentence, "Left-wing activists have alleged that NPR caters to its corporate funders and shies away from controversial topics."--RattBoy 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

pro-union bias criticism
I've removed this recent addition:


 * Another criticism is pro-union bias at NPR. An example of how much of a “blind-spot” union bias is with NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, is his response to the question; “I was surprised to hear NPR staff members are also union members. Shouldn't they disclose their union membership when reporting on stories about unions?” Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin replied, “No different than if some NPR staffers were members of the loyal order of moose. It is the reporting - not the membership that counts, in my opinion. And yes, I am a member of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.”


 * Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin is correct, “it is the reporting… that counts.” Disclosure of union affiliation when reporting on stories about unions is basic reporting integrity.

The first paragraph requires some sort of attribution -- both of where such criticsm has been reported in the media and of the quote from Dvorkin -- where is this from? The second paragraph simply seems to be POV editorial commentary which is innapropriate in an encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

permitted programming
I don't know whether or not the following should be part of the article, but as I read it I have this question: Given the precise status of NPR -- a private non-profit corporation (possibly receiving government subsidies) -- are there certain kinds of programs that are not legal for NPR to air? (E.g., programs that clearly have a specific political point of view (say, even admittedly)? . . . Or programs that promulgate a particular religion? Etc.)Daqu 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Daqu 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move, although I'm a little in the unknown here. The comments below are slightly confuzzling. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Move

 * Please see the comments at Talk:NBC about the proposed move to National Broadcasting Company and the comments at Talk:Public Broadcasting Service about the proposed move to PBS. Revolver shows how inconsistent page moves are, as indicated by the comments he made on those talk pages as well as at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 5 in a section labelled "lots of confusion over redirect policies", dated at around the same time his comments on those talk pages were made. Please look at both talk pages before voting whether to move this page. Georgia guy 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * NPR and PBS are different organizations, and should have separate articles. --Defenestrate 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You misread the above comment; I didn't ask the 2 article to be merged; I wanted to know how much sense it makes on whether to move this article to NPR given the 2 requested moves on the above talk pages. Georgia guy 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The formal name of the organization is National Public Radio. I cast my lot with the status quo. If someone uses NPR as their entry point, he/she will be redirected. --Defenestrate 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As long as the name of the corporation is National Public Radio, I can see no reason for a move. As I understand the policy, the actual name should be used for the article and other forms should be a redrect or included in a dab article. Vegaswikian 08:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then why do this and PBS get to be at the full name but NBC at the abbreviation?? Georgia guy 14:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When NPR goes to its station identification, it says "This is NPR&mdash;National Public Radio." In contrast, when you watch NBC, the station identification shows the peacock and says "You're watching NBC." They never follow it up by calling themselves the "National Broadcasting Corporation."--RattBoy 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about PBS?? The term "Public Broadcasting Service" is not used in any of the announcements for the past 20 years, and the article itself is at Public Broadcasting Service. Georgia guy


 * I'm inclined to oppose. While "NPR" is readily recognizable to listeners, I daresay that even in the U.S., a majority of a random sampling of people probably would not recognize "NPR". And beyond the U.S., it is likely even less recognizable. I think it does readers a disservice to use less recognizable acronymns instead of a more descriptive title. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute! This discussion is supposed to show that NPR is unlike NBC and like PBS in that it deserves a title at the full name with the abbreviation a re-direct and not the other way around. Bkonrad's vote here says something in which it is unlike both NBC and PBS. Georgia guy 21:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. I thought this vote was to move National Public Radio to NPR on the basis of a supposed similarity to NBC. I think they are less similar than alike. I haven't said anything at all about PBS yet. In general, I think there is a guideline on article naming conventions which says to avoid abbreviations. I certainly think this is applicable here. If it is indeed the case that NBC no longer stands for National Broadcasting Corporation, then that article is named appropriately. However, both NPR and PBS are abbreviations, and as such should be avoided in an article name. older ≠ wiser 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just read the cases at Talk:NBC, Talk:Public Broadcasting Service, and Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 5, including Revolver's comments, not just the text apart from Revolver's comments. Georgia guy 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was familiar with these from before. I'm not sure what the point is though. The most common and apparently the official name for what used to be the National Broadcasting Company appears to be simply NBC. If a less ambiguous name were needed, it should be "NBC Television Network" rather than its historical name, National Broadcasting Company. In the current situation, NBC is no longer, strictly speaking, an abbreviation. It has become the corporate identity of the media giant. That is not the case with NPR and PBS (or at least less so to a considerable degree). Both NPR and PBS are still abbreviations. While it is arguable that both are better known by the initials (though that argument could be very much disputed), they are simply abbreviations for U.S. media operations. I think the guidance to avoid abbreviations takes precedence in this case over the guidance to use common names (especially since it is debatable whether the initialisms are in fact more commonly known than the expanded versions). older ≠ wiser 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose as well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Calwatch 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. NPR should be a redirect to National Public Radio. The full proper name of the organization is often still used to reference them (even on the air) and I feel that Wikipedia ought to prefer the full proper name for the primary article, however the Naming conventions (acronyms) guideline could use further examples and solidification to help provide more consistency across Wikipedia regardless of whether the acronym or full name is preferred. The fact that NBC is listed under the acronym has no relevance here. While NBC is the official name of the organization, just as the SAT is no longer the Scholastic Aptitued Test (The College Board now asserts that SAT stands for nothing), NPR still stands for National Public Radio (and PBS still stands for Public Broadcasting System). Jnk 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons outlined above.--RattBoy 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Network
"together they are a loosely organized public radio network in the United States."

Being an NPR member station is like me being a member of Costco. I pay a membership fee, and I pay for what I buy, I can shop anywhere else, and I can also grow my own food. They are not a network of owned stations like Clear Channel. I think the best description is still to just say that NPR is a creator and distributor of programming for public radio stations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current phrasing is somewhat lacking. But I think the relationship is a little more closely involved than your analogy with being a member of Costco. While it should be made clear that it is not a network like a traditional media network, it is somewhat more than a simple buyer-distributor relationship. Most member stations identify themselves as "NPR stations". NPR cooperates with stations in fund-raising efforts. NPR represents its member stations in matters of their mutual interest. Local reports are sometimes picked up as national stories. So simply describing it as a "creator and distributor of programming for public radio stations" doesn't quite capture the extent of collaboration and cooperation that exists. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * NPR is governed by its members in a cooperative structure as well. As a member of Costco, you have no say in who runs the Board, or who is their president. NPR member stations, through their Authorized Representatives ("A-Reps"), discuss and make changes to NPR policy; work on task forces to consider issues such as online streaming, podcasting, and coverage issues; and vote for and make their opinions known to NPR management. Calwatch 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NPR Staff List Revamping
Found that the list of NPR staff members and reporters were rather outdated and that some people that have joined since the creation of this list needed to be added. You can keep up to date on all the current staff by going to http://www.npr.org/templates/people/?typeId=1

Page move
Why was the article moved from National Public Radio to National Public Radio (United States)? We don't seem to have any articles on other National Public Radios. Is every article with the words "national", "federal", or "state" going to have an unnecessary differentiation?? -Will Beback 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it, if its unreasonable feel free to move it back.  It seemed sort of presumptuous to call it "national" public radio in an international context, but I do not know of any other stations with the same name.  I guess one test is to put yourself in the other guy's shoes -- if I found "national public television" but it was only national if I lived in new zealand it might strike me as a little odd.  Justforasecond 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually we name articles by their subject's formal or common name, and only use additional identifiers when there is the possibility for confusion with another article. So long as the intro specifies the nation in question I think that's sufficient. Since you don't seem to mind I'll move it back. -Will Beback 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Podcast
Should the podcast section be moved into the programing section? It is about distribution, but seems too small to be a seperate section? Maybe it could be grouped together with the info about HD Radio under a section about distribution? --Zach 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd go with programming. --maru  (talk)  contribs 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This is just a reminder that all material must be NPOV and Encyclopedic. However much you hate or lover any given show is irrelevent here. I shouldn't have to say this, but.... Pelegius 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. For at least the second time I've had to remove unsupported criticism from the article. For the record, nowhere in the last cite given,, does Michael Kelly say that NPR is "a significant participant among news organizations with a leftward slant." The pushing of POV criticism is getting a little too obvious. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the current deleting of criticism is going a bit overboard. NPR has a lot of conservative critics, and throwing away editorial pieces from Brent Bozell and Fox News criticizing NPR is silencing a very legitimate criticism of the network. Calwatch 04:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether it is legitimate criticism is debatable. However, it is undeniable that many pundits (however poorly informed their arguments) do in fact make such criticisms. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * criticism is alright but someone was putting in citations that didn't match the text they were next to.  we also have to avoid so-called "weasel" language like "many critics say" and stick to concrete facts, and make sure the critics are talking about npr, not just public broadcasting in general.   Justforasecond 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kroc Bequest
A recent edit reads:

"On November 6, 2003, NPR was given $200 million from the estate of the late Joan B. Kroc, the widow of Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald's Corporation. In 2003 the annual budget of NPR was $101 million. In 2004 that number increased by over 50% to $153 million due to the Kroc gift. After NPR spend a good portion of the Kroc funds in a wave of bonuses and new hires, budget dropped to about $120 million in 2005."

There is a citation, but it's to an opinion piece&mdash;not to a news article. In addition, the critic gives very little info about the scale of the spending. Though he claims that "every employee was given a bonus," it's unclear how large any such bonuses might have been. The paragraph implies that NPR has wasted the bequest in profligate spending. It's poorly sourced, written in a POV fashion&mdash;a mess. If it's not better sourced and written, I propose that it be deleted soon.

Here's a link from NPR, describing their use of the windfall. Doesn't look especially irresponsible to me.--RattBoy 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to " After NPR spent a portion of the Kroc funds in a wave of bonuses and new hires, the budget dropped to about $120 million in 2005."  It's pretty obvious they blew a large portion of the money on a one-time spending spree but we can leave that to the reader to decide.   Spending jumps 50% the year the money comes in; spending falls the next year.  Justforasecond 00:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that article helps very much. Of the $225 million, $34 million was released to be spent immediately (of course, if the operating reserves were actually increased permamently, than that wouldn't count. I'd've expected them to draw down part of the reserves, tho), leaving $191 million; presumably the $191 million was invested, yielding the $6.2 million in dividends, although this is only an assumption:
 * "As NPR officials predicted earlier, the network will invest most of the money and spend the annual earnings."


 * I would think that $200 million would be more than "most", but that's just me, and this is a confounding factor- what if a few millions weren't invested? But assuming my math is right, a yield of $6.2 million on $191 million is, what, 3%? Must be pretty conservative investments. Anyway, so $2.4 million went to reduce fees for the local stations, leaving $3.8 million for new staff. --maru  (talk)  contribs 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice how vague the details are about the bonuses?  Justforasecond 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits are an improvement, Justforasecond, but the phrasing "a wave of bonuses" is POV and unsupported by the link that was provided. Again, the link is to an opinion piece (written by a conservative who's hostile to the whole notion of "public" broadcasting), not to a primary source. Adding "and new hires" to the "bonuses" phrase implies that the irresponsible spending extended to hiring of new news personnel&mdash;as though that were in some way unreasonable!
 * I mean, think of it: what better way to spend the Kroc windfall than on expanded facilities, targeted fellowships to encourage the development of the next generation of reporters, and more news personnel to improve NPR's reporting?
 * If a better source can't be found, the whole paragraph should be excised. Your POV that they "blew" money on a one-time spending spree is not supported by any source that you've provided. In fact, no editor has thus far provided any evidence that the Kroc bequest has been spent and invested for any purpose other than to improve news reporting at NPR. Let's get rid of the paragraph and get back to encyclopedic reporting of verifiable facts.--RattBoy 10:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One time bonuses for the entire staff are indeed a "wave".  Wiki sourcing rules do not disallow "opinion pieces" and opinion pieces are bound by libel and slander laws.   There is nothing in the article saying they blew through the cash, but you gotta wonder why spending skyrockets the year it comes in, then plummets the next year.  Justforasecond 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces are valid sources for documenting that a person or organization holds the expressed opinion. They are NOT acceptable sources to document the truthfulness of whatever is expressed in the opnion. Besides. is it really very surprising that there would be a bump in spending after receiving a large bequest? I mean, for years the organization was operating on a shoestring (or at least that was the appearance)--so there would likely have been a backlog of projects. older ≠ wiser 15:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't his "opinion" that is used in the article, it is the facts he cites -- the wave of bonuses.  I listen to NPR like the rest of yall but this is valid info about the Kroc money.  If NPR wants to come out with an accounting showing the bonuses were only a couple mill that would be great, but they've been fairly tight-lipped about why spending skyrocketed that year.   They talk about lowering programming fees by $2 million but that doesn't account for the other $40+ mil.   Justforasecond 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is like a pass-through citation--you can say that what this source claims the facts are, but without additional verification we cannot baldly assert those statements as being simply factual. As for more direct sourcing, you might want to fish around here, since NPR is required to disclose some financial information. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Justforasecond, what are you referring to when you say "that doesn't account for the other $40+ mil?" What $40+ million? You show no evidence that $40 million was lost or misspent.
 * Since your criticism hasn't been supported, I'm removing the POV phrasing.--RattBoy 10:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman
Would someone add some information about the ombudsman. --Gbleem 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well-informed listeners?
User MSTCrow added the following to the end of the "Criticism" section:


 * However, as of 2006, many of the "misperceptions" have been validated as truth in the light of new intelligence, most notably that there were ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, publicly known at least as of November 2003, and President Clinton had been the first to link the two during his Administration in 1998, and the now known existence of WMDs in Iraq. It could be argued that at the time the survey was conducted, these facts were not publicly known.

I don't believe that his characterization of the facts is accurate, despite the references he cites. "Ties" between Iraq and al Qaeda were nebulous at best; and WMDs have not been found. (Decades-old, degraded chemical weapons constituted no threat to anybody, and thus didn't count.) See. (If necessary, I'll pull together references for this debunking from more primary sources, but I'm pressed for time right now.) I recommend that MSTCrow's edit be dropped, as it mischaracterizes the state of knowledge about Iraq.--RattBoy 10:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the term "nebulous" is far too kind a description, and the suggestion that "now known existence of WMDs in Iraq" could accurately be described as "laughable". That's not right, that's not even wrong. Delete away with a clear conscience.--Calton | Talk 11:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aside from the blatant POV-mongering, the assertions have little if any relevence to the NPR article. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. — ceejayoz talk 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are discounting known information for ideological reasons. This is against WP.  Please do not remove sourced information simply because you find the facts harmful to your POV.  Open hostility is also against WP.  Media Matters is known for its unreliable and heavily error prone commentary, and is not a source that should be accepted.  It also is not a news source.
 * MSTCrow 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping in. I think ceejayoz and Calton are right here -- this article is not the place to get talking about "new intelligence" that nobody had access to at the time of the survey. Sdedeo (tips) 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is absolutely not the place to put these statements, even assuming the sources are reliable. It's an article about NPR, not Iraq. Ideogram 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the survey that places NPR listeners in a positive light is, in the end, based on untruths, this is notable.
 * MSTCrow 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is controversial whether it is true that "Saddam had contacts with Al-Qaeda" and "We have found WMD in Iraq". The whole discussion doesn't belong here.  Ideogram 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a discussion. Don't pretend that the survery can say something incorrectly, then when the facts are laid out, we can't display those.  It's clear partisan bias against the documented truth.
 * MSTCrow 01:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're going to include your POV in the article, with your sources, we have to include the opposing point of view, with sources. You can't possibly deny that there are people who disagree with you.  And truth has no place on Wikipedia, it's all about verifiability.  Ideogram 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Only a rank ideologue could call facts from news reporting and government sources "POV." If you think Wikipedia isn't the place for truth, and in practice it would seem even verified truth, you surely don't belong on this project.
 * MSTCrow 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think mediation is going to help you. You might as well withdraw your request.  Ideogram 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want a lecture on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, I suggest not lecturing the rest of us on wikipedia. If you want to push your POV about Saddam and 9/11 (which Bush himself denied), find another site. Sdedeo (tips) 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sdedeo, see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. See how easy it is to drop policy even when it doesn't apply? Haizum 03:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MSTCrow insinutated that fellow editors were "rank ideologues", a violation of both those policies. I suggest reading them. Sdedeo (tips) 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sdedeo, you're going to garner yourself a block if you keep this up. Gaming the system will not be tolerated.  Not going to keep shadow boxing with you.
 * MSTCrow 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MSTCrow's edit seems to be a counterbalance to Supporters contend that NPR does its job remarkably well. A study... I don't see what the problem is. If you have a problem with his wording, address that, but don't try and throw the whole thing out. Haizum 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That final paragraph is more of a jab at Fox News than anything else. Does that deserve to be in the article? I guess it does if you are POV. So, if you insist that it be included, by the same logic we should include related findings that dispute it. Haizum 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a counterbalance. At the time of the poll, holding the belief that WMD had already been found was blatantly incorrect.  As I said on MSTCrow's talk page, saying I'm 40 years old in 2006 doesn't become a correct statement when I age to 40 in 2023 - it will remain an incorrect statement. — ceejayoz talk  03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight. Here are the poll questions:


 * Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or proven to be supporting al-Qaeda;
 * Weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; and
 * International popular opinion favored the U.S. war against Iraq.

At the time of the poll -- whatever your POV -- you have to admit that all three of these beliefs were false. Iraq was not involved in 9/11, nor had it been proven to be supporting al-Qaeda. WMDs had not been found in Iraq. International opinion was against the war. Sdedeo (tips) 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahahahaha this debate is even more pointless than I imagined. I can't say more without violating WP:CIVIL.  Ideogram 07:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, why post? — ceejayoz talk 08:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, Ideogram has said that "truth" isn't something that Wikipedia should bother with, and now he's trolling. Disruptive users should be banned from Wikipedia.
 * MSTCrow 10:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with that characterization of his comments. Truth is obviously something that Wikipedia should bother with, and I can't see anything Ideogram has said disputing that - his point is that truths should be placed in relevant spots.  It is a truth, for example, that ice cream is cold, but it would be a perfectly valid opinion that that particular truth shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust. — ceejayoz talk  15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to that analogy, yeah that isn't valid. A correct analogy would be guessing X in year Y without any solid evidence of X, then to discover that X is correct in year Z (and therefore Y). [p ∧ (q ∨ r)] ⊢ [(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)] Haizum 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that, though. The poll respondents weren't guessing there were WMD in Iraq - that wasn't the question at all.  They were asked if WMD had already been found, to which the only correct answer at the time was no. Regardless of later events, they were blatantly wrong at the time of the poll. — ceejayoz talk  15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the analogy I put forth would be sound, albeit lacking in strength. What I mean is, one could guess WMDs to be in Iraq, but it would matter if the guess was based on evidence rather than simply willed, even though one would ultimately be correct either way. With regards to the actual poll, I think it is justifiable to keep it out. Haizum 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from 6 July - archived as distraction
I have archived this discussion so as not to distract from the mediation. David L Rattigan 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The survey itself is wrong, and so it is inappropriate to use as evidence of factuality. Evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, as noted here: http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=1078. I will remove the survey from the section. This is not new news. Shells found with traces of Sarin gas had been publicized (again, mainly by Fox News). Sarin Gas counts as a WMD, even if it was not in high enough quantities to kill someone. It is highly deceptive to consider Fox viewers as less well informed (especially using the loaded "missed one or more questions" criteria for judging) when one of the points is debatable even by experts. It doesn't belong as a reference in Wikipedia. Finally, Fox News also ran interviews with Iraqi WMD scientists, which other news outlets tended to ignore, which also highlights the contradictory informed/ignorant dichotomy between Fox and other news outlets.Wkerney 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The survey itself is wrong, and so it is inappropriate to use as evidence of factuality.
 * It doesn't matter what you think of the survey. That's just your opinion.  Wikipedia is here to report verifiable statements made elsewhere, not your opinion. --Ideogram 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it matters very much. The survey is not a valid reference for wikipedia. It is highly deceptive to consider Fox viewers as less well informed (especially using the loaded "missed one or more questions" criteria for judging) and NPR viewers more informed when one of the points is debatable even by experts. Additionally there were mobile bio labs found prior to that time that could be used for manufacturing WMDs: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/index.html. Furthermore, there were (and still are) disputed evidence of meetings between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The survey is incorrect in stating there was no evidence. There was, it was simply disputed. To the authors, who clearly did not believe the disputed evidence, claim there was zero evidence, which is again an error and deceptive on their part. (And in fact, it's actually possible there was a connection: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp) Finally, they do not actually provide the numbers from their sources showing that world opinion was against the war, instead only vaguely saying that unilateral action was opposed by the majority of people. They also do not print the poll results by population, instead breaking it down by country, which also skews the results (10 European Countries thought the war was justified, 11 opposed it -- I would be curious to see what the actual numbers were) (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf page 10). Regardless, their own results do not support their contention that world opinion was strongly against the war. As phrased, the survey's use of "misperceptions" and "egregious errors", while the points themselves are in contention, is nothing more than deceptive and erroneous propoganda on their own part. Finally, since they were asking people for their beliefs and not evidence on many questions (they asked questions like, "Do you believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11" instead of "Has evidence been found linking Iraq to 9-11?") their methodology is further flawed. Beliefs are ideas held with or without evidence -- I can believe Saddam had WMDs even without evidence to the contrary. And, in fact, this is exactly why the 2006 report finding WMDs can be used in this case -- it justifies the belief that WMDs existed, and shows that the survey was wrong. I'm an evaluator, among other things, and can further tear this survey apart if you so desire. It is utterly invalid as a wikipedia reference.Wkerney 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter what you think of the survey. Read what I wrote.  Finding mobile bio labs does not equal finding WMD's.  Read the survey questions.  Meetings between Saddam and Al-Qaeda do not equal Saddam providing support to Al-Qaeda.  Again, read the survey questions.  No, the question is not about the belief whether Saddam had WMD's.  The question is about whether WMD's had been found.  How many times do I have to tell you to read the questions?  Nobody cares whether you're an evaluator.  We only care whether you can cite sources to justify your claim that the survey was invalid.  --Ideogram 22:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You ask for proof the survey was wrong, and when it is given, you try to play it off. Finding mobile bio-labs is indeed enough evidence to call the survey into question. If experts can disagree on the labs (which they did), it is deceptive and indicative they did not do their fact-checking to claim no evidence of WMDs had been found. Furthermore, I am not offering opinions about the survey. I offer factual evidence that the survey was incontestibly in error when it was written, was not fact-checked, and not credible. This means the source is not eligible to be used as a reference in wikipedia. See WP:RS. See the sources above. How many will it take for you to believe that the source is not credible, fact-checked, or reliable? You say that "Meetings between Saddam and Al-Qaeda do not equal Saddam providing support to Al-Qaeda." It appears you have not actually read the survey. One of the three major questions IN THE SURVEY (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf page 5), asked: "Describe the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda". The options were: 1) "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the 9-11 attacks" 2) "Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the 9-11 attacks" 3) "A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" and 4) "There was no connection at all." Option 3) was the closest correct answer, even in 2003 (Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda). The survey states that Option 4) was the right answer, ignoring the various sources available up to that time, which demonstrates their disregard for fact-checking. (As new evidence from the Baathist archives has emerged, it turns out that 2) seems closer to the truth.) Worse, they even admit "there is some evidence for ", but then go on to call people that believe in it "egregiously in error". Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda documents the news stories in chronological order up through October 2003, take your pick from them. For example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/21/wiraq21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html was published in 2002. This is yet another reference demonstrating unequivocably that the source is in error, was not fact checked, and most likely biased. Sources such as these are invalid for inclusion in wikipedia, and should be removed.Wkerney 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked for citations, not your opinion. I already explained to you that mobile bio labs are not WMD.  You have offered no sources that directly criticize the survey.  I read the document you provided and your summary is completely false.  Quote:

Indeed, only 20% chose the option that "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks". Another 36% chose the position that "Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks" --still a position at odds with the dominant view of the intelligence community, but less egregiously so. Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials." Just 7% chose the option, "There was no connection at all."


 * And furthermore this text is on page 3, not page 5. Page 5 has nothing relevant to this discussion.
 * Welcome to the world of PDFs. It's page 5 in the PDF, page 3 only when printed. You just quoted what I said above, I find it odd you didn't notice this. Especially since you go on to demand a quote. Which I have. Which you quoted.Wkerney 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it odd that you didn't notice the quote doesn't support your position at all. Nowhere does the survey state that option 4 is the right answer.  Nowhere does the survey state that people who chose option 3 were "egregiously in error".  Ideogram 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

--Ideogram 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, as noted here: http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=1078.
 * Read the survey questions. They ask whether WMD had been found, note the past tense, as of 2003.  Your sources are irrelevant to this question.  --Ideogram 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will remove the survey from the section.
 * Do not do this. Editing a controversial section still being discussed on the talk page can lead to edit-warring.  --Ideogram 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not new news. Shells found with traces of Sarin gas had been publicized (again, mainly by Fox News). Sarin Gas counts as a WMD, even if it was not in high enough quantities to kill someone. It is highly deceptive to consider Fox viewers as less well informed (especially using the loaded "missed one or more questions" criteria for judging) when one of the points is debatable even by experts. It doesn't belong as a reference in Wikipedia. Finally, Fox News also ran interviews with Iraqi WMD scientists, which other news outlets tended to ignore, which also highlights the contradictory informed/ignorant dichotomy between Fox and other news outlets.
 * Nobody cares about your defense of Fox news. This is an article about NPR not Fox news.  --Ideogram 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is another reason why the section should be removed. "In particular, 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three common misperceptions about the Iraq War; only 23% of NPR listeners /PBS viewers were similarly misinformed." 1) It is indeed a slam on Fox News. If you only want to discuss NPR, simply say that NPR was the lowest misinformed of the news outlets. If you are wanting an article to make a statement saying that Fox news is the most unreliable outlet, then the accuracy of that statement is valid for discussion. 2) The viewers were not misinformed, so this section is mimicing an erroneous statement. The entire section is against the Wikipedia policy that sources come from reputable sources. To quote, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The source uses deception and duplicity to make its point. It did not do its fact-checking, was not accurate, and was wholly not credible.Wkerney 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't rely on your opinion to determine which sources are are credible or not. Please quote the relevant policy that states this survey was not from a credible source.  --Ideogram 22:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RSWkerney 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VerifiabilityWkerney 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Specific section and paragraph, please. --Ideogram 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Wkerney 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not proven that this paragraph applies. --Ideogram 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: Opponents for removal of the survey admitted that if a pre-Oct 2003 source could be found showing it to be in error, the survey should be removed. I have demonstrated (so far without rebuttal) that the survey was factually in error on all three of its major points that it used to make the claim used in the article. From Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" The source is not credible, did not do any fact-checking, and is provably inaccurate. It does not meet the Wikipedia standards for inclusion in an article, especially when the survey is being used in as off-topic a topic as NPR. Finally, bashing Fox News (and erroneously) is off-topic on an article on NPR.


 * I have answered all your points repeatedly. The fact that you think you are right doesn't mean no rebuttal has been made, that is for the readers to decide for themselves.  You have not presented any cited evidence that the source is not credible, did no fact checking or is inaccurate.  On every point you have only presented your opinion.  Ideogram 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary on all three points in the survey:

Question 1: "The US was successful in finding evidence of WMDs" (bottom of page 6). Mobile Bio Laboratories can indeed be construed by a reasonable person as evidence of WMDs. These were indeed found prior to October 2003.


 * Your quote is from a different poll, this is from the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll as it states immediately before the quote. Ideogram 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Question 2: "Describe the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda" As stated above, their conclusion that there was no relationship, even "A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" as the evidence showed at the time, which they themselves admitted is self-contradictory and deceptive.


 * The did not draw that conclusion. Find the quote that says they drew that conclusion.  Find where they admit that it "is self-contradictory and deceptive".  Ideogram 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Question 3: "Do you think the majority of people in Europe favored going to war?" They themselves do not present any evidence that a majority of people did or did not favor going to war. What they present evidence for is that a majority of countries in Europe (11 to 10) opposed going to war, which is not the question they asked. The question they asked they presented no facts for at all. This is again an inaccurate, non-fact checked source.


 * Why don't you present citations proving that the majority of people in Europe favored going to war? Your blanket assumption that their statement is not based on facts doesn't prove anything.  Ideogram 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was wrong on even one of these points, the results of the survey would be invalid, since its final measure of accuracy (used in the NPR study) was the number of viewers that got at least one question wrong. The survey was wrong on all three points.


 * No, you are wrong on all three points. You can't even quote the survey correctly.  Ideogram 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatantly inaccurate, non-fact checked articles (with a strong possible bias) cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia.

So, if not understanding page numberings are your last complaint, I see no reason not to close the debate and remove the survey. The survey is as valid a reference as the Protocols would be to the factual history of Judiasm.Wkerney 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter what reasons you see or don't. Luckily Wikipedia is run by consensus, not fiat.  --Ideogram 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in consensus with Wkerney, and the poll was quite clearly an attempt to portray white liberal elites who listen to NPR the good guys, while the vast majority of the rest of us who watch FNC are to be smeared as ignorant, angry country bumpkins. - MSTCrow 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)