Misplaced Pages

Talk:John Stossel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:41, 2 October 2007 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →The pesticides issue← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:52, 18 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,935,416 editsm +{{WP Politics|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}}; cleanupTag: AWB 
(421 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=B|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
{{Calm}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=B|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
{{WPBiography
|action1date=10:37, 12 December 2007
|living = yes
|action1result=listed
|class = B
|action1link=Talk:John Stossel#GA Nom
|needs-infobox = no
|action1oldid=177407674
|priority = mid
|currentstatus=GA
|a&e-work-group = yes
|topic=Socsci
|politician-work-group = yes
|listas = Stossel, John
|nested = yes
}} }}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}
{{WikiProject Media|class=|importance|small=|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Stossel, John|1=
|blp=yes}}
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=mid|a&e-work-group=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=mid}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=Low}}
{{Controversial|small=yes}}
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Politics|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}}
==Freddie Mercury==
{{WikiProject Media|importance=Low}}
John Stossel REALLY looks like Freddie Mercury with thicker hair.
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}

July 28, 2006 -- The first line says Stossel is a "journalist" for ABC, but that title normally denotes some level of objectivity. While he may have been more of a standard correspondent early in his career, I think it would be more fair to call him a "journalist/activist" or "reporter/activist" or something to that effect.


IS he jewish? if so I think it should be added to his page! -------- 16th March, 2006

:: '''Dude!''' What?! Do we do this with EVERY person: state their religeon? No, so that if he's Jewish, this is somehow '''*special*.''' What this is is a form of latent anti-Semitism. ] 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA


it can be added, but why is it in the first line of his biography? when I think of John Stossel, I don't think immediately of his Jewish religion.
--] 13:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Dr. D entry states the settlement amount was never released but the Stossel page says an exact amount?

Also:
Who is "Dan Schneider" and why do we care about a post he made to a hackwriters mailing list about John Stossel?

==Add criticism for balance==

If there is any substantive criticism of Stossel out there, we may want to add something about it for balance. -- 22nd February, 2006

Currently, the External links section contains two independent sources that are critical of Stossel's reporting but none that are neutral or supportive. The Schneider piece fails to provide evidence for some of its criticisms. For example, it does not address the main tenet of Stossel's program ''Greed''--that it frequently motivates people to serve each other through trade and innovation. The other links are to Stossel or ABC pages. -- 22nd March, 2006

I Agree that there needs to be criticism added to this page. After reading articles like it is obvious that there is going to be people who disagree with his views. External links are not showing all sides of this story. -- 30th May, 2006

www.fair.org has a ton of stuff on Stossel that is both critical and supported by source material. His methodology is often flawed (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011706.shtml), therefore agreeing with his preconceived notions that private enterprise is always better than public works. Also, to not at least include some of the controversy surrounding his work is a key point that is missing.

:What that dailyhowler article conveniently leaves out is that Stossel said at the beginning of the segment that Belgian students outperform American students on international tests. It is well-known that American students do poorly on the international tests. The rest of Stossel's segment is used to make the point TV-friendly. ] 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant (or non-NPOV) to identify the political affiliations of the critic-sites. "Progressives" tend to oppose libertarians like Stossel in principle, and their criticism reflects this. The http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/18.html#a8765 link is a fairly savage attack that calls Stossel a pathological liar. That's not a balanced criticism.

:Agreed. Misplaced Pages has a ] standard that most of these critic sites don't meet. ] 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

*I think the entire Stossel page is misleading in that it does not clearly state that Stossel regularly cherry-picks facts from questionable sources to advance the neo-conservative political agenda. Stossel is, like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Rush Limbaugh a neo-con pundit with a hyper-conservative slant throughout all his work. To describe Stossel as an objective journalist would be comical and most misleading. Much like Malkin or Coulter, he advances his political beliefs and agenda through biased and poorly researched articles and shows. Take for example his articles on global warming in which he cherry-picks facts from neo-conservative think tanks (funded by Exxon or other large gas and oil corporations) to support his contention that global warming is a "myth"! Here we have Stossel, a psychology major (!) telling the public that hundreds of world famous, PhD scientists, and Nobel Prize winners are somehow all wrong about global warming–and that we should believe Mr. Stossel instead. Like the person mentions above, Stossel's info sources are typically neo-conservative think tanks that are bent on advancing their political agendas. Stossel is part of the neo-conservative movement in the USA which attempts manipulate public opinion with propaganda masquerading as "fair and balanced journalism", to use the comical and most misleading Fox News slogan. ] 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

**Upon doing further research into Mr. Stossel's reporting record, I want to share this article with the Wiki community which brings to light serious questions regarding Mr. Stossel's journalistic integrity. It appears to be the case that Stossel has in fact fabricated lies regarding the safety of organic produce, and his bogus report resulted in his own reprimand by ABC as well as one of his producers being suspended for fabricating so-called "research" that concluded organic produce was contaminated with e.coli bacteria. Here is an article which was published in the New York Times which summarizes Mr. Stossel's bogus and simply made up claims regarding organic produce:


'''Report on Organic Foods Is Challenged'''
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/073100abc-organic.html

On Feb 4, the ABC News correspondent John Stossel hosted a report on "20/20" that probably surprised many viewers. It made the case that organic food is not necessrily healthier than conventional food–and might actually be dangerous.

Citing research he said was commissioned by ABC News, Mr. Stossel said that organic food seemned more likely than conventional food to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. He also said that conventional produce does not necessarily have more pesticide residue than organic produce, contradicting one of organic food's primary selling points.

"Our tests, surprisingly, found no pesticide residue on the conventional samples or the organic," he said in the report.

But the two researchers who were commissoned to do the testing--Dr. Michael Doyle, a scientist with the University of Georgia, and Dr. Lester Crawford, director of Georgetown University's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy--said they never tested produce for pesticide residue for ABC. ABC executives are now looking into whether the statement about produce, a key premise on which Mr. Stossel built his case, was made without any basis in fact.

"All I agreed to do was test for indications of pathogens," Dr. Doyle said. "I didn't do tests for pesticides."

Dr. Crawford said that while he did not test produce for pesticides, he did test chicken-and found residue on the samples of conventional poultry but not on samples of organic poultry. Those findings were not mentioned in Mr. Stossel's report.

The producer of the segment, David W. Fitzpatrick, responded in a letter by saying that the pesticide tests were done and that the results had been forwarded to the Organic Trade Association, a group that spoke in defense of organic produce in the segment. The executive director of the association, Katherine T. DiMateo, said Friday that the organization had not received results from any tests for pesticide residue on produce.

Despite being told by the environmentalists of the doctors' denials, ABC showed the report again on July 7. During an on-the-air conversation with Cynthia McFadden, a "20/20" anchorwoman, Mr. Stossel said, "It's logical to worry about pesticide residues, but in our tests, we found none on either organic or regular produce."

Last week, ABC News executives still could not address the questions raised in February. They, at first said pesticide tests were performed on produce by Dr. Crawford. Told that Dr. Crawford maintains he did not do such testing, they later released a statement saying they would look into the matter and "if a mistake was made, we will correct it." Mr. Stossel had no comment and Mr. Fitzpatrick was on assignment in Africa and unavailable.

Stossel is clearly a "journalist" with a political agenda and axe to grind. Stating this here is not POV, but rather, unfortunately, factual.
]

:This is blown out of proportion. Stossel was told that it was tested for pestiside but later found out that it was not. He appoligized for the misunderstanding and regreted the mistake. He did not fabricate anything in regard to bacteria. The only statement that was inaccurate was in regard to testing for pestisides. It was a mistake - not a big Axe to grind at the Organic food industry. ] 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

::Zamboni driver, please don't revert other people's comments just because they disagree with you. This is unsportsman-like conduct. The incident you mention is already discussed in the "Criticisms" section of the article. This article does not claim that John Stossel is an unbiased journalist. Quite the opposite, it clearly states that his journalism is influenced by his libertarianism. John Stossel's position on global warming is certainly more skeptical than mainstream science concensus, but he is right that there is still some legitimate academic debate on whether it is caused entirely by man or not. If you don't believe me, read by the National Academies of Science. --] 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Hey, JHP. I deleted Morpphs posting because it's knee-jerk contrarianism. His posts shows he did not read/comprehend the NYT article I posted on this topic or address its contents. I'll leave his posting and yours so others can read and conclude for themselves. I find it amusing to read these "defences" of Mr. Stossel now coming out of the woodwork after my posts. Notice they never address the content of the charges against Stossel of deliberately making false claims against the organic food industry; instead they say my comments are "blown out of proportion." What is funny is that it IS a big deal in the organic food industry! Just Google this topic and read for yourself.] 06:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


The text that jumps out at me in the criticism section that seems logically flawed is:

The bulk of this criticism comes from progressive organizations which strive to expose "conservative misinformation in the media." However, John Stossel is a libertarian, not a conservative.

The fact that this is offered as a defense is flawed because while people may define themselves as libertarian, libertarianism is not completely exclusive of conservatism. Conservatism shares many of the same ideas as libertarianism, especially about corporate conduct and various activities of the government. To highlight just look at the quote of noted libertarian Milton Friedman, "I am a libertarian with a lower case l and a Republican with a capital R, for the sake of expediency."

:I wrote that section of the article. The statement that he is a libertarian is not intended as any sort of "defense". It is intended to avoid the confusion of thinking that he is conservative. He is not, and he says he is not. Libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing. Here is the from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
::1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
::2a: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
::2b capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
:You are right that "libertarianism is not completely exclusive of conservatism", but libertarianism is not completely exclusive of liberalism either. You do remember set theory from high school math, right? Libertarianism and conservatism intersect, but libertarianism and liberalism also intersect.

:For example, the ] is generally considered to be a very liberal organization but, since it advocates individual liberty and opposes government power, true libertarians tend to feel right at home supporting the ACLU.

:Most people who ''call themselves'' libertarian vote Republican, but that's not always the case. I am a libertarian, but I am also a Democrat. and you will be able to see a diagram that shows the difference between conservativism and libertarianism.

:] 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::That quiz is ridiculously biased. There's so few questions as to render it useless, and the questions that are presented are worded in such a way as to elicit a lot of "libertarian" responses. http://en.wikipedia.org/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz#Criticism <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::The quiz is a recruiting tool and the questions are far from perfect. A more accurate quiz would have impartial wording, more questions, and measure how ''strongly'' respondents feel about each question (e.g. "On a scale of 1 to 5, how strongly do you agree with each statement"). However, saying that it is useless is an exaggeration.

:::You seem to have missed my point, though. My reason for pointing people to the quiz was so they "will be able to see a ''diagram'' that shows the difference between conservativism and libertarianism." The 2-dimensional political diagram is very useful and is far more accurate than the traditional one-dimensional left-right political diagram most people are familiar with.

:::When I posted my earlier statement, I didn't realize that the two-dimensional diagram was available on Misplaced Pages, but now I do. So how about this: Don't take the quiz, just look at the diagram.

:::Compare the typical one-dimensional diagram...

::::Liberal <----------------------------------------------> Conservative

:::...to this 2-dimensional diagram...
::::]

:::By the way, please sign your posts.
:::--] 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You know this is a strickly American way of looking at left and right. Everywhere else in the world, there is no such thing as "liberal". Left means "socialist" (and broadly defined within that means everything from the original libertarians: the anarchists, to Stalinists and everything in between).] 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== Consistency ==

In my experience, the external links in Wiki articles related to people tend to list the people's own websites or work first yet I notice that the external links here that are critical of Stossel come before the links to his own work.

If you have a problem with Stossel thats fine but at least afford the man respect for his own work and list his link first like what is done on most Wiki pages. I see bias in the article.

edit: There. I did it myself. If anybody has a problem, I'll hear them out.


== Snark ==

Down to earth/uninformed style?

] 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested Edits, July 2006 ==

A bit new to Misplaced Pages editing, so didn't first put a summary of suggested additions when I added the "Criticisms of Stossel's Reporting" heading and accompanying 5 paragraphs of text. Hope no feathers ruffled, change all you want, of course, no offense intended.

Also, deleted a bit of text in my edit from circa 7/11: took out a phrase about Stossel's "down-to-earth style" from "Books" since I felt it threatened NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Again, hope no feathers ruffled, change it back if you like.

Suggested further edit, to be implemented circa 7/22/06 if no objections:

1)This entry already a bit long. Subtract all but 5 or 6 of the "Give Me a Break" segment titles, the paragraph under "Criticisms" beginning "In June of 2001" in the interests of brevity. DONE 7/24

2) Make new para. under "Criticisms" briefly discussing Stossel's pro-free-market stance as it relates to critiques that have been made of his reporting. Move the bit of text under "Legalize organ selling" into this paragraph and do away with that heading. 7/25 NOTE: REVISION ALREADY DONE (ADDITION OF "LIBERTARIAN VIEWS" MAKES THIS LARGELY IRRELEVANT.

3) Add new heading, "Stossel in the Classroom," to discuss controversial instructional materials for public schools put out by Stossel. For sample units, see under "guides and worksheets" at http://www.intheclassroom.org/students/index.php. DONE 7/28--FORGOT TO LOG IN LIKE AN IDIOT, BUT THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS PUT IN 5 MINUTES AGO ARE MINE ] 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me know of suggestions or objections.

] 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: schedule busy. will complete suggested edits, hopefully, later this week.] 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"The latter petition was the product of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is affiliated with a number of corporate-funded, '''far-right''' organizations known for global warming denialism" The wording far-right is a point of view.--] 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed. Changed "far-right" to "conservative." Good catch. ] 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
While reading further I found another item in the same sentence
I am not sure that is why I did not change it my self
"global warming denialism" I think the word denialism should be changed
to some thing like "groups who question humans role in global warming."--] 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:That's tricky. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly on the side of human industrial activity being a primary cause of global warming, which makes it even trickier. This is why I used "denialism." "Global warming skepticism" is problematic for the opposite reason, since "skepticism" has a positive cast. "Global warming contrarianism" works (e.g., science journalist Chris Mooney uses it), but is an unfamiliar word choice. Your suggestion--"groups who question the human role in global warming"--works, too, but it doesn't get across the fact that such groups are (1) often funded by the fossil fuels industry (see, e.g., the entries for the Cato Institue and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Exxonsecrets.org, MediaTransparency.org, and SourceWatch.org) and (2) at odds with the vast majority of scientists on the question of what causes global warming.

:Any changes someone can suggest that deal with these difficult issues are welcome. ] 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that I dissagree with the statement just saying that the term "denialism" is pointed and implying a negitive point of view of the group. This is why I did not change it on the page since this is such a highly charged topic.--] 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's tricky. I definitely see your point about it being a bit of a pointed word choice. ] 16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed it is better, but I think the word skepticism does not work well in the sentence.--] 22:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with the user who suggested denialism. A lot of these "skeptics" on the issue of global warming will use pseudoscience to justify their skepticism. Why are they not skeptical of the opinions presented by opponents to the consensus opinion? That's not what I would consider true skepticism. ] 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== Unnecessary (?) NPOV tag above Criticism Section ==

On July 26th, ] added an NPOV tag right above the "Criticisms" Section so that there would be a note that "the neutrality of this section is disputed." I'm not sure that this tag is really necessary. Two word choices in the original "Criticisms" section were considered problematic by ] and others: one was the use of "right-wing," which I replaced with "conservative," and one was the phrase "global warming denialism," which someone else replaced with the phrase "global warming skepticism."

Both ] and I would like a better replacement for the last-mentioned phrase, but I don't think that that, by itself, warrants an NPOV tag. Unless there are other issues people want to to discuss in this section, I vote we remove the tag on or about August 13. ] 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I will take it down there were a few thing that I thought were and they have been fixed (at least as far as pov)--] 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! ] 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

== Was there some thing wrong with the section early career? ==

It has been removed I do not know if there was a reason behind it or is it the work of a vandle. I did not want to revert the section if there was a valad reason behind removing it.--] 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:I reverted it as soon as I saw it because, in my opinion, to remove something like that without so much as an edit summary indicates such <u>poor</u> editing or, more likely, outright vandalism, that the appropriate reaction is "revert first, ask questions later." ] 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was vandalism but wanted to make sure and wanted to "assume good faith" just in the slight chance it was not--] 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== Inappropriate deletion of "criticisms" section ==

For no apparent reason, the ENTIRE three-paragraph "Criticisms" section has been removed and replaced with this: "Since the late 1990s, Stossel's journalism has become increasingly criticized by groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America for alleged innaccuracies and misrepresentation. Stossel himself states that there were no intentional innaccuracies and believes that his political views have drawn the ire and aggression of the 'liberal left'. It should be noted that the attacks on Stossel coincided with his political shift from liberalism to libertarianism. "

If you remove three paragraphs of material which is supported by over twenty citations without so much as a how-do-you-do on the discussions page and replace it with a vapid paragraph which provides no information whatsoever on criticisms of John Stossel--a paragraph which, moreover, is not even supported by a ''single'' citation--then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not the right forum for you. I am, of course, reinstating the inappropriately deleted material today. I have no problem with people updating or tidying up this material (as many have done already), of course, but I see no plausible reason to Stalinize the "Criticisms" section to make Stossel appear to be a put-upon saint when the truth is actually much more complex. I trust that this will not result in an idiotic edit war. ] 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:Done. There is a strange problem with the last paragraph of this section which wants fixing, but I am going to leave this section alone for at least a week. If someone else would like to fix the problem without deleting everything in sight, please feel free. ] 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::The criticism section should stay since Stossel does have critics who make good points. I have added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph pointing out the politically-oriented nature of many of his critics. It is telling that the criticism section is the longest section of the article: The Stossel-haters are out in force. ] 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that most of the criticism section should stay; however, I have (for now at least) removed the section on 'price gourging' since it did not actually mention any specific criticisms of his opinion--it merely stated what his opinion is. --] 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

==Libertarianism==
The libertarianism section is quite bad and looks as if it was written to intentionally portray Stossel in a negative light. Libertarians believe in personal ] and the ], but you would never guess that from the way the article is phrased.

Also, the article sometimes confuses the terms ] and ]. Many of his left-wing detractors call Stossel conservative because they only recognize two political ideologies, but they label him incorrectly. In his second book, Stossel quite clearly states that he is NOT a conservative. ] 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:After reading ], I have decided that the proper thing to do is move the offending text here:

::''An example of his ] is his claim that the body organ transplant shortage in America could be solved if people were allowed to sell their organs. He also argues that cousins should be allowed to marry one another , given that first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease. ''

:These are not common libertarian positions so they provide a poor example, especially when taken out of context. Plus I have decided to rewrite the entire section. I feel it is a better representation of his ideology to focus on the issues he has returned to in several stories and articles over the years, and to focus on topics he has done full hour-long specials on. Plus, as I said above, of all the topics he has covered over the years that could have been used as examples, it seems that these highly-controversial ones were intentionally chosen to portray him in a bad light. ] 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

==Suggested sources==
*Videos of Schults hitting John Stossel

::We already had that video (as well as others) in the external links section, but it was on November 26, 2006 due to "suspected copy-vio or otherwise inappropriate links per ] & ]". -- ] 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Character assassination==
About half the sources cited in this article fail to meet Misplaced Pages's ] guideline. Partisan sources are generally fair in the criticism section, because they are indeed Stossel critics, but they are being used throughout the article to do a hatchet job on Stossel. ] 08:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of sources being used which identify themselves as progressive organizations or conservative watchdogs:
:* (progressive organization)
:* (progressive organization)
:* (conservative watchdog)
:* (progressive organization)

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

:JHP, I believe you're misreading ]. You're right that crooksandliar.com is probably not appropriate for a factual reference on the validity of a claim, but it's perfectly fine for an opinion piece. ] says "''When reporting facts'', Misplaced Pages articles should cite sources" (emphasis mine) and "''When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group'', the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. See WP:CITE for more details. If there is text, audio, or video available of someone expressing the opinion directly, you may include or transcribe an excerpt, which is allowed under fair use" (again, emphasis mine). Note that we're not arguing over the validity of the criticism, merely documenting what the critics say. Crooksandliars.com is a good example, because they have commentary and often host unabridged videos of the subjects they critique. It's my opinion that such references are acceptable per ]. ] 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
::I have no problem with the actual video on crooksandliars.com. I intentionally kept the link to their video in the external links section (but removed the broken link earlier in the article because it was broken). If the same video(s) appear on , however, that would be a more appropriate source because sending readers to a site named "crooks and liars" is an underhanded way of portraying Stossel in the worst possible light.
::My general complaint, however, is not that partisan sources are used. It is the overwhelming use of partisan sources in an intentional attempt to violate ]. This article was (and still is) a character assasination, not a scholarly reference. The overwhelming use of partisan sources (without disclosing that they are partisan) conveys the idea that this article is an accurate portrayal, when in fact it is largely a personal attack. ] 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:::When simply documenting something that Stossel said, I do agree that a site like YouTube is preferable. But I whole-heartedly disagree about your other point. There is a great amount of criticism of Stossel's journalism and editorials, which absolutely must be cited, just as criticism of ] must be cited. If this article gets large enough, it can even be forked into a "Criticism of John Stossel" article just as there is a ] article. ] 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::JHP, it also appears that you are editing under an IP address: ] (]). While this isn't blatant ], it does smack of "good hand, bad hand", as it appears you're playing by the rules with your ] acount and deleting links and citations with your IP. Please remember to sign in so that ''all'' of your edits are credited to you.
:::If you're not at that IP, please accept my apologies, but it appears that someone is . ] 02:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::*Kudos to Wyatt Riot for busting JHP for sock puppetry! Well done. JHP's unconvincing explanation below reveals an uncomfortable wanting regarding the numerous and valid criticisms of Stossel provided herein. For libertarians to honestly offer up Stossel as an exemplary libertarian is quite comical. As has been repeatedly shown on this page (and on numerous other very reasonable websites), Stossel is a third rate tabloid journalist who is has been caught lying on many occasions in his reporting. And when he's caught he pulls a disappearing act!-and so does the rest of the ABC news crew working with him. ABC: the folks who just brought us the marvelous "Path to 9-11" debacle of lies and misinformation posing as "docudrama". Please! Nobody takes Stossel seriously. I'm not out to hatchet job him, or POVing him. Simply put, Stossel is a tabloid journalist producing shill stories serving special pro-corporate interests and political persuasions. Please, JHP: sock puppetry is most unbecoming behavior. It makes me wonder if you work for ABC, or are part of Stossel's production staff or something :D. Hey just kidding, I hope we can all have a laugh here and not take ourselves too seriously. ] 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::::*I don't know which parts of the last paragraph were "just kidding" and which weren't!?!? I guess I'm taking it on the chin for accusing Zamboni Driver of unsportsman-like conduct in an earlier post. I probably deserve it. Zamboni Driver, I apologize. --] 02:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I just forgot to log in. I tend to do that when I'm not at my home computer. - By the way, I do forget to sign my posts sometimes too. Please don't think I mean any harm by it. ] 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I have reverted the article. I intend to expand the libertarian section when I get the time. If you want to include his controversial positions, please be fair and briefly explain his logic. (See my comments in the ] section, above.) Also, a single sentence explanation of libertarian ideology is a lot less reading than following the link and reading an entire article, that's why I put the libertarian explanation sentence back (with rewording). If you think the sentence, "However, Stossel's views have often been controversial, especially among those who distrust capitalism and big business" is inflamatory, I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase it. It was not intended to be inflamatory. ] 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm more-or-less satisfied with the way the article is going. I understand now what you mean about the critical articles in the Libertarian section; it seemed like your edit summaries were arguing that they weren't valid criticism, not that they just were out of place in that section. The only parts that I believe should be kept out or drastically reworded are "especially among those who distrust capitalism and big business" and "Progressives tend to disagree with libertarians like Stossel in principle, and their criticism reflects this". The former seems phrased in a way that is demeaning or snide, although I can't put my finger on why. Just the way it comes off. The latter passage seems to lump all progressives into one easy-to-dismiss category, but the statement is also self-evident (and therefore unnecessary): any people with fundamentally different belief systems are of course going to disagree with each other in principle, simply because of their fundamentally different belief systems. I think the simpler the better, like "especially among many progressives" or "progressives tend to disagree with Stossel", but still not quite there. Maybe the problem I'm seeing is that there can be a great deal of overlap among libertarian and progressive ideals, as evidenced in movements such as ]. ] 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::What I was trying to say with those statements is that progressives believe that government programs are beneficial, and capitalism is harmful. While libertarians believe that government programs are harmful, and capitalism is beneficial. So, even if their goals are the same (e.g. reducing poverty, improving education), their means of achieving those goals are polar opposites. ] 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I don't know if those generalizations are always true, though. Most of the progressive magazines I've read through are 50+% ads (take that how you will) and a friend who describes himself as a fervent libertarian believes that government programs are necessary in some instances. While your statements may be true in the case of many libertarians and progressives, I think such blanket statements should be avoided. But that's just my $0.02. ] 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Sorry, I should have explained why I removed the one article from the external links. My thinking was that it's just one of his many newspaper articles and we were already linking to a site that had 35 of them . If you want to put that article back, I have no complaints. --] 06:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to me that this article has more critizims about his books and reporting than supporting giving Stossel critics undue weight. "Neutral point of view says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."--] 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:In addition to progressive or center-progressive organizations such as Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the criticism section refers also to the Consumer's Union, and the Washington Post--sources with a great deal of reliability in the domains in which they are used in "Criticisms." I agree that the addition of more non-watchdog citations would be desirable. I do not agree that a list of Criticisms which encompasses less than one-tenth of what may be found on the Mediamatters.org and FAIR.org websites is "character assassination"--particularly when both sites tend to be very good about supporting their complaints with links and references to outside sources. Stossel is a controversial figure, and his Misplaced Pages entry ''must'' 1) do justice to this controversy, 2) describe the reasons for it, and 3) provide appropriate links where Misplaced Pages users may go to read further about the controversy. We're not there yet, but pretending that anyone who dislikes something about Stossel's journalism is a "Stossel-hater" will certainly not get us there any faster. ] 19:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::The article is better now than it was a few days ago. I have no problem with the "Criticism" section as it is now. The article as a whole is more balanced now. Before, the "Criticism" section made no mention of the fact that many of his critics are influenced by partisanship. The "Educational materials" section was primarily critical. I moved most of that text to the "Other criticism" subsection. The negative criticism began earlier in the article. In addition, the "Libertarianism" section cast him in a bad light. There were links to videos on a site that gave the impression that Stossel is a "crook and a liar". And finally, the article said nothing positive about him to counter-balance all the negativity. I have addressed all of my major complaints and am now fairly happy with the article. I feel the way to fix the disproportionate length of the "Criticism" section is not by shortening it, but by lengthening the rest of the article in a fair manner. ] 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::P.S. I haven't looked too much at the FAIR site, but the Mediamatters.org site uses lots of distortions in their criticism of Stossel. I don't consider Mediamatters.org to be a ]. Consumer's union, the Washington Post, NY Times, and Salon are all good sources, though.

== Citation needed - Awards ==

The line about thanking John Stossel for not having an entry might not be true. The closest thing I can find is him saying on the Montell Williams Show back in 2004 that "I won so many Emmys one year, someone thanked me for not having an entry in his category." That's really it. He repeated it in his book, Give Me A Break: "One year I got so many Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech 'for not having an entry in this category.'" No idea if it's true or not. --] 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:And again on the Hannity and Colmes in 2004 (Feb. 18): "I used to win so many Emmys that people would thank me for not having an entry in their category." --] 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::I suggest, then, that it be "qualified" by simply naming the source. Something like, "According to Stossel...." or "In his book, <u>Give Me A Break</u>, Stossel claims..." :-) ] 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

==Defense against "Criticism of his reporting on pesticides"==
Three weeks after The New York Times' which broke the news about Stossel's incorrect pesticide test claim, The New York Times followed up with that defended him. Regarding Stossel's ] report on organic food, The Times wrote:

:''Most of it reflected conventional wisdom among scientists: organic food has no nutritional advantages and poses a greater risk of bacterial contamination because it is grown in manure.''

:''He also reported that pesticides are not a danger in either kind of produce, which is not controversial either. The Food and Drug Administration regularly tests produce and finds pesticide residues in both organic and regular produce that are well below dangerous levels.''

Investor's Business Daily defended Stossel by saying:

:''Was Stossel "lying to the American people," as Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook has declared?''

:''No. The scientists who conducted the tests reported to the show's producer, not to Stossel. They tested for the presence of both the bacterium E. coli and for pesticide residues. But the residue tests were strictly on chicken, not produce.''

:''One needn't possess Einstein's brain to see how information from tester to producer to reporter could get lost.''

:''Further, had Stossel simply stated "there are" tests instead of "our tests," he would have been absolutely correct.''

Steven Milloy (a questionable source in my opinion, but no more questionable than Media Matters) wrote the following for Fox News (another questionable source):

:''In its January 1998 article titled "Greener Greens (The truth about organic food)," Consumer Reports reported a survey of pesticide residues on produce: "One-fourth of our organic samples had traces of pesticides, compared to 55 percent of the green-labeled samples and 77 percent of the unlabeled conventional samples... Our tests show that ‘organic’ doesn't necessarily mean ‘pesticide free’."

:''Most importantly, however, pesticide residues found in food, whether organic or not, are virtually always well-within levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency — and the EPA standards are set many hundreds of times below levels at which noticeable effects may be observed in laboratory animals.''

:''...Stossel erred. But his message is correct — organic foods are not safer than non-organic foods based on pesticide residues.''

In addition, ] and ]—which are conservative versions of ] and ]—defend Stossel's organic food report , , and . As deeply-partisan media watchdogs, MRC and AIM are every bit as unreliable and biased as Media Matters and FAIR. However, if progressive media watchdogs are being used to criticize Stossel, it should be fair to use conservative media watchdogs to defend him.

Media Research Center wrote:

:''Actually, Stossel’s report was well-crafted, and correct in all of its key assertions. MediaNomics went to the videotape, and found that the wrong comments about pesticides were just two sentences in a report that lasted nearly ten minutes. Stossel’s main point -- that consumers are buying expensive organic foods because they mistakenly believe they are more nutritious -- was amply documented and hasn’t been contradicted by any of his critics.''

Accuracy in Media wrote:

:''], the renowned biochemist who developed a simple ] to determine which chemicals cause cancer, revealed years ago that residues of man-made pesticides on fruits and vegetables are insignificant in comparison with the carcinogenic chemicals produced by the plants themselves.''

A final point: this Misplaced Pages article states the following as criticism of Stossel, "Later scientific research supported the opposite conclusion, which makes organic produce a more attractive option for consumers who are concerned about such residues." Later scientific research? Shouldn't Stossel's reporting be based on the scientific knowledge at the time of the report? Are journalists really expected to be able to predict the future?
--] 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
:Good points ] ] 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

== Criticism Section ==

I'm an admitted Stossel fan so perhaps that's why I noticed that although it seems very well supported, the "praise and criticism" section is almost entirely criticism. On top of that, the criticism section seems quite large in relation to the article. I suggest it be pared down considerably, summarized (something like, "Many of Stossel's reports/opinions/conclusions have been criticized for any number of reasons, including...bla bla bla") and then reference some of the links in either that section and/or the external links section. Basically, the article should not be a repository for criticism of Stossel. I welcome feedback, especially from those neutral and/or not Stossel fans. ] 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:I could see removing the criticism under "education," but the remaining criticms seem appropriate to leave in: the first led to a segment producer being suspended, the last is a clear breach of journalistic ethics, and the "global warming" issue shows ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the scientific consensus on that subject.
:I agree, however, that the addition of some "praise" would be good, given the title of the section--but then again, how many other public figures have "praise" sections in their Misplaced Pages entries?
] 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::] made some extensive edits to the criticism section which I believe added both non-notable <u>and</u> non-neutral point of view material. I will be removing pieces of it and providing edit summaries to explain why for each piece. ] 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you for doing that, Lawyer2b. ] 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On 2 January I made extensive modifications of the criticism section to remove anti-Stossel spin. Now two contributors have had problems with my description of the interview added to the rebroadcast of "The Food You Eat" as citing "non-existent results", both of whom, interestingly, concluded that I was being anti-Stossel. Lawyer2b self-reverted his change from "discovered" to "alleged", presumably after checking the sources, but now Morph has also replaced "non-existant" with the comment "Statement doesn't support the claim - reworded with less POV" after I had reinstated "non-existant" which had been first replaced by Lawyer2b, and reverted by me. Lawyer2b's revision of my sentence stated as fact something we don't know and which is controversial, namely Stossel's state of knowledge at the time of the rebroadcast. I certainly don't believe that Stossel "fabricated" results, which is the EWG spin, but it's not inconceivable that he had learned of his error by the time of the rebroadcast but was choosing to brazen it out in a Ratherite way. I don't think that's what happened. I believe Stossel. But there is no reason to state as fact what he knew at the time when I've put Stossel's own words on the point into the next paragraph.

I simply reverted Morph because he doesn't seem to have understood the details of the issue. I suspect my revert of Lawyer2b came up on his screen and he chose what appeared to be more nuanced wording. But the fact that the results were non-existent is not controversial. That's what Stossel apologized for. Chicken was tested for pesticides, veggies weren't, the whole point of the quote is to show Stossel SAYING that veggies were tested when they weren't ("non-existant results"). Then I give his explanation. Morph's comment is in error and his version obscures the point of the quote. If that's not clear or if I am missing something... let's discuss it here. ] 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:My mistake, for some reason I was thinking that the bacteria on organics was the untested produce. From that, I thought conculsions were drawn from the statement that were not supported. My edits were in error - thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the following interpolation into the paragraph on crit of Stossel for allegedly misusing children. "(Someone at[REDACTED] should edit this. These allegations make no sense. There's nothing unethical described here although Stossel is libeled with that term. And the term "scaring" is subjective and used to smear Stossel. Why would asking questions about environmental education "scare" the children? It's interesting that the link posted here has the folder name "tamperingwithtruth". It sounds like they are the ones "tampering with the truth". The[REDACTED] goons will now probably delete my comment because it conflicts with their opinions.)" /s/63.215.122.7 19.Jan.2007. Goon, here. 63.215.122.7 is right that the paragraph is almost certainly non-NPOV and IS certainly badly written...but needs to note that what HE did is not, but is addressed at, ]. Instructions to 63.215.122.7: register, research, and rewrite. ] 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::The person who posted that obviously misread the paragraph he was commenting on. As I understand it, the claim isn't that Stossel scared the children. The claim is that Stossel asked the children whether what they had been taught about the environment scared them. (e.g. Teacher: "Global warming will destroy the planet." Children: "Eeeeek!") The parents supposedly weren't pleased about the types of questions Stossel was asking them. What parent wants their kid to look bad on national TV? -- ] 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah. It was easy to misread, though. As a temporary fix I rewrote it for intelligibility and to remove statements not supported by the source. Need more info to get to point of NPOV, tho. Interestingly, source says the parents (some? all?) wouldn't have agreed to interview if they knew Stossel was involved... The real questions are (a) whether Stossel actually demonstrated the children were being indoctrinated rather than taught, and (b) whether any harm was done to the children. IMHO, parents who are sympathetic to the miseducation of their children don't have much of a right not to be fooled into letting the miseducation be revealed. ] 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

==References==
While this is not a requirement, the prefered method of reference use is ] <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki>. If someone wants to take the time, it would be nice to convert the embedded hyperlinks to ref statements (even better to use the ]). Also, refs should follow punctuation with no spaces between the punctuation and the ref or no spaces between refs. ] ] 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Example:
:'''Embedded Hyperlink'''
:''He also reported that ...levels.''

:'''Footnote'''
:''He also reported that ... levels.''<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/regional/081800ny-col-tierney.html| title=The Apple and the Sins of Journalists| last=Tierney| first=John| publisher=New York Times| date=2000-08-18| accessdate=2007-01-02}}</ref>

::'''Notes'''
::<references/>

== "Progressive" vs "liberal" ==
In parts of the article that refer to organizations critical of Stossel, people have periodically changed the word "]" to the word "]". Both of these terms cause problems because their definitions have shifted over time. I recommend we keep the word "progressive" for two reasons: First, these groups call themselves "progressive". Second, self-identified "progressives" tend to be left of self-identified "liberals".

In its self-description, ] writes, "As a ''progressive'' group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates..." ] describes itself as, "...a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) ''progressive'' research and information center..."

Since these organizations self-identify as "progressive" and since that self-identification distinquishes them from more mainstream liberals, I think it is best to accept their self-description. --] 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:It is my understanding that "liberal" has become a negative term, so they are changing their name to "progressive" as it has less negative connotation. So, when I see someone change liberal to progressive - I quickly think such - Trying to make it sound better by using a less known and positive term. Odd thing is, progressive use to mean communist. Liberal use to mean capitalist (and still does in the rest of the world). Funny how politics changes these labels to fit their needs. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

::And before progressive meant communist, ]--a Republican--was considered ]. "Progressive" implies progress. (Is a return to ] really progress?) "Liberal" and "Libertarian" imply liberty (], ], ], etc). "Conservative" implies cautiousness or resistance to change. When referring to Russian and Chinese politicians, the communists are the conservatives because they want to ''conserve'' the old communist system. --] 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:::lol - that's funny. politics is an odd game. :-) ] <sup>]</sup> 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
==Stossel's Stuttering==
Was John a stutterer? If so, how did he overcome his speech impediment?{{unsigned2|13:14, 8 May 2006| 68.195.31.93}}
:Yes. He overcame it by attending an intensive, three week program that retrained him to pronounce troublesome words. This information can be found in his book, Give Me A Break. ] 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am suprised that John Stossel's stuttering impediment isn't mentioned in this article. He's involved with the American Stuttering Foundation . <font color="lightblue">]</font><b><font color="lightgreen">]</font></b> 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:Good point - we should include this information as part of his background. He discusses it in his book. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


==Clearly biased==
It is unarguable that the article displays a biased in favor of Stossel, which is violatin fo WP:NPOV, the criticism section should not at all feature the skepticism featured in this article. ] 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, it is arguable. I'll argue that this article does a good job at balancing the pro- and anti-Stossel views. Please let us know exactly which text you feel violates ] and we can look into fixing it. Also, please don't remove cited facts without providing an explanation. --] 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:A criticism section is not a section for making undefended attacks against a person's character. It is a section for explaining controversy surrounding the person. It is not enough to mention '''what''' he did that was controversial. It is also important to explain '''why''' he did it. The entire criticism section is well-cited. Please specify which text you think is biased and why you think it's biased, otherwise I will remove the POV tag in a few days. --] 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::This article seems very weighted towards criticism. ] I use word counts of the sections to illustrate my point:

::Work: 472 words
::Philosophical influences: 395 words
::Praise and criticism: 1055 words
:::Awards: 75 words
:::Criticism: 975 words

::This article is 51% about criticisms. To me that sounds biased. The criticism section needs to be smaller, or the other sections larger. ] 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::But the criticism section isn't criticism. it's '''about''' criticism. ] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree. Have you tried comparing the length of this talk page to the length of the actual article? --] 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think this article is actually biased against Stossel. It does appear from the data that others have assembled that this is the case. My understanding of NPOV is that you include all views and imply that none is correct. As such, I would argue that a good example of a biased article (in favor) would be ], which only includes the man-made view and ignores other views such as the sun (which actually seems more likely since global warming is also happening on Mars). Well, anyway, to get back on topic, I think that this article should be expanded with more information in favor of Stossel. There is some pretty biased language in the criticism section by the way. "In June 2001, Stossel presented a one-hour special titled "Tampering with Nature" in which he belittled a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) which warned of the "devastating consequences" of global warming:" The key word in that sentence is "belittled," which conveys strong pov bias. The criticism section also fails to include any response to the criticism, implying that it is correct, which is a violation of NPOV. I think the criticism section should be cleaned up because it is excessively biased against Stossel. ] 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::"Belittled" meant he thought poorly of it, which is accurate. Why is that an attack on Stossel? Misplaced Pages doesn't say he's wrong. ] 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so there seems to be broad agreement that the article (specifically the criticism section) is biased, but complete disagreement regarding the ''direction'' of the bias. Wow, that helps a lot. Is it OK with others if I just mark the criticism section as biased, rather than the entire article? --] 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:You may mark the criticism section as biased, that's fine with me. And I encourage people that disagree with him to beef up the non-critical parts of the article. While the section is well written, it is exhaustive - to the point of appearing biased. The article should be a little more about him and not so focused on people's criticisms of him. I looked at articles of other polarizing figures and they had a much more balanced representation. He is a provocateur of sorts, and I like the counter arguments, but that should be maybe a quarter of what the article is about at the most, and not the major concern of the article. That was my main concern. ] 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think such a mark is called for. Some of the crit is as yet unbalanced by skepticism of the crit (eg, "Stossel claimed global warming 'may be a good thing'" cries out for context), but most of it is in good shape. If someone thinks the section is too exhaustive they can balance it by making the other sections more exhaustive, not by cutting ntable sourced material to fit an arbitrary slot size. ] 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm a huge Stossel fan, and I think the criticism section does a respectable job of trying to voice criticism without letting it become an all-out-attack on him. I think the disproportionate size of the criticism section simply reflects the fact that a lot of people like what he says and a lot of people don't. --] 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
==Fair use rationale for Image:JohnStossel.gif==
]
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ].

Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->] 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== "Union of Concerned Scientists" ==

The notion that the UCS allows people "from all walks of life" to join is not relevant to the material in the article. The clear implication of that wording is to suggest that they had non scientists sign their petition to inflate its numbers, but there is no evidence that anything like that happened. (If it did, then OK, let's say that rather than beat around the bush.) This wording appears to be an attempt to draw a parallel where there is none. Also, ] prohibits using multiple statements of fact to support a point of view. Consctructions like "despite its name" are also clearly POV. That material violates multiple WP policies. ] 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:That information about the source of the petition is irrelevant doesn't seem to animate any desire in you to remove background info about OISM. And UCS's name is inherently misleading, a fact that ought to be mentioned whenever it appears. That not misleading Misplaced Pages readers is somehow against policy is a bizarre notion. ] 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:: How is the overall membership of UCS relevant to their petition if onl scientists signed the petition? In context, after mentioning that the petition on global warming that Stossel promoted included signatures from nutritionists, saying that the UCS allows people from all walks of life to join could create the mistaken impression in readers' minds that people from all walks of life signed their petition. Also, the use of "despite" should be avoided, per ], since it can inject POV into the article. Also, per ], unless a reputable source made the argument you are making with your edit, that UCS is "misleading," we can't publish it simply because you believe it to be true. ] 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree with ]. ] 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Me too. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

:You haven't responded to either of my points: (a) your double standard, and (b) that the UCS name is inherently misleading. Every poll or petition should of course be weighed in the context of its sponsor, and having mentioned UCS it is desirable, in order not to mislead the unwary, to clarify that it is ''not'' a union of scientists. The idea that it is idiosyncratic of me to note the misleading nature of UCS' name is willful ignorance. It is normative in circles ''not'' sympathetic to UCS' biases to mention that fact. Just Google "Union of Concerned Scientists"+"not scientists" for numerous examples or go to ] and look at the Crit section. Are you, seriously, denying that the name is misleading? ] 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm denying that it is Misplaced Pages's job to publish opinion, and your entire paragraph here, and all the material you wish to include in the article, is opinion. ] 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::You may want to reword that. I think your refering to Andyvphil's opinion regarding the topic as Misplaced Pages publishes opinion all the time - we just have to attribute it. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

:::: I would argue that when we publish an opinionated quote or publish a statement that explains an individual or group's opinion, and we properly attribute it, what we are doing is publishing fact. ] 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:I repeat: ''"Are you, seriously, denying that the name'' {("Union of Concerned Scientists")) ''is misleading?"'' It is indeed my ''opinion'' that the world is as round as a cue ball. I can assume the truth of that ''opinion'' in editing Misplaced Pages because contrary ''opinion'' is fringe. My ''opinion'', repeatedly stated, is that "Union of Concerned Scientists" is '''on its face''' misleading, since its members are '''not''' scientists. I'm still awaiting any argument that this ''opinion'' is controversial. ] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::If Stossel has an opinion about the nature of this organization, then quote him. Otherwise, a discussion of the name belongs in the UCS article, and your opinions and conclusions about organization do not belong in any article, as per ]. ] <small>(])</small> 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I keep having to repeat myself: ''"...UCS's name is '''''inherently''''' misleading, a fact that ought to be mentioned'' '''whenever''' ''it appears.'' And (again!): ''"Are you, seriously, denying that the name'' {("Union of Concerned Scientists")) ''is misleading?"'' Sourcing the organization without noting the misleading nature of its name is ''controversial'' and I've provided a for this ''opinion''. I think ''you'' are the one who needs to review ]. ] 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Lots of organizational names can be viewed as misleading. The best example are the many corporate funded faux-grassroots organizations that have names like "Concerned Families About Something Or Other". But we simply can't insert commentary every single time the name is used, and we can't insert our own personal commentary at all, under any circumstances. ] <small>(])</small> 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:If "Concerned Families About Something Or Other" is actually an Exxon PAC that should, indeed , be mentioned if it is sourced in any article. And what kind of weaseling is "can be viewed"? Is or is not the name misleading? How many times do I have to ask the question? Is six enough? ] 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It doesn't matter if we think it is misleading. We cannot put our opinions in articles. And please don't use the talk headers for commentary either. Thanks. ] <small>(])</small> 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:What I actually '''put in the article''' was not opinion, but the reliably-sourced fact that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not a union of scientists. My editorial judgement (opinion) is that it is desirable that the Misplaced Pages reader be so informed. The exercise of editorial judgement (opinion) is fundamental to this project and cannot be avoided. ''"That not misleading Misplaced Pages readers is somehow against policy is a bizarre notion."'' ] 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree with ] that the UCS's name is misleading, and that this fact should be readily known to readers. However, Andyvphil, I do disagree with your statement,

:::''"...UCS's name is '''''inherently''''' misleading, a fact that ought to be mentioned'' '''whenever''' ''it appears.''
:: Think about the ramifications of such a policy. Nearly ''every'' special interest group tailors its name in the hope that when that name falls on the ears of the public, that it will be well received. "Pro choice" groups use that term because, hey, who could be against granting people choice? "Pro life" groups use that term because no one wants to be known as "anti-life". "People for the American Way", well, you get my point, I'm sure. So anyway, the problem is, if we decide that such monikers and terms need to be shown up as the obvious euphamisms that they are, in "'''every''' place" that they spring up, that these pages will become nearly unreadable.
:: I mean, nothing is going to be perfect, but at least, here on Misplaced Pages, with wikilinks all over the place, one who wishes to (and I readily admit, sadly, that this will not include even a majority of readers) ''can'' go to the UCS article and find out what the group is really like. I think that that's the best we can do, except for perhaps noting the fact that they are an interest group, which is neither POV nor defamatory nor even questionable. That's what I'm going to do in a moment, and you tell me what you think of the way it looks. ] 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:One problem with your compromise proposal is that I think UCS' name is ''peculiarly'' misleading. "Concerned Families About Something Or Other" or "People for the American Way" may dubiously claim to be "Families" or "For the American Way" but neither "families" nor "people" lay claim to any special expertise. Noting that it's a pressure group is an improvement but still leaves unanswered the implication that it is a pressure group composed of scientists. And I already, willingly, compromised, converting the longstanding inline comment to a footnote to avoid the implication I had been accused of making that UCS had included the signatures of nutritionists, etc. Does that little number in brackets really make the text "nearly unreadable"? If UCS' name ''is'' misleading, is it really "POV" or "defamatory" to provide clarifying information from their own website? ] 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:: My issue is primarily that you have a very clear OPINION about this group and, based on your most recent comment, their ability to comment about issues such as global warming. As you should be aware by now, Misplaced Pages does not publish the opinions of its editors: per ], articles should be written from a neutral point of view. The effect of including the language that you favor would be to cast doubt on the petition promoted by the UCS. It would suggest to readers that they should somehow doubt whether their signatures were obtained from scientsts, when in fact there does not seem to be any actual doubt as to that fact. Your personal dislike for this organization and your opinions about whether it should call itself what it does remain irrelevant to the article. ] 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:My editorial judgement is that it is a ''fact'' ("By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."-]) that UCS's name is deceptive. If revealing that fact will cause readers to doubt UCS' veracity measures can be taken to counteract that effect, to the extent deserved. I neither said, implied or believe that they used the signatures of non-scientists. If you can find the cite I will have no objection to your inserting a declaration to that effect. But Misplaced Pages readers ought not be misled merely to prevent them from supposedly jumping to conclusions you find unpalatable. Also, the idea that having opinions disqualifies one from acting as a editor is idiocy. Before you point me at ] as the supposed justification of your position you really ought to read it: "All editors and all sources have biases." ] 07:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:: How do you get from what I said ("Misplaced Pages does not publish the opinions of its editors") to "having opinions disqualifies one from acting as an editor"? They are not at all like each other. Regarding the idea that your opinion about UCS's name should be considered a "fact", there is nothing in either the realm of logic or fact that I can imagine would support what you're saying. Anything that involves a value judgment or a judgment about which someone could expect to be criticized, for instance that they are engaging in deceit, is certainly a matter of opinion. Would you be in favor of saying in the text that John Stossel is "deceptive" because he said that the 17,000 signatures of the other petition came from "scientists"? The judgment about the value of what he said should be left up to the reader to decide for himself. ] 09:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:To answer your first question, you started off by saying ''"My issue is primarily that you have a very clear OPINION about this group..."'' Secondly, we don't say Stossel is "deceptive" -- but we supply the ''fact'' that OISM acknowledged verifying less than 17,000 scientists. Nor did I say UCS was "deceptive" -- but I supplied the ''fact'' that it is not a union of scientists. "Let the facts speak for themselves" -- ]. What we are dealing with here is your preference that a reliably-sourced fact be excluded from the article. Now, on ''this'' page, where we are supposed to formulate editorial judgement (reach a consensus of ''opinion'' through discussion and argument), I am '''still''' waiting for ''anyone'' to defend the proposition that the name "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not misleading. Instead you take refuge in false generalities and straw man arguments. ] 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Your edits have been informed by your opinion that the group's name is "deceptive". It is clear that your opinion informs the changes you wish to make to the article. Therefore, I cannot see how your changes possess a neutral point of view. Regarding your belief that an editor here needs to "defend the proposition that the name...is not misleading", you are mistaken. That debate is wholly irrelevant to changes to this article. See above for why; I do not care to repeat everything that I and others have said in trying to explain to you what is and is not relevant to this article. If you can't be convinced that you have been mistaken in this case, then there is no reason to continue to engage in this discussion. The consensus is firmly against the edits you want to make. ] 19:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The properly-cited and relevant fact that UCS' name is deceptive was in the article for a long time before you decided to advance your POV by deleting it, so I remain unimpressed by the depth of your "consensus". ] 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm very sorry, Andyvphil, but I just need to reiterate that your beliefs (which I share) regarding the deceptive nature of the name need to be taken up on the UCS article. It just doesn't merit marking up every article in which this group is mentioned. I sense your frustration with this fact (for it is a fact, I concur) of the deceptive nature of this group's name. I simply—and respectfully—disagree with your conclusion that this deception needs to be included in the Stossell article. Sorry. ] 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The controversial and deceptive nature of the name ''is'' taken up in the UCS article, but I fail to see why the reader of ''this'' article should need to follow the blue-link to find that out. ''"Does that little number in brackets really make the text 'nearly unreadable'? If UCS' name is misleading, is it really 'POV' or 'defamatory' to provide clarifying information from their own website?"'' If the problem is that you don't think it's worth the conflict, I understand. If you don't think the clarification is desirable, I don't understand. ] 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The problem is that I don't think that your proposed solution is ''practical''. I feel that step you would take (clarifying the deceptive nature of their name in '''every instance''' in which the UCS is mentioned in Misplaced Pages) would subtract more from the qualitative nature of the project than it adds. ] 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::What does the subtract from the qualitative nature of this article? ] 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Not from the qualitative nature of the ''article'', but from the project, ''en toto''. To include caveats about the appellation of a group, in ''every'' article in which that group's name appears, would lead to cumbersome, slow-to-read articles, and would generally look unprofessional. Simply put, the veracity of everything we write in here should be made clear, but '''not''' at every turn. Let's use a fictional organization to make my point:
:::::::*This organization, we'll say, favors laws which would a) mandate that everyone be trained in the use of handguns at age 14, b) provide everyone with a handgun at government expense at age 16, and c) require a fine of $100 for any citizen found without his government issued handgun after they reach the age of 18. This group favors these laws its members because sincerely believe that such measures will lead to a reduction in violent crime. (And who knows, maybe they'd be right.)
:::::::*Anyway, before they become well-known, they decide to name themselves, '''"Americans for the Preservation of the Right to Self-Protection"''' (APRSP). Now, depending on your political point of view, you might regard the APRSP to be a bit of a deceptive name, since they not only favor preserving "rights", but they are also mandating certain behaviours. Soon, its spokesmen begin appearing on political commentary shows, either as interviewees or even as talking heads themselves. In doing so, they confine their public comments to the need block laws which would outlaw handguns and other firearms; they do NOT publicly push their true agenda. They work on establishing credibility as a voice in the conversation, without speaking their true mind (though their policy positions ''are'' available to anyone who'd care to look up a copy of their bylaws—it's just that the media hardly ever digs that deep.)
:::::::*But anyway, as you might imagine, references to the APRSP start popping up in a variety of Misplaced Pages articles. First on gun control and the Second Amendment, later in articles on Supreme Court decisions, and eventually, in only superficially related articles on, say, individual journalists who have either reported on the APRSP or who maybe even have supported it (or attacked it).
:::::::*Anyway, some Wiki editor decides that the APRSP's moniker is deceptive, and believes that anyone reading an article with a reference to the APRSP needs to know that this group is NOT just about preserving self-protection rights, but rather, is working to force everyone to own and carry a gun. So in every article that refers to "Americans for the Preservation of the Right to Self-Protection", he adds 'a group which actually favors mandating all adult citizens to own and carry a firearm with them at all times.' It's a simple caveat, and it's certainly true.
:::::::*But if I am reading an article on "gun control", and find that caveat, and ''then'' I go to an article on "handguns", and find that caveat, '''''then''''' link over to the article on Charlton Heston (who, we'll fictionalize, condemned the APRSP on his deathbed, hence the reference) and find the exact ''same caveat''—all because some Wiki editor thought that it was too hazardous to my knowledge base to not be informed at every turn—well, seeing this reference to the group's deception over and over and over ''doesn't'' seem very encyclopedic to me. Better, (though far from perfect), I think, for me to go the ''APRSP article'' (after I've seen blue links only at every turn), and read about it myself. And in '''''that''''' article, the point ''should''—indeed, '''''must''''' be made. '''Not''' over and over and over in articles on difference subjects.
:::::: So that's how I feel about it. The suggestion you made to include this reference to the UCS deception every time they reared their head, is simply not going to result in an encyclopedia that I like. ] 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Now, suppose, instead of "Americans for the Preservation of the Right to Self-Protection", they'd decided to call themselves "Doctors for Gun Control"? ] 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh for christ's sake, the very root of your argument is that you think people are too lazy to click a link. You're just dressing it up as concern over the name. Get over it. They don't call it the world wide web for nothing. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Praise and criticism==
I think this section needs to be retitled and integrated. See ]. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>0:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

:I agree. Every criticisms section is idiotic and tends to attract trolls and idiots (this article especially). When you integrate the criticism, it isn't as obvious that a bunch of loons edited it. ;) --] 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Interest group vs. Pressure group ==

] makes an accurate point, which I think others may miss, when he points out that the term "interest group" does not carry the automatic connotation of an actual organization, the way that "pressure group" does. In the US, at least, while the two terms ''can'' be used synonymously, the term "interest group" can also carry a more amorphous meaning, that of a group of persons who ostensibly share some common interests because of some shared heritage or set of beliefs. "African Americans", "lesbians", "housewives", and "college students", can all compromise "interest groups" in this vague sense. Many of the members of such groups may well belong to "interest groups" in the other sense, that is, of an organization that promotes a set of beliefs, but many others do not.

At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the term "pressure group" ''does'' carry for some hypersensitives an inherently pejorative connotation (for some people, I've learned, facts are not admissible if the facts are not "nice").

Accordingly, I'm going to change the language to refer to "'''advocacy''' group", which I believe meets the objections that Andyvphil had to using "interest group" (as an advocacy group '''''is''''' more clearly an organization) and it also does not strike most people as a negative term either. ] 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

: I'm basically fine with any term for this. The biggest plus in my mind for "interest group" is that it's where we have the relevant article. I don't really see "pressure group" as pejorative, though, so I don't much care which of the three terms we use. ] 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Well, then, ], I guess you're not a hypersensitive! Some people think that public discourse should be made without any "pressure" (utter fairy tale nonsense, of course) and thus if their pet organization is so named, think that their motives and/or methods are being impugned. Anyway, I only changed it because one editor had already removed the term "pressure group", and in their edit summary, wrote "removed POV", or words to that effect. ] 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Actually, it was two editors. My next iteration was going to be "lobbying group", but "advocacy group" is good. The second kneejerk revert also undid my correction of the statement that OISM is funded by GCM, ] 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

::::: Thanks. ] 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::: There's no reason to make it personal. The goal of discussion pages is to work collaboratively to reach a consensus about improving the article. Calling me a hypocrite is not the least bit productive in approaching that goal. If you want, make a ] and invite editors who are not involved in the dispute to weigh in. ] 07:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== WP:WEIGHT ==
=== RFC ===

::"Edit-warring without discussion on talk-page over violation of WP:WEIGHT. Intervention needed by admin. 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)" Well, without participation in discussion by THF, anyway. But the actual "edit warriors" are talking. ] 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I've been talking about this on the talk-page for four days, and have not edit-warred. ] 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Good. Croctotheface says he won't edit war and if you don't either, now that you realize that your gutting the crit section of material isn't agreed to, then I guess there isn't an edit war. BTW, I think the text you included in the RFCpol, and attribution, should be immediately below the template, so please don't move this thread unless you leave a copy of that behind.] 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to RfC: Stossel is, by his own choice, a controversialist. His two books have subtitles of "How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media" and "Why Everything You Know Is Wrong", and those phrases reflect the tenor of his work. This fact is relevant in assessing the issue of how much weight to give to discussion of criticisms of his views. Controversy deserves more attention in the article when the article subject himself has gone out of his way to invite it. If editors think there's an imbalance, let them add properly sourced material about the allegedly underrepresented noncontroversial aspects of Stossel's life. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 10:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Original section ===
The "criticism" section violates ] by its excessive length. This is Misplaced Pages, ] of largely non-notable partisan attacks. If the issues can't be demonstrated to be sourced by neutral news organizations, they will be summarized in accordance with ]. ] 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

: Possible solutions or responses:
:# This is not an issue, as enough of the significant content relating to Stossel is critical of him.
:# Break the criticism off into a separate article.
:# Beef up the other sections.
:# Trim the criticism sections.
: I do not believe that any of the criticisms here are "non-notable partisan attacks." First of all, several of the criticisms were indeed reported on by "neutral news organizations", unless you are of the opinion that Salon and the New York Times are left-wing propaganda outfits. Second, ABC News apologized for several of these mistakes, indicating that they believe them to be notable enough to report on. Third, Stossel responded to several of the criticisms as well. I see plenty of acknowledgement from mainstream sources already in the text. I am, however, sympathetic to the possibility of creating a new article or trimming details from this one. ] 09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=== OSIM petition ===

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

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

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

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

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

<s>== External link ==

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

== Woah, Andy, relax ==

Gutted content? I made no effort to gut content. Instead, I sought to distill the criticisms down to their essence. I really don't think we lose anything by reducing to a briefer level of detail. I'm not going to edit war, but I hope that you can self-revert. I really feel that my last version is the best one. ] 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:Not just you. THF, too. I don't agree that "the briefer versions do not leave out anything important". The shorter version of the "pesticide" story, in particular, leaves out ''everything'' that was important. ] 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:: I couldn't disagree more. I think my edits to the pesticide business actually present a stronger criticism. Are you saying that what was important was Stossel's attempts to deflect the issue? I'm not totally opposed to including those, but I think the E. coli business dilutes a strong criticism by mixing it with a much weaker one. ] 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::: The "Criticism" section of this article is not a playpen for critics, and "presenting a stronger criticism" is not the criteria for how it should be written. From your version you don't know what Stossel said, you aren't given his explanation of why he said it, and you are misled as to why he was reprimanded by ABC. Not only do you not highlight the "stronger, more substantial parts of the criticism", you miss the strongest legitimate criticism ("arrogance"(true), not "he lied"(dubious)) entirely. And you are not given the evidence that FAIR, etc., overreached in their criticism. ] 14:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::::: You didn't say it was inappropriate, but the logic you used leads to that conclusion. You said that the E. coli business with FAIR should not be omitted because material that establishes FAIR's tendency to criticize him is relevant by definition. That argument, if we accept it, would open the door to the idea that it would be inappropriate to omit any criticism FAIR makes of Stossel. On your second quote, obviously you're not complaining because you want to include weak criticism as opposed to strong criticism. My argument is that we should omit the E. coli business because there's not a lot of meat there. If FAIR criticized Stossel for wearing ugly ties, I would hope we would make the correct judgment to exlude it.
:::::: More to the point: it is simply not necessary to include all of the detail you wish to include. I am not opposed to adding small details, in a concise manner, to the version I had. However, you did not choose to do that. You simply reverted me because I "gutted the section". I'm willing to meet halfway here, but if you are just going to stubbornly insist on the exact version you reverted to, then you're not making a good faith effort to collaborate. ] 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:::::"lease explain how"? Ok, this is your version, before you, JHP and I modified it:
::::::''On the 20/20 report "The Food You Eat" on 4 February 2000, Stossel said that researchers found that organic and non-organic produce had roughly the same levels of pesticides. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered that the researchers hired by ABC had not tested any produce for pesticides. On 31 July 2000, the New York Times picked up EWG's story and ABC suspended 20/20 producer David Fitzpatrick for one month and reprimanded Stossel. On August 11, Stossel apologized.''
:::::(a)One advantage of quoting over paraphrase is that it doesn't introduce gratuitous error. Where did you get that "roughly the same" business?
:::::(b)One reason to mention the bacteria testing is to show that Stossel had results but misquoted them which is not the same as claiming to have research when you have none.
:::::(c)Again, you version implies Stossel was reprimanded for false reporting. He was not. He was reprimanded for inattention to the substantiated claim that he had made an error, going so far as to defiantly repeat the error without checking it.
:::::(d)There are apologies and then there are apologies. The reason the ''quote'' Stossel is to allow the reader to determine whether characterizations of what he said, such as FAIR saying he "lied" or your characterization of his apology as an "attempt to deflect the issue", are accurate. ] 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

(unindent)I like the idea of keeping the section short and tossing out unnecessary details. I have reworded it a little because I felt it was slightly unbalanced and a little misleading. One of the changes was to replace the phrase "pesticide contamination" with "pesticide residue". The word ''contamination'' is incorrect because contaminate means, "to make impure or unsuitable by contact or mixture with something unclean, bad, etc." However, as The New York Times wrote, "Most of reflected conventional wisdom among scientists.... also reported that pesticides are not a danger in either kind of produce, which is not controversial either. The Food and Drug Administration regularly tests produce and finds pesticide residues in both organic and regular produce that are well below dangerous levels." --] 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== We need more opinions about the tweaks to the language ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::I see two passages in the article that have a similar problem, namely, stating a fact but in a context that implies a criticism, without attributing the criticism.
::::::*One of them is the one you mention about the allocation of time in the health-care show. I suggest rewriting it along these lines: "MMfA criticized Stossel on the ground that he gave nearly four times as much air time to free-market advocates as to supporters of a single-payer system. "
::::::*The other is in the "Awards" section. After noting his collection of Emmys, our article states: "However, since his economic views have swung towards libertarianism, the stream of awards has dried up." As an objective fact, that may well be true, but the selection of that fact clearly implies an opinion. Maybe the stream dried up since he got married and it's his wife's fault? We can retain that passage, with proper attribution and citation, if some ''notable'' source, similar to MMfA, has said something like, "The industry is biased against libertarianism, and Stossel's adoption of that POV has caused the industry to shaft him when it comes to awards." If we don't have a notable source expressing that opinion, then the statement should be deleted.
::::::Overall, I don't know what you mean about "context". The context is that Stossel continues to generate controversy. If he stays on the air, we can be confident that, sometime in 2008, he'll air a show that draws a significant amount of flak. Any such notable controversies that he's involved in belong in the article. There's no artificial maximum number. Let's give the readers the information, including the pro-Stossel information that I keep suggesting (fruitlessly, it seems) be developed and added. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::::JHP comments: "Let me point out that ''notable'' sources are not the requirement for ]. ''Reliable secondary sources'' are the requirement." Your second sentence is true as far as it goes, but you're overlooking the role of notability. There are actually two different standards:
:::::::::* For assertions as to matters of ''fact'' concerning a living person, reliable sources are required.
:::::::::* For determining whether a particular ''opinion'' should be reported in Misplaced Pages, however, the notability of the spokesperson is relevant. The basic standard is: "'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.'''" (From ], 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 ] 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 ] 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 ].
:::::::::It's in this context that I respond to your statement, "Misplaced Pages has much stricter standards for biographies of living people than it does for other articles." When it comes to reporting criticisms, we need reliable sources to establish that the criticism was actually made, and even then we don't include it if made by someone nonnotable, but we don't need a reliable source establishing that the criticism is well-founded. Such a source usually couldn't be found. For example, because I happen to have the Clinton article open, I note that, among many other examples, it says this about her position concerning the Iraq War: "This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal." You can certainly find a reliable source to report the frustration, but it's not conceivable that you could find a reliable source to say that Clinton's antiwar critics are right (or that they're wrong). All you can do is report the notable POV's and do so neutrally. (I think that particular example isn't quite so NPOV as it could be, but I'm not going to get involved in editing the Clinton article right now.) ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: Whether or not this is addressed to me, I'll fire off a quick reply. We certainly can and should use editorial judgment to omit criticisms that are not particularly strong or well-founded. Hillary Clinton and other public figures like her are criticized every day by notable people. We can't and shouldn't indiscriminately report on every such criticism. I'm not saying that we as editors are responsible for agreeing or disagreeing with the point of view of people who criticize her, just that we need to ascertain that there is some foundation to the criticism. ] 08:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::I disagree. Empowering Misplaced Pages editors to decide which criticisms are well-founded, in an area of controversy, would be an invitation to endless POV warring. As an example, my personal opinion is that the criticisms of John Kerry's Vietnam record were not particularly strong, were not well-founded, and in fact had no basis or foundation. His accusers contradicted their own previous statements and contradicted official Navy records. Should Misplaced Pages therefore refuse to mention their criticisms? Does the current state of Misplaced Pages, which ''does'' mention those criticisms, constitute a judgment by this project that the criticisms were well-founded? No, and no. The criticisms were notable. Therefore we report them, politically motivated garbage though they were. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::I came to this article because of BLP concerns and many of the edits were a result of that call; though some may agree while others may disagree, the edits were for the overall betterment of the article. Could some things have remained...possibly. Now, the analogy with John Kerry is not a good one. The issue with Kerry was national issue and was covered by all media outlets worldwide. That one issue touched on his credibility (not knocking him, just pointing out the realities of what happened), his ability to potentially lead, his character, and many other aspects of his run for president. However, the individual issues pointed out in this article are not carrying that wide a scope on/for Stossel. Misplaced Pages points out, and I will look for it and bring back later, that not everything that is mentioned about a person is "encyclopedic" or deserves being mentioned (possibly notability). A good example of this is the ''Cindy Sheehan'' article. The editors quickly remove and have cited why, both pro and con entries. They continually say that not everything she does deserves mentioning. Just like in this article, not everything is newsworthy. Again, a controversy is not a controversy unless it is a controversy. Meaning, if I see a person with bad hair and say so...it is not a controversy of the town just because ''I'' say so. But...if the whole town starts talking about the hair, and people respond and react to the gossip, then ''it is a controversy''. Just because one organization complains or criticizes a person does not make it a controversy. The community is somewhat justified in determining whether something is a true controversy or even if it is encyclopedic. It happens everyday in[REDACTED] in various articles. Just my $0.02! --] (]) 06:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:I agree with some of your edits, but I'm reverting the wholesale deletions. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 08:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Clean-up ==

Following a ] notice at ] I adjusted the balance of the criticism section. I noticed that the whole article needed help so I ended up cleaning it up. There is a lot of good stuff here but it's just gotten messy. Overall I tried to make it a better article without removing any significant points or any references. Please see that discussion for further explanation. Misplaced Pages can be proud of this article now, IMO. Feel free to further improve! ] 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:I see ] is making some revisions to the newly shortened controversy list items. All for the better, IMO. Thanks. ] 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

:::Wow! This article has gone through more change in the past 12 hours than in the entire previous year. I haven't read through the text yet, but glancing at the section headings I'd say it looks much better. --] 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I second I second Morphh that the article definitely needs building and improving, but it's on the right track at the moment. Wikidemo did a good job at getting it that way. --] (]) 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I see some good work. Sometimes an article just needs a catalyst. I shortened the lead by removing the new mention there of factual errors. There is some talk in WP:LEAD about whether or not there should be citations in the lead, and the feeling seems to be you should give a strong reliable source for any contentious/derogatory material even if true so it doesn't look like a POV piece. That leaves us with the option of either citing and justifying the claim in the lead or just saving it for the body. I thought it's just simpler to keep it to the body - nobody can lead without realizing he's a controversial figure. I think the lead does a great job at giving a quick take for someone who doesn't know who he is. No attempt to slant things here, I actually have zero personal opinion on his merits as a journalist. ] 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::No problem, that was something I added in as it only said he had attracted criticism for his political views, which I thought was an inaccurate statement. You have removed that particular statement so it now sounds correct and has less POV. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>3:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
::::::Worked on formating the references - got through half of them. Once we get these cleaned up, we should really look at cutting back the external links. I think we have way to many. Some should be cleaned up if they are being used as footnotes, others could be added to "Further reading", others we could just delete if they don't add any real value. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>3:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

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

:After I wrote the above, I encountered Maniwar's complete deletion of three of the topics. I find it telling that, in reaction to his edit, my first impulse was to go back to the full versions of these three paragraphs. I believe that the full versions will make it much easier for me to assess whether the subject belongs in the article. I report that reaction as evidence that restoring much or all of the excised detail would be advisable. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::Even though I somewhat address this in my other post ] I want to respond. This was removed much earlier but then restored by Andyvphil (granted he did break the 3RR) and I had to remove it again. It is currently being discussed below. I do not see that these three have caused controversy with or for Stossel. If so, then it needs to be supported by mainstream media. There is some concern that MediaMatters may not be a valid source as they have, more than most, distorted the news or the issue to paint their point. If each truly was an issue, other media outlets would have carried it and would have pointed out how it was a controversy. Too many times editors insert information and interpret, thus leading the reader in how to think. The issues are saved below and a discussion is taking place about them...though, they must be looked at individually and not as a whole. Again, my other post (]) touches a little on this as well. But they should not be replaced unless the general consensus is to do so ''and'' they are credible controversies with sources other then Salon or MediaMatters. --] (]) 06:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::::The problem is that it is very easy to present objective facts in a way that misleads readers. That's what Media Matters does. For example, Media Matters complained that "During the program, Moore was interviewed on air for a total of 1:40, while the five free-market advocates were interviewed on air for a total of 6:24." What Media Matters conveniently omits is that Stossel spent a very large part of the program describing the problems of sick Americans who can't get insurance. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would have loved that part of the show, because it showed how screwed up America's health care system can be. Media Matters also omits that Stossel did a report on ] 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 ] and he was ''advocating'' ] 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. --] 04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::'''Here's another example of Media Matters' distortions.''' Media Matters says, "Stossel failed to report that the World Health Organization ranks both countries ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems." Media Matters is talking specifically about his ''Good Morning America'' appearance, but Stossel explained on 20/20 why the World Health Organization report is misleading. In addition, three weeks prior to Media Matters' criticism, Stossel had also discussed the World Health Organization report . 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? --] 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Good points ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

== "Misleadingly named" ] ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Now, exactly who is it besides you who thinks this subject is worth any further discussion? ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikidemo comments "name is no more misleading than most ; issue not relevant here" and wites "Aside from Democrats and Republicans, we would have to flag as 'misleadingly named' the AARP (members are mostly not retired), any organization named 'Citizens for...' (don't require citizenship, mostly started by advocacy groups), most high school members (Spartans? Trojans? Vikins? -- NOT), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (many non-mother members), FAIR (they're not after fairness, they're after balance issues), so-called 'Right to Life' organizations, Freemasons (not masons), etc." Both halves of his comment are, I think, wrong, and the rest is strawman argument. UCS' name is on the cusp of two maximums -- it is unusually misleading and the misleading claim is unusually relevant. Indeed, MADD and AARP are equally misleading, but being a mother, or retired, does not make a claim to expertise the way that being a scientist asserts a claim to expertise on issues of science. I've already pointed out that "Republican" and "Domocrat", never mind "FAIR" and "Right to Life", do not make falsifiable claims, and sports mascots make no claim at all. My claim is that UCS is virtually unique (though if it turns out that "Citizens for X" are largely aliens I would there, too, support a "misleadingly named" tag on passing references), and failing to address my point seriously will not convince me not to add this information to articles when it is convenient to do so. ] 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:Nothing wrong or straw man at all, it's to the point. In fact, it's exactly the same thing. Lots of membership organizations make claims in their name as to who their members are. Many of these claims are demonstrably untrue. But that does not mean they are misleading. Misleading and falsifiable are very different issues. The truth of that statement has absolutely nothing to do with this article, anyway. It's merely an attempt to discredit the actions of an organization indirectly by disparaging their membership standards. Look, I can't see Misplaced Pages ever permitting pejorative adjectives like "misleadingly named" in front of large extant organizations. It's not going to happen. We're way into marginal issues here. ] 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If not "misleadingly named" before, how about "(not a union of scientists)" afterwards? ...
You may be right that it cannot be done but that is not an answer to the assertion that it ''ought'' to be done. Your argument of extrapolated consistency was not a strawman argument until I explained why I thought UCS was an exceptional case. To repeat it without fully addressing my response is classical strawman behavior.
The misleading effect of naming UCS without properly identifying it is an established political controversy (eg, ). In two rounds of discussion no one has seriously questioned the fact ("By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute'."-]) that UCS' name misleads.(Mr. Lane has retreated into the ambiguity of the language -- he asserts that the name is not misleading not because it does not lie but because it does not do so convincingly. This is akin to saying that cigarette commercials that employed individuals wearing white coats were not misleading because no reasonable person would think they were actually doctors. Until he responds to my observation that misled "reasonable person" are easy to find I don't see any reason to characterize what he's said as "serious dispute".) Misplaced Pages's text ought not mislead. ] 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

==Consensus Discussion==
I've removed some of the controversies from the article for discussion and consensus. I would like to question whether they are true "controversies". Did they create a controversy or was it just one organization making these charges? Can we find mainstream media sources (NY Times, Washinton Post, USAToday, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) to support this "controversy"? Anyway, lets look at them individually rather than cooperatively.
#Stossel claimed in a ''20/20'' special that ]s are better than public schools, and argued for a ] system.<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/33014.html</ref> ] criticized Stossel for omitting ] findings to the contrary.<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003</ref><ref>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp</ref> Stossel defended his conclusions.<ref></ref>
##Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
##Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
##Was this a national controversy?
##Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
#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.<ref>http://archive.salon.com/media/feature/2000/02/25/stossel/</ref><ref>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/dowie/3</ref><ref>http://www.thegreatboycott.net/John_Stossel.html</ref><ref>http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=761</ref>
##Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
##Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
##Is this a national controversy?
##Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
##And are these sources credible, reputable, and such?
#Stossel was criticized over a 2007 ''20/20'' segment on health care for giving disproportionate weight to interviewees supporting increased privatization,<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200709160003</ref> and for misidentifying increased government spending.<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200709150001</ref><ref>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/gratzer.htm</ref><ref>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/about_mi.htm</ref>
##Is only one organization criticizing? If so, it's not a controversy.
##Can/Do any main media outlets show/support this supposed "controversy"?
##Was this a national controversy?
##Is it significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia?
oops, forgot to sign. Let's discuss below this point...individually. --] (]) 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
===Discussion===
I have no opinion except to wonder whether these are long standing encyclopedia material.
*I would venture to guess no, that it does not warrant that it is significant enough or encyclopedic enough. I would also question if they are truly controversies outside of one organizations criticism. --] (]) 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.] 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. ] 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 ], it actually should be expected that he gives disproportionate weight to the position he is arguing for. --] 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. --] 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. &larr;] 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

::I'm not convinced, but I will admit that there are which . &larr;] 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:
{{cquote|'''Notability'''
*'''"Presumed"''' means a ]. Substantive coverage in ] suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage ''may still be'' non-notable &ndash; they fail ], or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.<ref>For example, adverts, announcements, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be notable for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of ]. For examples of other circumstances also agreed by consensus to override this presumption, see ].</ref>
* '''"Significant coverage"''' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and ] is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.<ref>Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on ] are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band ''Three Blind Mice'' in a biography of ] ({{cite news|title=Tough love child of Kennedy|author=Martin Walker|date=]|work=]|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html}}) is plainly trivial.</ref>
* '''"Reliable"''' means sources need editorial integrity to allow ] evaluation of notability, per ]. Sources may encompass ] works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.<ref>Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be ''someone else'' writing independently about the topic. (See ] for the attribution and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see ].) The barometer of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. </ref>
* '''"Sources,"'''<ref>Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.</ref> defined on Misplaced Pages as ], 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.<ref>Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.</ref> Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works.<ref>Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.</ref>
* '''"Independent of the subject"''' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, ] material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.<ref>Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: ] for handling of such situations.</ref>

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'''<br>
], not Misplaced Pages, 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.<ref>See ].</ref> 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 ] that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
}} }}
{{Photo requested}}
I think these above may fail based on that. I advise that we all go back and read ]. --] (]) 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". ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

: 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 ]]. ] 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

::Croctotheface is correct. We should be careful not to confuse the ] with the . 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. --] 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 ], another proposal over at ] having to do with the credibility and relevance of sources as they relate to the statement being sourced. But it's a rather subtle issue and some people think there shouldn't be a standard because leaving it up in the air for editors to figure out, debate if necessary as in this discussion, promotes a healthiert environment for article-building than a cookbook approach of what you put in an article. So we're left with a lot of policies and guidelines we can extrapolate from, and appeals to common sense and the real world and what is the best for giving people what they want and need when they read an article on Misplaced Pages. We'll all agree that JS picked his nose is too trivial to mention. But should we say (in less partisan language) "JS is the subject of a biased agenda-driven smear campaign?" or "JS is a tool who stirs up controversy without serious attention to the facts?" or should we only allow things that are drier and more neutral, even at the risk of failing to call an elephant an elephant? Good stuff. I think there are 10-15 different criteria that are worth looking at but after filtering out for verifiability and reliability of the claims, it all boils down to does a serious lay-reader really need to know this, and does the reader want to know. ] 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:
::::<blockquote>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 ])</blockquote>
::::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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
::I like those suggestions and will definitely adopt. --] (]) 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

*'''Remove''' item number 1. See my comments on Media Matters as a reliable source below. --] 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' item number 2. It has multiple references from reliable sources. --] 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, ], has admitted to intentionally lying and intentionally defaming people—such as ]—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. --] 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? ] 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

*
*
*

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

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

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

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

== Other controversies ==

From ] 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)


==Bet with T. Boone Pickens==
* "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.
I really think this article should include the results of Stossel's legendary bet with oilman T. Boone Pickens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ALfilH4RFs&feature=related
] (]) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


::I would also like to include this, provided that there are outside sources that discuss this information. ] (]) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
* 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.


== Edited article ] ==
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? &larr;] 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


I edited the article ] by updating four introductory paragraphs of the article, primarily current resume information, to reflect current positions at ] and ] after departing ]. I also added outside link to reference Stossel's blog.
: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 ] in the article. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


--] (]) 12:59, 17 November 2010 (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 ] for his analogy of an ]? 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 ]—has beaten ].) 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. --] 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 ], 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. ] 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


== Suggest removal of previously existing section ==
===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.


This talk page contained a section which made reference to inclusion of information regarding ] and ] and an alleged bet between them. The section included a link to a ] video which does not exist. Further, the YouTube user who published the video was deleted by YouTube for multiple copyright infringements.
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 ] and that can be a reference point, but notability is ''not'' the applicable standard. That's for whether the article belongs in Misplaced Pages or not in the first place, not whether a particular factoid belongs in an article. -- ] 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


--] (]) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (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. ] 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


== His religious beliefs ==
::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. --] 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


I have no idea how to cite this, but I just watched his show and he said that he is an agnostic. I changed his religion from Jewish to Agnostic.
:::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. ] 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


:I've done it. ] 11:39, 18 December 2010 (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. ] 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


== Watchdog groups ==
::::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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


The section entitled "watchdog groups" highlights the accusation by the leftist FAIR.org web site that, contrary to Stossel's Oct., 1999 assertion that Parkinson's kills more people than HIV/AIDS, the reverse is true. FAIR is quoted as saying:
::::: 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. ] 07:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


:'''"In fact, AIDS killed more than 16,000 people in the United States in 1999," whereas Parkinson's averaged "a death toll in the United States of less than 4,000 per year."'''
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. &larr;] 07:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


There are several problems with that. One is that FAIR.org and MMfA are not ]. Another is that the FAIR.org accusation is allowed to stand unrebutted, which strongly suggests that it is true, and gives a heavy POV imbalance to the section. Another is that the statistics which FAIR gives are contradicted by the CDC (which ''is'' a reliable source).


I don't know whether we should leave the FAIR.org accusation in the article or not, so I left it there. However, I added the actual CDC statistics for the United States, with references to the documents on the cdc.gov web site which contain the figures. The CDC says:
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."
In 1999 HIV/AIDS killed 14,802 Americans, compared to 14,593 killed by Parkinson's.


In 2000 HIV/AIDS killed 14,478 Americans, compared to 15,682 killed by Parkinson's.
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.


Clearly, FAIR.org was way, way off the mark. But was Stossel right or wrong?
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.


That's a closer call. The U.S. mortality numbers were very similar for the two diseases, with HIV/AIDS deaths higher in 1999 but Parkinson's higher in 2000. Since Stossel used the present tense ("Parkinson's kills more people") the question is, which disease was killing people at the higher rate when the program aired, on Oct. 11, 1999?
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.


A simple linear interpolation to estimate the daily death rates from each disease gives the most likely answer. (Imagine a graph, with lines drawn for the two diseases' death rates, from the middle of 1999 to the middle of 2000; the question is, which line is higher at the date Oct. 11, 1999?)
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.


10/11/1999 was 102 days after the mid-point of 1999, so here're the linear interpolation calculations:
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.


Parkinson's interpolated daily death rate 10/11/1999:
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. ] 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
((102 / 365) * 15682 + (((365-102)/365) * 14593)) / 365 = 40.815


HIV/AIDS interpolated daily death rate 10/11/1999:
: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. ] 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
((102 / 365) * 14478 + (((365-102)/365) * 14802)) / 365 = 40.305


The two numbers are close, but the daily death rate from Parkinson's was 1.0% higher than from HIV/AIDS. So, if we trust the CDC's statistics, we have to conclude that Stossel's claim was most likely correct for the United States, when the program aired. So this is what I added to the article:
== Maniwar misunderstanding 3RR ==


:'''Interpolating the CDC figures suggests that by the date the program aired, Stossel's assertion was (barely) true.'''
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 ] 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! --] (]) 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. ] 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.] 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 <s>"The ] Campaign to Discredit Stossel"</s> "Stossel and his Critics". If criticisms of him are unfair (the underlying facts not significant) that may be exactly what the article should show. ]
::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 ] 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. --] (]) 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 ], something like that should be removed immediately and ] would not apply to those who remove it. WP:BLP also says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." This is not specific to the John Stossel article, but to Misplaced Pages in general: I have often found that authors take the opposite approach; they insist that the burden of evidence is on the shoulders of those who remove existing content. It tends to make editing Misplaced Pages very difficult. --] 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


However, though FAIR.org assumed (probably correctly) that Stossel was talking about death rates in the USA, Stossel actually didn't say that. If he was talking about worldwide death rates, then he was very wrong. HIV/AIDS kills far more people, worldwide, than Parkinson's does. So, for balance & clarity, I also added this to the article:
::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. ] 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


:'''(However, worldwide HIV/AIDS deaths were far higher than Parkinson's deaths.)'''
:::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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Does everyone agree that this is a good, balanced, factual treatment of the argument between Stossel and FAIR.org? ] (]) 07:49, 28 January 2012 (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. ] 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what you stated seems good although I'd be interested in the 1998 numbers since those would be the most recent complete numbers available to Stossel and maybe even further back to see if 1999 was some sort of anomaly. Also considering how wrong the fair numbers were it seems unreasonable for their criticism to be mentioned at all especially considering the biased nature of the organization and their grossly inaccurate numbers. ] (]) 02:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


:This is a year old so I don't think it is worth spending time researching, that said Fair.org is certainly not a reliable source. Based on my experience I would guess that if someone said something about 1999 that the data would likely 2-3 years old at the time. The right thing to do is research Stossel actual comment and see where he got his numbers from. Regardless any info from "Fair.org" is not worth sharing.] (]) 05:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Could you try being civil, for once, please? And not making it personal? ] 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. ] 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


== Inconsistency ==
::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? ] 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Does provide a noteworthy enough insight into Stossel's ethics and reasoning skills to include in the article? ] (]) 05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::: I said "roughly the same" when in fact the correct phrasing was "zero". I hardly think that distorts the issue. It's obviously better to be exactly right, but the fact that somebody can make a minor error does not, as you seem to think, disqualify them from editing Misplaced Pages. ] 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:The ] for his remarks is the Fox interview. C&L simply wants to put in its own opinion, but does not qualify as RS in this regard. Don't use. – ] (]) 14:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::To what opinion of C&L do you refer beyond that stated by Stossel and his Fox interviewers during the interview? This is, in my opinion, an exemplary insight into how the libertarian rich refuse to practice what they demand of others. How would failing to include this perspective improve the article? ] (]) 10:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Note, I clarified my statement to say that Crooks & Liars does ''not'' qualify as RS. What Stossel says ''in the Fox interview'' is fine because it explains his views. But seeking to describe him as a crook or liar is inappropriate. Edits which combine his political views with his daily life (or whatever) is ], and do ''not'' explain his reasoning skills or ethics. Moreover, WP is not to be used as a ]. – ] (]) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Again, is there any reason that omitting Stossel's own statements about accepting a multi-million dollar FEMA bailout while wanting to abolish it or otherwise make such bailouts unavailable to others would improve the article? Which is worse, soapboxing or whitewashing? ] (]) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::Soapboxing, particularly in ]s. – ] (]) 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:I really don't think it can be said with such certainty that looking at someone's stated views, as well as their daily life, "do not explain his reasoning skills or ethics" - ] (]) 12:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


== Fairtax ==
::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 <s>the ''important'' thing he actually did wrong</s> what he apologized for. ] 10:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


the article currently cites a 2006 interview for the support of a fairtax. i suggest we remove it as a more recent interview appears to contradict such. perhaps we could say he is for ''lower and much simpler taxes'' instead? ''There's always '''danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax''': We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax — or worse, a value-added tax — would replace the income tax then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great that they must retain the income tax, too.'' ] (]) 07:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
== Why can't we order the controversies chronologically? ==


:He has expressed an open-mindedness to ''different'' solutions to the issue of taxes, including both a Flat Tax (like the one Hong Kong has, as he pointed out in his 1999 special, ''Is America #1?), and a Fair Tax, as guests have suggested on his show. Overall, he thinks taxes should be lower. I've added both your information and cite and the flat tax info from that special to the passage. ] (]) 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know why . The only "changed content" other than adding dates concerned some that I raised on their talk page. ] 04:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


== Dead Link/potential POV content in lede ==
:In the absence of some ''compelling reason'' not to order them chronologically, in date order makes the most sense. I agree with you Acct4. ] 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


I edited a dead link's content, partially because there was no way to verify it, and partially because it seemed a questionable inclusion to begin with. This was reverted without a note being added indicating the link was broken (thank you for posting an explanation on my Talk page. I do think we still need to address the original issue though.) The content in question is:
::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. ] 04:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


"ABC is reported to believe "his reporting goes against the grain of the established media and offers the network something fresh and different... makes him a target of the groups he offends.""
:::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? ] 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


The wording itself is somewhat odd..."ABC is reported to believe.." seems an odd way to cite an ABC article, or to describe ABC's reaction. ABC is a corporate entity...it's somewhat awkward to say it "believes" something. The elipsis and general shading of the quote make me wonder whether there is a bit of (again, assumed unintentional) pick-and-choosing going on. Regardless, I'm not sure that a specific quote, in odd context, that seems to imply a very favorable statement on Mr. Stossel, belongs in the lede to begin with. I'd suggest it's superflous to the summary nature of the lede, and lacks citation. I don't think we need to find a citation because the better option would be to simply remove it. It doesn't add anything to the lede.AT worst, why not replace it with a more generic summary statement, and add some citations?] (]) 02:20, 24 September 2013 (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. ] 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


:This comment has nothing to do with my opinions on the appropriateness of using the quote. But it is fully cited and there are no grounds for removing it on that basis. A broken link does not invalidate a citation. The title, date, and name of the newspaper are more than sufficient for both citation and verification purposes. ] <small>(])</small> 03:00, 24 September 2013 (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. ] 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


== Womens' health ==
::::::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. --] 08:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"John Stossel thinks women should pay more for health insurance because “women go to the doctor much more often than men,” possibly because “they’re hypochondriacs,” the Fox Business host posits."
*. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 11:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== FAIR and MMfA ==
::::::: 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. ] 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ping|Nightscream}}, , but I can't find the FAIR reference in his books in a Google Books search. I may be doing a poor job searching, can you tell me where that cite is? ] (]) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


:His books were not the cited source. FAIR was. I merely commented that Stossel mentions their criticism in his books, not that I was citing that as the source.
(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 ] and ], I don't believe this chronological bullet presentation is the best way to move forward. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


:Page 198 of ''Gimme a Break'' mentions their complaints about his ''20/20'' story on organic food. ] (]) 18:33, 16 April 2014 (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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


::My apologies for that confusion. A Google Books search for FAIR or "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting" or the like doesn't turn that up. Do you know what the text is of it? We should probably keep the criticisms to actually noted ones. ] (]) 18:50, 16 April 2014 (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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


:::It ''is'' a noted one: ].
:::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.


:::As for the text, this is it: "In a headline, a far-left group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting distorted my mistake into intentional deceit: 'Stossel Fabricated Data'."</blockquote> ] (]) 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:::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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


::::By "noted," I mean "someone noticed the criticism," not just that a noteworthy person said it. Much like we wouldn't put every monologue from a radio or television host in the articles about people or issues, so too we should be careful about things like this, no? ] (]) 22:16, 16 April 2014 (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 ] policy on article structure and the ]. 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., ], ], ], ]). /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 ]. ref ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


:::::The material is relevant and sourced, and therefore, appropriate for inclusion. It is not a requirement that "someone else" notice the criticism (although that wouldn't hurt), nor is this comparable to "every monologue" from a TV or radio host, since there are only a few notes of criticism in the section. If you want, you could broaden the citations by adding the criticism on Stossel's ''20/20'' report on organic food, since according to Stossel, he was criticized not only by FAIR, but by CNN, ''USA Today'', the ''Wall Street Journal'', the ''Washington Post'', the ''Los Angeles Times'', the ''Chicago Tribune'', ''The Nation'' and ''The New York Times''. If you feel the material is not broadly-enough sourced, then the solution is to add more citations. Not blank it. ] (]) 03:51, 17 April 2014 (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. ] 07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I am more than happy to replace the citation with noteworthy criticisms. Are there specific links you're in favor of? ] (]) 15:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


:::::::Thanks. None in particular, as long as they adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ] (]) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>11:53, 01 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
::::::::I agree, which is why replacing this is important. Which criticisms on organic food by those outlets you linked are ones you believe meet that threshold? ] (]) 16:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


== Re "discredited" before "journalist" ==
: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. ] 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Mother Jones and other left-leaning but objective news outlets have documented Stossel's taking funding from libertarian groups to promote such projects as his "Stossel in the Classroom" video series. Stossel has long stood far outside the bounds of what one might consider investigative journalism, regardless of one's politics. Thus Stossel as an "investigative journalist" is quite arguably too POV for Misplaced Pages. I maintain that "discredited" is not POV but representative of the facts. However, rather than this loaded descriptor, might we change Stossel's central description to "Fox News personality"? That is objectively true and a much fairer and less POV description of who he is at this point in time. ] (]) 16:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::The "Controversies" section (better renamed "Stossel and his Critics") need NOT be "derogatory information". And, why should this be a "short article"? Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. If the content is useful (e.g., as a comprehensive corrective NPOV treatment of the material that turns up when you Google Stossel) there is room to include it. ] 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


: If you have facts supporting the changes you propose, please provide reliable sources to support them. Injecting the term "discredited", as you did, is purely POV on your part. – ] (]) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
== Undiscussed deletions ==


: Given the fact that Stossel has received numerous news-related awards, I think the ] is on other editors who propose to describe him primarily as a "]". The consensus version of this article has been and is "consumer reporter, investigative journalist, author and libertarian columnist." Consensus can change, but it is up to other editors to bring the issue to this talk page, discuss, and garner support for the changes. – ] (]) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
::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 ] 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? ] 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


===Criticism and controversy section===
The person who left needs to take his or her own advice:


The Criticism and Controversy section of this page deserves to be updated with more recent material. Regardless of what Stossel did in the past for ABC, what he does these days should not be described as "investigative journalism." Here is a citation for his "reporting" being funded by right-wing donors: Further support for describing Stossel as an advocacy pundit or personality, not a journalist, is detailed here: To cite one recent example, Stossel "reports" by interviewing his own brother, Dr. Tom Stossel, "a visiting professor for health care studies at the American Enterprise Institute," who happens to share his views on what ought to be done about the Ebola crisis; should asking one's relatives about policy options via one's own Fox television program really be considered investigative journalism? In December 2013 yet another of his "investigations" involved pretending to be homeless in order to "report" that homeless people are doing just fine and do not deserve charity or other attention from policymakers; can other editors not come to some kind of consensus that whatever kind of "reporting" such shenanigans constitute they are far from what is understood as "investigative reporting" in the Misplaced Pages article we link to in the first paragraph? Stossel's lack of credibility as a journalist is evident in many other places, and this article deserves not purely a left-leaning critique as I might personally offer but a true POV-free recasting. ] 09:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
: 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.
:This is well-documented and convincing. ]] 15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
::I do not see where Stossel is mentioned by MotherJones. If he is not in the reference, then adding it to support criticism (or whatever) is ] or ]. The MediaMattersOrg blog basically tells us that the Stossel in the Classroom program exists, is well funded by various organizations, and is successful. But we also see that Zaitchik does not like Stossel. Thus his opinion piece must be used with caution. The panhandling piece is interesting. Stossel has used a single event -- his recreation of a panhandling experience -- to illustrate a point about many panhandlers. (It certainly does not pretend to be an academic study of the problem.) But the scenario does not detract from his other accomplishments and accolades. So these isolated critical pieces are not sufficient to re-write the lede. They are useful to expand the article in terms of criticism and Stossel's activities, but not much more. – ] (]) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


==Elaboration on Emmy awards==
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. ] 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


The ABC blurb on Stossel says he's won 19 Emmys. We should certainly take an RS at its word--even one that appears to be devoted to promotional content and fan club-style trivia. But I'm curious as to what these Emmys were for, and whether Stossel received them as an individual or as part of a bigger team. We should not delete the mention of 19 Emmys, but we need more elaboration on them. ] (]) 10:24, 1 December 2014 (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.] 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? ] 00:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


There is an ] on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
:::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 ] 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 ], 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 ]. You are threatening to edit war on it rather than discuss, which is not a good sign.
::: -- ] 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The RfC is at ''']'''.
::::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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>2:44, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


Please help us determine ] on this issue. --] (]) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (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 ] a prominent representative of the view." (from ]) Thus, the test is whether an opinion can be attributed to a "''prominent''" adherent, not whether it can be attributed to a nonpartisan adherent.


== External links modified ==
:::::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.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::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? ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 03:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::::::These organizations define themselves as partisan. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>3:56, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010060957/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19 to http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=19


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:::::::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 Misplaced Pages policy that I quoted, whether they're partisan is immaterial.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
:::::::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 '']''. 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages article also includes an attributed response to Stossel's criticism. That seems to me to be the correct approach, one we should emulate here. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 04:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
== Straw man argument being used for excessive deletions ==


== External links modified ==
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).


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I would like to make a personal request, for the sake of my blood pressure, that people stop attacking this ]. 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.


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611042753/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1876894381231272307 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1876894381231272307
: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.] 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. ] 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Warning:''' you are being ]. Please stop. ] 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 ] 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? ] 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Your shows you have been a registered member here less than seven hours. Your was to revert a deleted criticism, your to expand an existing one, your third to set up a talk page, and your to add two completely new criticism paragraphs. You , and in your very first talk contribution ever on Misplaced Pages you , then later, , told me to "take my own advice", , said I am to defend my position, and in the edit for which I gave you a civility warning, . 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] and ], 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. ] 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
::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.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::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:
::<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
::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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 16:39, 5 January 2016 (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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>3:28, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


== A little bit of bias here? ==
::::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 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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 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 ] to the partisan claim that he is a bad journalist. ] 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


This article contains 2,365 characters in the praise section and 14,560 in the criticism section. ] (]) 17:23, 14 February 2016 (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 "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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 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." Misplaced Pages 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.] 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


:However each of the criticism paragraphs has rebuttal info from Stossel. – ] (]) 19:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I completely agree that Misplaced Pages 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.
:: A few words of 'rebuttal' do not seem to address a six to one balance against. Does this article violate ]? ] (]) 03:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


== Felons ==
::::::::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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 10:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The lady talking about Felons applying for jobs is only half right.
::::::::::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. ] 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure (Have you been convicted of a crime) has been removed from job
applications ,But if their application is accepted .
They do a back ground check & you are disqualified.
My daughter has a college degree & is a felon due to procession
of drugs. She can't get a decent job to save her life! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== External links modified ==
:::::::::::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''.) ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== 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. ] requires ''reliable secondary sources'' in biographies. So, with that in mind, here's a little info about Media Matters:


I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:Media Matters' CEO, ], has admitted to intentionally lying and intentionally defaming people—such as ]—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. --] 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://query.nytimes.comgst/fullpage.html?res=9804E3DA133FF937A2575BC0A9669C8B63
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711102508/http://dynamic.abc.go.com/fep/player?i=1&aff=&partner=&show=&episode= to http://dynamic.abc.go.com/fep/player?i=1&aff=&partner=&show=&episode=
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://m.foxbusiness.com/quickPage.html?page=26798


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
Posted regarding the Health Care Criticism section:


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
: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 ] 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 ] and he was ''advocating'' ] 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. --] 04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
::'''Here's another example of Media Matters' distortions.''' Media Matters says, "Stossel failed to report that the World Health Organization ranks both countries ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems." Media Matters is talking specifically about his ''Good Morning America'' appearance, but Stossel explained on 20/20 why the World Health Organization report is misleading. In addition, three weeks prior to Media Matters' criticism, Stossel had also discussed the World Health Organization report . 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."


== Time to reassess GA status ==
::'''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? --] 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Lots of deadlinks, which I have tagged. Given such, is it time to GAR? If the bots don't rescue the deadlinks soon, I think we should. – ] (]) 15:51, 30 July 2017 (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. --] 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
: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 ; I won't recopy it, but it applies to much of what you've repeated here.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
: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 ], 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.


I have just modified 16 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:'''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.)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318190510/http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/3960248-421/fox-anchor-identifies-with-the-kings-speech.html to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/3960248-421/fox-anchor-identifies-with-the-kings-speech.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://m.foxbusiness.com/quickPage.html?page=26798
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908024554/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/john_stossel_leaving_abc_for_fox_130603.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/john_stossel_leaving_abc_for_fox_130603.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412092355/http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/04/no-they-cant to http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/04/no-they-cant
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926223859/http://www.mediatransparency.org/reprints/brill_stossel.htm to http://www.mediatransparency.org/reprints/brill_stossel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009192241/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp to http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213004835/http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/lower-and-simplify-taxes.html to http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/lower-and-simplify-taxes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504021248/http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2006/may/25/2006-05-25/ to http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2006/may/25/2006-05-25/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928065042/http://www.markskousen.com/article.php?id=1141 to http://www.markskousen.com/article.php?id=1141
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114002733/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134 to http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926223859/http://www.mediatransparency.org/reprints/brill_stossel.htm to http://www.mediatransparency.org/reprints/brill_stossel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212123640/http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-response.html to http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-response.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929130725/<nowiki>http://www.ewg.org/reports/givemeafake</nowiki> to <nowiki>http://www.ewg.org/reports/givemeafake</nowiki>
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011070420/http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10226 to http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10226
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609022304/http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html to http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901231342/http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/ to http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:'''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 Misplaced Pages 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.)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:'''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. ] 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.


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 17:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
: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 ]. 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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 09:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


== Dead link reference to FAIR issue ==
::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 Misplaced Pages (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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:22, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


The link is available at
----
http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/stossel-tampers-with-the-facts/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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.] 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


== DDT ==
: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. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Should Stossel's opinion on DDT be mentioned in the article like this, without adding that the scientific community disagrees with him, as can be seen in the ] article? In the global warming paragraph, science gets its say in response to his bullshit. (Inventing the motive "public attention" for those who are on the side of the mainstream and calling them names does not really counter any of the scientific evidence they have. The guy is just bluffing, like all the other denialists.)


I have to admit I did not find any good sources responding to him specifically. Anybody else? --] (]) 12:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
== Requested edit protect ==


== Secondhand smoke ==
I've of the derogatory information, and .
"In 2014, Stossel falsely claimed, "There is no good data showing secondhand smoke kills people." There is a scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful."


The link given to support an assertion of a 'consensus' on the dangers of 'secondhand smoke' does not provide 'good data'. Merely mentioning something is not remotely 'evidence!--] (]) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Although I believe all five of the most contentious paragraphs need to go, I am only removing the two most appropriate at this time that are not covered by ]. This would only be my third removal of the material in 24 hours, but I don't even want to get close to 3RR. In fact, I shouldn't have to deal with this kind of material even once, much less three times. As per ], ''"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material...about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles"'' and "the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal." We're not even supposed to be ''talking'' bout this, much less edit warring over it. If anyone cannot see why is a bogus source for impugning the integrity of a living journalist, it seems to be time for administrators to step in.


== Opinion on whether to start new section or not for Facebook libel actions ==
People are not taking BLP seriously. I have been trying to help as a neutral party who is not interested in the outcome other than to maintain Misplaced Pages policy standards. However, it appears that there is no middle ground. For me to continue insisting on BLP compliance I would have to get sucked into an edit war on an issue that I have no stake in. I am therefore going to bow out for the moment and let Misplaced Pages's dispute-related procedures take their course. ] 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


I just added ] covering Stossels libel suit against facebook, I put it under the sub-section critiszm & controversy, but wanted to know if other editors felt it warranted its own section? I could see this being quite a big deal and pretty notable, especially once the verdict comes out. Perhaps keep it in the subsection for now as to not give into ]. Appreciate any input in advance. ] (]) 04:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
:The press release that you savage as an alleged "bogus source" makes factual assertions (about what Stossel said and about the real world) and expresses opinions based on that analysis. The distinction is crucial.


== Number of Emmys won by Stossell ==
:For example, you've removed the passage about Stossel's false report concerning Parkinson's Disease and AIDS. The press release doesn't say, "We're FAIR and we're experts on public health, so when we tell you that Stossel is wrong, you should believe us." If that were the pitch, then whether FAIR is a "partisan organization" might be relevant to assessing the weight of the critique (although that fact wouldn't be dispositive; environmental groups and trade associations can reasonably be cited as sources for areas within their expertise, provided that the source is properly identified whenever the point at issue is contentious). What the FAIR press release ''actually'' says, though, is that (1) Stossel said Parkinson's Disease kills more people than AIDS; and (2) AIDS is on the CDC's list of top causes of death, and Parkinson's Disease isn't. I see no reason to believe that FAIR would lie about two points that are so easy to check. (Your completely unsubstantiated impugnment of FAIR's integrity is itself arguably a BLP violation, but let that pass for the moment.) Consider all of Stossel's/ABC's resources, plus outfits like the misleadingly named ] that try to depict the corporate media as biased toward the ''left'' (!), plus the numerous right-wing columnists who would love to discredit FAIR any way they could. Do you believe that no one would have called out FAIR on this if FAIR were misreporting either Stossel's broadcast or the CDC data? Could FAIR have survived this long as a prominent media watchdog group if it made a practice of lying about what a broadcast actually said or about the contents of published government reports?


] has removed the reference to John Stossel's winning of 19 Emmys with the following edit note: "According to his imdb site, John Stossel has only won a single Emmy." I appreciate that Olafurtorfi took the time to explain his reasoning, as it allowed me to look into the matter myself.
:It's a completely knee-jerk application of BLP to say, in effect, that FAIR doesn't exist, and to remove such passages without regard to the ''nature'' of the reliance being placed on FAIR. For most or all of these items, it's not as if FAIR were claiming to have inside information that's not publicly available. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


And indeed, just as Olafurtorfi noted, imdb only lists the one Emmy. However, imdb, while more specialized than Misplaced Pages, is certainly not inherently more accurate. My understanding is that imdb also is edited by (some) users, but with Misplaced Pages's number of contributors being several orders of magnitude greater, accuracy is more likely to be achieved. Still, it was just the word of one user-edited website over another, so I looked for more.
::There is nothing knee jerk about removing defamatory sources about living people. If the words of BLP mean anything it is to eschew this kind of material. The press release may serve its purpose in the world of politics and punditry, but it is indeed bogus as a source of contentious information in Misplaced Pages about a living person. The headline of the piece is "Stossel's Distortions Finally Catching Up With Him?" and in the very first sentence it accuses him of "fabricated evidence and distorted facts." In other words, lying. The merit of whatever else it may say is beside the point, it is an attack piece. With all due respect, trying to defend a partisan press release that accuses someone of lying as a reliable source is arguing the untenable. You also seem to be arguing that Misplaced Pages is the place to build a case for who got their facts wrong. That's not the function of a Misplaced Pages article. We traffic in knowledge, not facts. ] 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The only place I could find in five minutes of searching that quoted Stossel as winning 19 Emmys was a tweet that he issued himself in which he mentioned wanting to give them all back. I doubt Stossel would put such a blatant lie there, but still I looked for more evidence. One thing that showed up quickly was Britannica, which only mentioned that he has won "Emmys", plural, casting serious doubt on imdb. Then I found a book that was published in 1986, while Stossel was still at ABC (where he worked from 1981-2009). In there the writer states that, ''before'' he went to ABC in 1981, while working for CBS's flagship station, WCBS in New York City that Stossel won "a George Polk Memorial Award and Emmy Awards for four straight years". This does not mean he won 19, but it does mean imdb is wrong. I think if he had already won 4 Emmys in the first eight years of his career, it's not implausible that he has won another 15 awards in the 40 years since then.
:::Since this is the third time James has brought it up, BLP does not apply to FAIR or MM. They are organizations, not a person. To the rest of his discussion, per NPOV it doesn't matter whether it is true or not or whether it can be proved or not. Sourced statements may not deserve detailed content because of the weight appropriate; in this case, a primary source single organization criticism. "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." - ]. In these cases, I'm willing to compromise and include the references as an example of the type of criticism, rather then remove it all together. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>17:25, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


I think it's clear that Olafurtorfi acted in good faith here, but I'm going to suggest that this be reverted. I'll wait a bit for comment before doing so. ]]] 14:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
::::Wikidemo, what's knee-jerk is to dismiss everything FAIR says without the slightest regard to what's actually contentious. Whether Stossel is a put-upon victim of leftist ideologues or a shamelessly dishonest corporate shill is contentious. But that's different from something like CDC disease statistics. Do you have the ''slightest'' factual basis for asserting or implying that there's anything contentious about FAIR's statement concerning the CDC report?


:It has been four weeks; I am going to go ahead and restore the 19. ]]] 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::::The headline is irrelevant to that inquiry. You seem to assume that one requirement for being a reliable source under ] is that the source itself comply with ]. There is no such requirement. If there were, Stossel's own attack piece on Michael Moore, headlined "Sick Sob Stories", wouldn't qualify, yet Stossel's views are reported in our article about '']''.
::I would say instead of reinstating facts we can not verify, we just correct it to whatever reliable sources are cited as saying. If we can't find reliable sources stating he won 19 emmys. Unfortunately we should remove any previous statements. As editors we simply just collect information put out by ] ] (]) 00:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


:::I see where you're coming from. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think Stossel's own claim to have won 19 Emmys () is a reliable source. I mean, I don't know that there is an actual comprehensive source that compiles all the Emmys won in all the different categories, other than the ones seen on the prime time awards show every year (which actually represents only a small fraction of all the Emmys awarded). ]]] 08:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
::::The point isn't whether "Misplaced Pages is the place to build a case for who got their facts wrong." The point is that, in an article about a professional journalist, a serious accusation of factual inaccuracy deserves to be mentioned (along with any defense that Stossel or some other prominent spokesperson has offered). These are facts that contribute to the reader's knowledge about Stossel.
::::I've gone ahead and added a source. ]]] 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


== Stossel on Misplaced Pages Edit removed ==
::::Morphh, the organizations are run by living persons, and I suspect some of them would take umbrage at the implications for their professional integrity that are being casually tossed around on this page. At any rate, if you look at my prior comments, you'll see that I referred to "militant" interpretations of BLP, not all of which I share, which is why I described Wikidemo's post as "arguably" a violation.
] (]) 22:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC) I added a section on a recent Stossel piece he did that claims Misplaced Pages's political pages are biased, and an example given was blocking some right-wing sources (while tolerating left wing ones, no matter how bad the point), instead of doing an editors job of looking at the actual content. But the piece covered his Libertarian views as well, and the inference is whether Misplaced Pages is Libertarian and supports opposing views, or has the left-leaning bias of only left friendly views are tolerated in the political areas.


Here was my small addition:
::::I agree with you that NPOV is a separate issue from whether the point can be demonstrated to be true. To take the disease example again, I'm persuaded that FAIR's accusation is true -- for the reason that the vast right-wing noise machine has apparently said nothing in response to it. I think we're justified in simply reporting what appear to be undisputed facts -- that Stossel said Parkinson's kills more but actually AIDS kills more. Nevertheless, if some people are uneasy with that, I could live with rewording the passage so that it makes FAIR's role explicit. It would be something like: "In a 1999 ''20/20'' report pertaining to the allocation of medical research money, Stossel said that ] kills more people than ]. FAIR accused Stossel of inaccuracy, citing the ] report on causes of death, which listed AIDS ahead of Parkinson's." The reference would be the FAIR press release at . That way, any reader who believes that FAIR would lie about the published report will know how much weight to give the criticism. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''''In a April 2022 Stossel did a segment about bias on Misplaced Pages's political pages, quoting complaints of bias from ] (Misplaced Pages co-founder) and complaining that Misplaced Pages won't consider right-leaning outlet "reliable", while doing the same for more dubious left-leaning outlets, and offered examples of what he considered biased treatment of various topics.'''''


The addition was immediately removed by ] with the comment that "rumble is a haven for tinfoil nutters and fringe right-wing p.o.v.'s, it is not a usable source in the Misplaced Pages". Which to me sounds like he was going out of his/her way to take a non-neutral tone, and attacking the source instead of the content. However, the source wasn't rumble, it was John Stossel posting his own video. Rumble was just a video hosting provider. If any provider that has bad content isn't allowed, then I assume replacing the post with the YouTube source to Stossel's video is just as wrong for the same reason. (YouTube is "a haven for tinfoil nutters and first left-wing/right-wing p.o.v.'s"). But I added it, just in case, as this seems to fix Zaathras' stated problem. Or I could post a link to John Stossel's own site (https://www.johnstossel.com/). This is not trying to provoke or play dumb, I'm sincerely asking. Why am I not allowed to provide a link to the source's video as a source for his own opinions? I didn't want to break the rules if I was doing something wrong. (I didn't find the edit description helpful or neutral). Thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:::::Aside from the content, I find it odd that FAIR seems to make almost same argument as Stossel. However, they make the statement that the Parkinson's Disease death rate is similar to AIDS, not higher. Stossel could have a differnt source for his data that put it slightly ahead.. I don't see why this is significant, controversal, or relevant to the subject's notability. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>18:54, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>


:An encyclopedia is not a venue to air one's personal opinions, Stossel's opinion on the Misplaced Pages and bias is not relevant. ] (]) 23:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The link you give is to a ''different'' FAIR(!), but it ''is'' interesting that the other FAIR's allegation that Stossel lied, on the basis that "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." is here (semi-)contradicted by the claim that the "Parkinson's Disease death rate similar to AIDS yet the NIH spends $148 on each patient $3,040 on each citizen estimated as having HIV/AIDS". ''I'' would take it that Stossel got it wrong, but not far wrong, and may have been relying on obsolete data. We can clarify this and I do not interpret OR as prohibiting us from doing so. It is the nature of Misplaced Pages that if we do not provide a canonical treatment of this issue it will be reinserted time and time again, mostly in misleading forms. It is therefor both useful and practical to put a NPOV treatment of the subject in the article, once and for all. If the result doesn't look like a paper encyclopedia, sobeit. ] 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


{{od}} {{Yo|Zaathras|David Every}} Here is some relevant guidance: The essay ] talks about how far removed is the information provided from the topic of the article. (Stossel's various opinions about various subjects are more or less relevant to his article and many other articles. After all, he is an Op-Ed writer. And we get this info from Reliable Sources. Compare – we don't care if Stossel is upset about ] on the sidewalk, even if he says so himself or to friends.) Next ] discusses the principles of due weight, balance, and other content policies. Have Stossel's Misplaced Pages comments provoked responses from others? If others disagree with ''his'' opinions, then we can point this out to balance the article. If the article posts a single comment about WP (supported by RS), then we leave his comment alone. What about ]? I do not see any discussion about Rumble on the ] – it looks like it is a content provider, something like U-Tube. We should not let our personal WP-editor opinions about Rumble drive the decisions to include or outclude it as a source? (Hypothetical example: "When Misplaced Pages was first established '']'' editors said it was ...." Relevant? Perhaps. Noteworthy? Yes. RS? Yes. The real editing question is ''where'' to put ''Pravda's'' editorial opinion. I think that ''Pravda's'' opinion would go into the ] article. In this instance I see that Stossel's opinion of WP already posted. Such opinions need as "See also" type link in this article. – ] (]) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Ha - That's funny. OMG - Reading it a bit more they support Stossel. FAIR vs. FAIR .. too funny. "Parkinson's Disease & The FAIR Foundation: In every presentation given by The FAIR Foundation, Parkinson's Disease is highlighted in the powerful ABC/ADA John Stossel Video. It features another hero in the battle for more research funding: Joan Samuelson, J.D., who has persevered against PD to be President of the Parkinson’s Action Network. Please take a few moments to view the video (used with authorization--high speed connection required). ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>21:32, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
:If reliable secondary sources have covered his criticism, then it can be added to the article. ] (]) 20:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
::Looked for secondary sources, found , . Checked them against the list, RCP is no consensus and Hindu Post is not listed. I think Stossel's opinion on Misplaced Pages should be added given that his column is widely syndicated; this is not the same as Pravda. A better analogy would be ], although I don't think it should be anywhere near that long on this article. Notice that the Sanger article has lots of material cited only to interviews and not to independent secondary sources; for this article's purposes, it is sufficient that his op-ed describes it.--] (]) 00:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:::RCP usage "should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided." The Hindu Post looks pretty sketch, the the article byline "Web Desk", which they describe as "Content from other publications, blogs and internet sources is reproduced under the head 'Web Desk'." So a big "lol nope" to that. ] (]) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
::::The reason for the caution was because "they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information". With this situation we have the primary sources, so it is possible to vet the secondary source with the primary sources. Is there anything non-factual or misleading in their article?--] (]) 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::There's no context, it isn't even an actual article, more like a glorified blog post. Just a link to Stossell's youtube tirade, accompanied by some brief bombast from an alleged random Misplaced Pages editor and noted gadfly (and NOT actual co-founder) Larry Sanger. ] (]) 00:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::In response to your concerns, I looked for more secondary sources and found one. is not listed one way or the other, but I expect it would be colored green if it was submitted for discussion.--] (]) 18:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::That is an OpEd. I think it is time to ]. ] (]) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::It turns out the third link was only a reprint by eurasiareview.com. The original article was published by , which is described at ]. The think-tank is not listed on the list of sources, but looks like a reliable, secondary source. Yet even considering it an op-ed (since it was republished as an op-ed), ] says that op-eds are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Since you want to drop the stick and consider this an impasse, would you cooperate with an RfC? I am open to including this topic in a paragraph describing his former support for wikipedia; which could be cited to an older source.--] (]) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Lol, no. A right-wing Ron Paul-funded think tank is orders of magnitude worse, further cementing the fact that Stossel's criticism of the Misplaced Pages wholly & fully rests in the realm of fringe politics. ] (]) 21:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Letting you know I asked about the sources at ].--] (]) 21:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::Follow-up: By now I understand that this issue pertains to Stossel's hand's on fact-finding, and some sort of mention of Stossel and Misplaced Pages is likely to end up in the article someday, if not by me than by someone else sometime. Before deciding whether it is worthwhile to spend more time and effort on this article, I would like to see how ''El American'' is regarded overall. I think it will be well-regarded, but you never know. ran an article dealing with Stossel's views on Misplaced Pages. Getting a clear picture on ''El American'' could take some time.--] (]) 00:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You brought this up at RSN and lost. Decisively. Nothing further needs to be discussed, and any addition attempts will likely be reverted. Drop the stick. ] (]) 00:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I see that the RSN discussion is now . ] also tried to and failed. ] also and failed. Stossel's accusation was in so "self-published" wouldn't apply if that was the cite. The "weight" arguments are in my opinion weak since opinions, including criticisms of Mr Stossel, are allowed elsewhere in the article without proof of significant secondary coverage. So I agree it's worth mentioning, but acknowledge consensus would be required. ] (]) 17:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Lol, no. That is an OpEd written by Stossel himself. Not usable. ] (]) 17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Misplaced Pages loses credibility, every time some partisan editor troll hides behind Byzantine bureaucracy to promote misunderstanding over understanding.
:::::::::::::::The sum of this thread is that a piece on Stossel should not include his own opinions on what he thinks of this site as a credible source (on him or other topics)? Thus the readers are left to wallow in a misimpression that he has no or positive opinions on Misplaced Pages, it's editors, or what he would think of this very piece when we have direct evidence to the contrary, that is lawyered away as not relevant.
:::::::::::::::Journalism score - Intention misimpression:1, Full Transparency:0 ] (]) 17:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::If we drop the rule that is invoked here, fans of every crackpot will add links to every piece of crap that their crackpot ever wrote. You need secondary sources to make sure that what he said is actually relevant. --] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


== Climate change denial(sorta) ==
::::::The appropriate thing to do is to cover only those criticisms of Stossel that are demonstrably significant as controversies, not those assorted pieces impugning his integrity and competence that strike one as serious allegations if true. I see 2-4 real controversies in the article. Everything else is a mere accusation of error or bias. The final form should be one big paragraph outlining the major controversies, or a short paragraph for each, followed by a one-sentence statement that Stossel has also been accused by media watchdog groups of factual inaccuracies, bias in choosing facts and interviewees, and misrepresenting things that other people have said (or whatever the exact mix is). Accusations can then be sourced for the proposition that they were made and linked to so people can see for themselves, but not cited for the proposition that the criticism is true. If we open ourselves to that, every biography is a potential battleground. I cannot respond to some of the points that seem to be based on things other than actual Misplaced Pages policy. I'll take your word that you don't mean to accuse me of a BLP violation for claiming that an organization's press release is a bad source.] 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


While he doesnt deny it strongly, and I myself agree with him a lot of the time, he seems to have downplayed climate change quite a few times ] (]) 14:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
== The pesticides issue ==


:There are youtubes where he is undoubtedly denying the scientific consensus on climate change. It is kind of surprising for me that exactly zero is written about this in the article. This kind of a flat earther should be described as such. --] (]) 06:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with several aspects of by SecretaryNotSure as it relates to pesticides.
* Role of EWG: It's misleading to say that EWG "questioned" the pesticide result, and that ABC News "discovered" an error. That implies that EWG merely said, "Hmmm, this seems odd to us, are you sure?" and that ABC News did the heavy lifting. If you check the cited source ( in ''The New York Times''), you'll see that EWG actually did the investigative work itself. EWG contacted the scientists who'd been commissioned to do the testing. EWG then told ABC News what the latter's own sources actually said. It's therefore a more accurate depiction of EWG's role to say, "The ] discovered that the produce samples had been tested only for bacteria...."
* How it happened: The current wording asserts as a fact that it was "an oversight". We can certainly report Stossel's explanation. (He says it was "an inaadvertent error"; it would probably be better to use his exact words, although "oversight" is certainly a reasonable paraphrase.) We should not ''adopt'' his explanation, though. We have no reliable source establishing, as undisputed fact, that it really was inadvertent, as opposed to deliberate deceptiveness by Stossel. Therefore, his explanation should be reported but attributed to him.
* What ABC did: The current wording says, "EWG complained the story wasn't corrected in a timely manner." That implies that it was a spat about whether ABC runs the correction now or doesn't get around to it until next week. That wording conceals an undisputed fact that many people consider to be extremely important: ABC didn't merely delay in airing a correction, but rather ''rebroadcast'' the false report, uncorrected, even after having been informed of its falsity. The fact of the rebroadcast should certainly be included in this article.
* Why ABC was so lenient with Stossel: The current wording says, "Stossel was only reprimanded in a letter because Stossel had made efforts to correct the error." I'm not aware of any substantiation for that exculpatory spin. Stossel was ''forced'' by ABC to correct the error. What one of the cited sources actually says is, "Mr. Stossel and his producer, the message said, were punished not so much for their mistake, 'but for the arrogance of ignoring complaint letters that followed.'" That article also notes that ABC's leniency toward Stossel (i.e., not firing him) has been criticized.
In sum, I don't agree with the view that a Misplaced Pages bio article should adopt spin in favor of the subject. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


== Fire Video ==
:NotSure's edit needs to be reverted, because it gets everything wrong. This is so clear that I hope we can even get NotSure to agree and have the reversion performed during the block. And, BTW, Wikidemo, asking protection immediately after you edit is bad form. ] 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
::You'll do well to avoid attacking me. I've been completely open and straightforward about what I'm doing here. ] 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The article contains this sentence: {{tq|In the first video, Stossel argued that "while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the ]", instead primarily blaming government mismanagement of forests.}} Falsehood #1: it wasn't in the video, it was in the . Falsehood #2: Mr Stossel wasn't saying those exact words, have a look at page 7 of the complaint, they are attributed to Michael Shellenberger. (Mr Stossel seems to have approved.) I believe that if the quote had been cited to the original source per ] this wouldn't have happened. So I intend to replace the sentence with: "In the first video, Stossel featured a guest who opined that climate change was not the primary cause of the ]." Any better ideas? ] (]) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
== Archiving ==
:Nobody came up with a better idea. I as described. Inside the cite I included a quote= parameter, with a charge from the complaint. ] (]) 14:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


::Seems to be a bit of the typical Tucker Carlson-ish excuse ("What??? ''I'' didn't say that outlandish thing, the guest I solicited, booked, and featured on my eponymous talk show said that outlandish thing! Blame them!"), to be honest. ] (]) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This talk page takes forever to load. I propose archiving all threads begun before the end of July 2007. That's the first 22 threads, through "Interest group vs. Pressure group" but not including "WP:WEIGHT" or thereafter.
::The edit appears advisable, but I removed the refquote because it did not describe the statement in the broadcast. ] (]) 06:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:::The refquote that Lill5032 was in the complaint: {{tq|Without identifying a single false fact contained in the video reports - and in one instance, apparently without even bothering to review the video at all - Defendants publicly announced that Stossel's reporting had failed a "fact-check."}} I support inclusion but consensus is required. ] (]) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:Later in the paragraph, ] on added {{tq|In October 2022, the federal court ruled against Stossel, granting Facebook's motion to dismiss and ] motion (which requires Stossel to reimburse Facebook's attorneys fees).}} I see nothing in the cited document that directly supports the notion that reimbursement is required, I only see (at the end) that it might be requested. Have I missed something? ] (]) 13:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
::An award of the defense's attorneys fees is required under CA's anti-SLAPP law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special_motion_to_strike ] (]) 01:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Primary sources in the paragraph should be replaced by secondary sources for any interpretation (per ] #1 #2 #4). ] (]) 05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I see that Lill5032 the words about reimbursement, and believe that's right since Ericgoldman didn't show that the cited source directly supported them. ] (]) 14:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:Falsehood #3: {{tq|In September 2021, Stossel sued ], alleging ] after ], including Science Feedback and ], labeled Stossel's video titled "Government Fueled Fires" as "misleading" and labeled another video titled "Are We Doomed?" as "partly false" and "factual inaccuracies".}} No, the cited source says that the defendant wasn't Facebook alone, but Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback. Also there's no evidence that Science Feedback applied any label, they're defendants for other reasons. Also the word "including" suggests others were applying the label for Facebook or being sued, which I don't see in the source. Also the linked term "fact checkers" is not applicable in the Misplaced Pages sense here, since the defendants said they were just giving an opinion (and apparently the actual application of the label in this specific case was by one person, Nikki Forrester). So I propose: {{tq|In September 2021, Stossel sued ] and Science Feedback and ] after Climate Feedback labeled Stossel's video titled "Government Fueled Fires" as "misleading" and labeled another video titled "Are We Doomed?" as "partly false" and "factual inaccuracies".}} Any better ideas? ] (]) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::By "cited source", are you referring to the wording of Stossel's own lawsuit, or to one of the secondary sources? ] (]) 03:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::. ] (]) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I suggest wording closer to Variety's , which is probably the ] in the paragraph. ] (]) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::What "closer" wording are you suggesting? ] (]) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::I ]ly here. ] (]) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Also, the and some other independent RS discussed the dismissal last year. We should add them. ] (]) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes that's bold. Two objections are: (1) My suggestion "Stossel sued Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback" is in my view shorter and clearer than Llll5032's change to "Stossel sued Facebook ... ... Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, were also named in the lawsuit". (2) My suggestion said Climate Feedback applied the label which in my view is more specific than fact checkers, and avoids wikivoicing an opinion (Mr Stossel disputes the term's use), while Llll5032's change keeps the label, with a Misplaced Pages link, and then repeats it. So:I believe my suggestion is better than Llll5032's change. Does anyone else care? ] (]) 19:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The independent RS have emphasized Facebook first and mentioned the other groups much later in their articles, so it is not incorrect to ] and mention them slightly later. If secondary sources say Climate Feedback applied the label, then that can be noted. Your editing appears to rely too much on a single ] source (the unsuccessful lawsuit), so please cite secondary RS instead per ] #1 #2 #4. ] (]) 20:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::The paragraph needed to be updated with RS descriptions from the lawsuit dismissal, so I made another ] edit. per ], so aspects of the case have "{{tq|a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}". I moved Science Feedback and Climate Feedback from the third sentence to the second sentence for better consensus. ] (]) 21:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Since Llll5032 continues to make changes to the section without seeking consensus and despite my objections, I no longer believe I can fix the things that are wrong with it. I'll move on to other problems. ] (]) 22:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::If you make future changes to the article based on ], then you will have agreement from me. ] (]) 22:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


== Conflict of Interest Claim in Criticism and Controversies Section ==
I would just be bold and do it, but this page has been so contentious that I thought it would be more prudent to float the suggestion first. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Not only is it not specified that the article in question is an opinion piece, but the author of that article himself seems to shy away from using the phrase "conflict of interest", preferring insinuation. That said, neither the Misplaced Pages paragraph nor the Salon article point to any scenario that would correspond to the definition of a conflict of interest (namely, a situation in which one cannot treat two simultaneous roles equally, and where one of these roles typically involves the holding of public office). If no one voices opposition, I would suggest removing this paragraph altogether. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>18:58, 02 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
:The bit about "conflict of interest" was added by ] in 2006. David Mastio's mention of "conflicts" follows a sentence about "the fundamental ethical question of whether or not journalists and the news organizations they work for should align themselves with ideologically driven organizations". I agree with CedricJ. ] (]) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
:Me, too. ] 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:52, 18 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Stossel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Good articleJohn Stossel has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconJournalism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIllinois Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChicago Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Libertarianism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconMedia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

Bet with T. Boone Pickens

I really think this article should include the results of Stossel's legendary bet with oilman T. Boone Pickens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ALfilH4RFs&feature=related JettaMann (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to include this, provided that there are outside sources that discuss this information. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edited article John Stossel

I edited the article John Stossel by updating four introductory paragraphs of the article, primarily current resume information, to reflect current positions at Fox Business Channel and Fox News Channel after departing ABC News. I also added outside link to reference Stossel's blog.

--ScottSchaefer (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ScottSchaefer (talk • contribs)

Suggest removal of previously existing section

This talk page contained a section which made reference to inclusion of information regarding John Stossel and Boone Pickens and an alleged bet between them. The section included a link to a YouTube video which does not exist. Further, the YouTube user who published the video was deleted by YouTube for multiple copyright infringements.

--ScottSchaefer (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

His religious beliefs

I have no idea how to cite this, but I just watched his show and he said that he is an agnostic. I changed his religion from Jewish to Agnostic.

I've done it. Bastin 11:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Watchdog groups

The section entitled "watchdog groups" highlights the accusation by the leftist FAIR.org web site that, contrary to Stossel's Oct., 1999 assertion that Parkinson's kills more people than HIV/AIDS, the reverse is true. FAIR is quoted as saying:

"In fact, AIDS killed more than 16,000 people in the United States in 1999," whereas Parkinson's averaged "a death toll in the United States of less than 4,000 per year."

There are several problems with that. One is that FAIR.org and MMfA are not reliable sources. Another is that the FAIR.org accusation is allowed to stand unrebutted, which strongly suggests that it is true, and gives a heavy POV imbalance to the section. Another is that the statistics which FAIR gives are contradicted by the CDC (which is a reliable source).

I don't know whether we should leave the FAIR.org accusation in the article or not, so I left it there. However, I added the actual CDC statistics for the United States, with references to the documents on the cdc.gov web site which contain the figures. The CDC says:

In 1999 HIV/AIDS killed 14,802 Americans, compared to 14,593 killed by Parkinson's.

In 2000 HIV/AIDS killed 14,478 Americans, compared to 15,682 killed by Parkinson's.

Clearly, FAIR.org was way, way off the mark. But was Stossel right or wrong?

That's a closer call. The U.S. mortality numbers were very similar for the two diseases, with HIV/AIDS deaths higher in 1999 but Parkinson's higher in 2000. Since Stossel used the present tense ("Parkinson's kills more people") the question is, which disease was killing people at the higher rate when the program aired, on Oct. 11, 1999?

A simple linear interpolation to estimate the daily death rates from each disease gives the most likely answer. (Imagine a graph, with lines drawn for the two diseases' death rates, from the middle of 1999 to the middle of 2000; the question is, which line is higher at the date Oct. 11, 1999?)

10/11/1999 was 102 days after the mid-point of 1999, so here're the linear interpolation calculations:

Parkinson's interpolated daily death rate 10/11/1999: ((102 / 365) * 15682 + (((365-102)/365) * 14593)) / 365 = 40.815

HIV/AIDS interpolated daily death rate 10/11/1999: ((102 / 365) * 14478 + (((365-102)/365) * 14802)) / 365 = 40.305

The two numbers are close, but the daily death rate from Parkinson's was 1.0% higher than from HIV/AIDS. So, if we trust the CDC's statistics, we have to conclude that Stossel's claim was most likely correct for the United States, when the program aired. So this is what I added to the article:

Interpolating the CDC figures suggests that by the date the program aired, Stossel's assertion was (barely) true.

However, though FAIR.org assumed (probably correctly) that Stossel was talking about death rates in the USA, Stossel actually didn't say that. If he was talking about worldwide death rates, then he was very wrong. HIV/AIDS kills far more people, worldwide, than Parkinson's does. So, for balance & clarity, I also added this to the article:

(However, worldwide HIV/AIDS deaths were far higher than Parkinson's deaths.)

Does everyone agree that this is a good, balanced, factual treatment of the argument between Stossel and FAIR.org? NCdave (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I think what you stated seems good although I'd be interested in the 1998 numbers since those would be the most recent complete numbers available to Stossel and maybe even further back to see if 1999 was some sort of anomaly. Also considering how wrong the fair numbers were it seems unreasonable for their criticism to be mentioned at all especially considering the biased nature of the organization and their grossly inaccurate numbers. Drewder (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a year old so I don't think it is worth spending time researching, that said Fair.org is certainly not a reliable source. Based on my experience I would guess that if someone said something about 1999 that the data would likely 2-3 years old at the time. The right thing to do is research Stossel actual comment and see where he got his numbers from. Regardless any info from "Fair.org" is not worth sharing.Mantion (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Does this interview provide a noteworthy enough insight into Stossel's ethics and reasoning skills to include in the article? EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The WP:RS for his remarks is the Fox interview. C&L simply wants to put in its own opinion, but does not qualify as RS in this regard. Don't use. – S. Rich (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
To what opinion of C&L do you refer beyond that stated by Stossel and his Fox interviewers during the interview? This is, in my opinion, an exemplary insight into how the libertarian rich refuse to practice what they demand of others. How would failing to include this perspective improve the article? EllenCT (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Note, I clarified my statement to say that Crooks & Liars does not qualify as RS. What Stossel says in the Fox interview is fine because it explains his views. But seeking to describe him as a crook or liar is inappropriate. Edits which combine his political views with his daily life (or whatever) is WP:OR, and do not explain his reasoning skills or ethics. Moreover, WP is not to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX. – S. Rich (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, is there any reason that omitting Stossel's own statements about accepting a multi-million dollar FEMA bailout while wanting to abolish it or otherwise make such bailouts unavailable to others would improve the article? Which is worse, soapboxing or whitewashing? EllenCT (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Soapboxing, particularly in WP:BLPs. – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think it can be said with such certainty that looking at someone's stated views, as well as their daily life, "do not explain his reasoning skills or ethics" - 101.169.127.227 (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fairtax

the article currently cites a 2006 interview for the support of a fairtax. i suggest we remove it as a more recent interview appears to contradict such. perhaps we could say he is for lower and much simpler taxes instead? There's always danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax: We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax — or worse, a value-added tax — would replace the income tax then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great that they must retain the income tax, too. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He has expressed an open-mindedness to different solutions to the issue of taxes, including both a Flat Tax (like the one Hong Kong has, as he pointed out in his 1999 special, Is America #1?), and a Fair Tax, as guests have suggested on his show. Overall, he thinks taxes should be lower. I've added both your information and cite and the flat tax info from that special to the passage. Nightscream (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Dead Link/potential POV content in lede

I edited a dead link's content, partially because there was no way to verify it, and partially because it seemed a questionable inclusion to begin with. This was reverted without a note being added indicating the link was broken (thank you for posting an explanation on my Talk page. I do think we still need to address the original issue though.) The content in question is:

"ABC is reported to believe "his reporting goes against the grain of the established media and offers the network something fresh and different... makes him a target of the groups he offends.""

The wording itself is somewhat odd..."ABC is reported to believe.." seems an odd way to cite an ABC article, or to describe ABC's reaction. ABC is a corporate entity...it's somewhat awkward to say it "believes" something. The elipsis and general shading of the quote make me wonder whether there is a bit of (again, assumed unintentional) pick-and-choosing going on. Regardless, I'm not sure that a specific quote, in odd context, that seems to imply a very favorable statement on Mr. Stossel, belongs in the lede to begin with. I'd suggest it's superflous to the summary nature of the lede, and lacks citation. I don't think we need to find a citation because the better option would be to simply remove it. It doesn't add anything to the lede.AT worst, why not replace it with a more generic summary statement, and add some citations?76.238.186.96 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This comment has nothing to do with my opinions on the appropriateness of using the quote. But it is fully cited and there are no grounds for removing it on that basis. A broken link does not invalidate a citation. The title, date, and name of the newspaper are more than sufficient for both citation and verification purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Womens' health

"John Stossel thinks women should pay more for health insurance because “women go to the doctor much more often than men,” possibly because “they’re hypochondriacs,” the Fox Business host posits."

FAIR and MMfA

@Nightscream:, you reverted this edit, but I can't find the FAIR reference in his books in a Google Books search. I may be doing a poor job searching, can you tell me where that cite is? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

His books were not the cited source. FAIR was. I merely commented that Stossel mentions their criticism in his books, not that I was citing that as the source.
Page 198 of Gimme a Break mentions their complaints about his 20/20 story on organic food. Nightscream (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
My apologies for that confusion. A Google Books search for FAIR or "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting" or the like doesn't turn that up. Do you know what the text is of it? We should probably keep the criticisms to actually noted ones. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a noted one: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
As for the text, this is it: "In a headline, a far-left group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting distorted my mistake into intentional deceit: 'Stossel Fabricated Data'." Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
By "noted," I mean "someone noticed the criticism," not just that a noteworthy person said it. Much like we wouldn't put every monologue from a radio or television host in the articles about people or issues, so too we should be careful about things like this, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The material is relevant and sourced, and therefore, appropriate for inclusion. It is not a requirement that "someone else" notice the criticism (although that wouldn't hurt), nor is this comparable to "every monologue" from a TV or radio host, since there are only a few notes of criticism in the section. If you want, you could broaden the citations by adding the criticism on Stossel's 20/20 report on organic food, since according to Stossel, he was criticized not only by FAIR, but by CNN, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Nation and The New York Times. If you feel the material is not broadly-enough sourced, then the solution is to add more citations. Not blank it. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I am more than happy to replace the citation with noteworthy criticisms. Are there specific links you're in favor of? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. None in particular, as long as they adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, which is why replacing this is important. Which criticisms on organic food by those outlets you linked are ones you believe meet that threshold? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "discredited" before "journalist"

Mother Jones and other left-leaning but objective news outlets have documented Stossel's taking funding from libertarian groups to promote such projects as his "Stossel in the Classroom" video series. Stossel has long stood far outside the bounds of what one might consider investigative journalism, regardless of one's politics. Thus Stossel as an "investigative journalist" is quite arguably too POV for Misplaced Pages. I maintain that "discredited" is not POV but representative of the facts. However, rather than this loaded descriptor, might we change Stossel's central description to "Fox News personality"? That is objectively true and a much fairer and less POV description of who he is at this point in time. Johnpdeever (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have facts supporting the changes you propose, please provide reliable sources to support them. Injecting the term "discredited", as you did, is purely POV on your part. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Given the fact that Stossel has received numerous news-related awards, I think the WP:BURDEN is on other editors who propose to describe him primarily as a "television personality". The consensus version of this article has been and is "consumer reporter, investigative journalist, author and libertarian columnist." Consensus can change, but it is up to other editors to bring the issue to this talk page, discuss, and garner support for the changes. – S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section

The Criticism and Controversy section of this page deserves to be updated with more recent material. Regardless of what Stossel did in the past for ABC, what he does these days should not be described as "investigative journalism." Here is a citation for his "reporting" being funded by right-wing donors: Further support for describing Stossel as an advocacy pundit or personality, not a journalist, is detailed here: To cite one recent example, Stossel "reports" by interviewing his own brother, Dr. Tom Stossel, "a visiting professor for health care studies at the American Enterprise Institute," who happens to share his views on what ought to be done about the Ebola crisis; should asking one's relatives about policy options via one's own Fox television program really be considered investigative journalism? In December 2013 yet another of his "investigations" involved pretending to be homeless in order to "report" that homeless people are doing just fine and do not deserve charity or other attention from policymakers; can other editors not come to some kind of consensus that whatever kind of "reporting" such shenanigans constitute they are far from what is understood as "investigative reporting" in the Misplaced Pages article we link to in the first paragraph? Stossel's lack of credibility as a journalist is evident in many other places, and this article deserves not purely a left-leaning critique as I might personally offer but a true POV-free recasting. Johnpdeever 09:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is well-documented and convincing. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not see where Stossel is mentioned by MotherJones. If he is not in the reference, then adding it to support criticism (or whatever) is WP:SYN or WP:OR. The MediaMattersOrg blog basically tells us that the Stossel in the Classroom program exists, is well funded by various organizations, and is successful. But we also see that Zaitchik does not like Stossel. Thus his opinion piece must be used with caution. The panhandling piece is interesting. Stossel has used a single event -- his recreation of a panhandling experience -- to illustrate a point about many panhandlers. (It certainly does not pretend to be an academic study of the problem.) But the scenario does not detract from his other accomplishments and accolades. So these isolated critical pieces are not sufficient to re-write the lede. They are useful to expand the article in terms of criticism and Stossel's activities, but not much more. – S. Rich (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaboration on Emmy awards

The ABC blurb on Stossel says he's won 19 Emmys. We should certainly take an RS at its word--even one that appears to be devoted to promotional content and fan club-style trivia. But I'm curious as to what these Emmys were for, and whether Stossel received them as an individual or as part of a bigger team. We should not delete the mention of 19 Emmys, but we need more elaboration on them. Steeletrap (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Stossel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —Talk to my owner:Online 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Stossel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A little bit of bias here?

This article contains 2,365 characters in the praise section and 14,560 in the criticism section. John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

However each of the criticism paragraphs has rebuttal info from Stossel. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
A few words of 'rebuttal' do not seem to address a six to one balance against. Does this article violate WP:NPOV? John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Felons

The lady talking about Felons applying for jobs is only half right. Sure (Have you been convicted of a crime) has been removed from job applications ,But if their application is accepted . They do a back ground check & you are disqualified. My daughter has a college degree & is a felon due to procession of drugs. She can't get a decent job to save her life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.127.216 (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Stossel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Time to reassess GA status

Lots of deadlinks, which I have tagged. Given such, is it time to GAR? If the bots don't rescue the deadlinks soon, I think we should. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on John Stossel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead link reference to FAIR issue

The link is available at http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/stossel-tampers-with-the-facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfo Hermans (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

DDT

Should Stossel's opinion on DDT be mentioned in the article like this, without adding that the scientific community disagrees with him, as can be seen in the DDT article? In the global warming paragraph, science gets its say in response to his bullshit. (Inventing the motive "public attention" for those who are on the side of the mainstream and calling them names does not really counter any of the scientific evidence they have. The guy is just bluffing, like all the other denialists.)

I have to admit I did not find any good sources responding to him specifically. Anybody else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Secondhand smoke

"In 2014, Stossel falsely claimed, "There is no good data showing secondhand smoke kills people." There is a scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful."

The link given to support an assertion of a 'consensus' on the dangers of 'secondhand smoke' does not provide 'good data'. Merely mentioning something is not remotely 'evidence!--Damorbel (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion on whether to start new section or not for Facebook libel actions

I just added WP:RS covering Stossels libel suit against facebook, I put it under the sub-section critiszm & controversy, but wanted to know if other editors felt it warranted its own section? I could see this being quite a big deal and pretty notable, especially once the verdict comes out. Perhaps keep it in the subsection for now as to not give into WP:RECENTISM. Appreciate any input in advance. Eruditess (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Number of Emmys won by Stossell

User: Olafurtorfi has removed the reference to John Stossel's winning of 19 Emmys with the following edit note: "According to his imdb site, John Stossel has only won a single Emmy." I appreciate that Olafurtorfi took the time to explain his reasoning, as it allowed me to look into the matter myself.

And indeed, just as Olafurtorfi noted, imdb only lists the one Emmy. However, imdb, while more specialized than Misplaced Pages, is certainly not inherently more accurate. My understanding is that imdb also is edited by (some) users, but with Misplaced Pages's number of contributors being several orders of magnitude greater, accuracy is more likely to be achieved. Still, it was just the word of one user-edited website over another, so I looked for more.

The only place I could find in five minutes of searching that quoted Stossel as winning 19 Emmys was a tweet that he issued himself in which he mentioned wanting to give them all back. I doubt Stossel would put such a blatant lie there, but still I looked for more evidence. One thing that showed up quickly was Britannica, which only mentioned that he has won "Emmys", plural, casting serious doubt on imdb. Then I found a book Encylopedia of Twentieth Century Journalists that was published in 1986, while Stossel was still at ABC (where he worked from 1981-2009). In there the writer states that, before he went to ABC in 1981, while working for CBS's flagship station, WCBS in New York City that Stossel won "a George Polk Memorial Award and Emmy Awards for four straight years". This does not mean he won 19, but it does mean imdb is wrong. I think if he had already won 4 Emmys in the first eight years of his career, it's not implausible that he has won another 15 awards in the 40 years since then.

I think it's clear that Olafurtorfi acted in good faith here, but I'm going to suggest that this be reverted. I'll wait a bit for comment before doing so. Unschool 14:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It has been four weeks; I am going to go ahead and restore the 19. Unschool 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say instead of reinstating facts we can not verify, we just correct it to whatever reliable sources are cited as saying. If we can't find reliable sources stating he won 19 emmys. Unfortunately we should remove any previous statements. As editors we simply just collect information put out by WP:RS Eruditess (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think Stossel's own claim to have won 19 Emmys () is a reliable source. I mean, I don't know that there is an actual comprehensive source that compiles all the Emmys won in all the different categories, other than the ones seen on the prime time awards show every year (which actually represents only a small fraction of all the Emmys awarded). Unschool 08:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added a source. Unschool 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Stossel on Misplaced Pages Edit removed

David Every (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC) I added a section on a recent Stossel piece he did that claims Misplaced Pages's political pages are biased, and an example given was blocking some right-wing sources (while tolerating left wing ones, no matter how bad the point), instead of doing an editors job of looking at the actual content. But the piece covered his Libertarian views as well, and the inference is whether Misplaced Pages is Libertarian and supports opposing views, or has the left-leaning bias of only left friendly views are tolerated in the political areas.

Here was my small addition:

  • In a April 2022 Stossel did a segment about bias on Misplaced Pages's political pages, quoting complaints of bias from Larry Sanger (Misplaced Pages co-founder) and complaining that Misplaced Pages won't consider right-leaning outlet "reliable", while doing the same for more dubious left-leaning outlets, and offered examples of what he considered biased treatment of various topics.

The addition was immediately removed by User:Zaathras with the comment that "rumble is a haven for tinfoil nutters and fringe right-wing p.o.v.'s, it is not a usable source in the Misplaced Pages". Which to me sounds like he was going out of his/her way to take a non-neutral tone, and attacking the source instead of the content. However, the source wasn't rumble, it was John Stossel posting his own video. Rumble was just a video hosting provider. If any provider that has bad content isn't allowed, then I assume replacing the post with the YouTube source to Stossel's video is just as wrong for the same reason. (YouTube is "a haven for tinfoil nutters and first left-wing/right-wing p.o.v.'s"). But I added it, just in case, as this seems to fix Zaathras' stated problem. Or I could post a link to John Stossel's own site (https://www.johnstossel.com/). This is not trying to provoke or play dumb, I'm sincerely asking. Why am I not allowed to provide a link to the source's video as a source for his own opinions? I didn't want to break the rules if I was doing something wrong. (I didn't find the edit description helpful or neutral). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Every (talk • contribs)

An encyclopedia is not a venue to air one's personal opinions, Stossel's opinion on the Misplaced Pages and bias is not relevant. Zaathras (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras and David Every: Here is some relevant guidance: The essay WP:RELEVANCE talks about how far removed is the information provided from the topic of the article. (Stossel's various opinions about various subjects are more or less relevant to his article and many other articles. After all, he is an Op-Ed writer. And we get this info from Reliable Sources. Compare – we don't care if Stossel is upset about spitting on the sidewalk, even if he says so himself or to friends.) Next WP:NOTEWORTHY discusses the principles of due weight, balance, and other content policies. Have Stossel's Misplaced Pages comments provoked responses from others? If others disagree with his opinions, then we can point this out to balance the article. If the article posts a single comment about WP (supported by RS), then we leave his comment alone. What about Rumble (website)? I do not see any discussion about Rumble on the WP:RSNB – it looks like it is a content provider, something like U-Tube. We should not let our personal WP-editor opinions about Rumble drive the decisions to include or outclude it as a source? (Hypothetical example: "When Misplaced Pages was first established Pravda editors said it was ...." Relevant? Perhaps. Noteworthy? Yes. RS? Yes. The real editing question is where to put Pravda's editorial opinion. I think that Pravda's opinion would go into the Criticisms of Misplaced Pages article. In this instance I see that Stossel's opinion of WP already posted. Such opinions need as "See also" type link in this article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources have covered his criticism, then it can be added to the article. X-Editor (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Looked for secondary sources, found realclearpolitics, hindu post. Checked them against the list, RCP is no consensus and Hindu Post is not listed. I think Stossel's opinion on Misplaced Pages should be added given that his column is widely syndicated; this is not the same as Pravda. A better analogy would be Larry Sanger#Criticism of Misplaced Pages, although I don't think it should be anywhere near that long on this article. Notice that the Sanger article has lots of material cited only to interviews and not to independent secondary sources; for this article's purposes, it is sufficient that his op-ed describes it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
RCP usage "should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided." The Hindu Post looks pretty sketch, the the article byline "Web Desk", which they describe as "Content from other publications, blogs and internet sources is reproduced under the head 'Web Desk'." So a big "lol nope" to that. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The reason for the caution was because "they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information". With this situation we have the primary sources, so it is possible to vet the secondary source with the primary sources. Is there anything non-factual or misleading in their article?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
There's no context, it isn't even an actual article, more like a glorified blog post. Just a link to Stossell's youtube tirade, accompanied by some brief bombast from an alleged random Misplaced Pages editor and noted gadfly (and NOT actual co-founder) Larry Sanger. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
In response to your concerns, I looked for more secondary sources and found one. eurasiareview.com is not listed one way or the other, but I expect it would be colored green if it was submitted for discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
That is an OpEd. I think it is time to drop the stick. Zaathras (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It turns out the third link was only a reprint by eurasiareview.com. The original article was published by this think tank, which is described at Foundation_for_Rational_Economics_and_Education#Ron_Paul_Institute_for_Peace_and_Prosperity. The think-tank is not listed on the list of sources, but looks like a reliable, secondary source. Yet even considering it an op-ed (since it was republished as an op-ed), Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#News_organizations says that op-eds are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Since you want to drop the stick and consider this an impasse, would you cooperate with an RfC? I am open to including this topic in a paragraph describing his former support for wikipedia; which could be cited to an older source.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Lol, no. A right-wing Ron Paul-funded think tank is orders of magnitude worse, further cementing the fact that Stossel's criticism of the Misplaced Pages wholly & fully rests in the realm of fringe politics. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Letting you know I asked about the sources at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#John_Stossel's_views_on_Wikipedia.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Follow-up: By now I understand that this issue pertains to Stossel's hand's on fact-finding, and some sort of mention of Stossel and Misplaced Pages is likely to end up in the article someday, if not by me than by someone else sometime. Before deciding whether it is worthwhile to spend more time and effort on this article, I would like to see how El American is regarded overall. I think it will be well-regarded, but you never know. El American ran an article dealing with Stossel's views on Misplaced Pages. Getting a clear picture on El American could take some time.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You brought this up at RSN and lost. Decisively. Nothing further needs to be discussed, and any addition attempts will likely be reverted. Drop the stick. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I see that the RSN discussion is now in an archive. PortholePete also tried to insert mention of this and failed. Thinman1949 also tried and failed. Stossel's accusation was in The Toronto Sun so "self-published" wouldn't apply if that was the cite. The "weight" arguments are in my opinion weak since opinions, including criticisms of Mr Stossel, are allowed elsewhere in the article without proof of significant secondary coverage. So I agree it's worth mentioning, but acknowledge consensus would be required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Lol, no. That is an OpEd written by Stossel himself. Not usable. Zaathras (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages loses credibility, every time some partisan editor troll hides behind Byzantine bureaucracy to promote misunderstanding over understanding.
The sum of this thread is that a piece on Stossel should not include his own opinions on what he thinks of this site as a credible source (on him or other topics)? Thus the readers are left to wallow in a misimpression that he has no or positive opinions on Misplaced Pages, it's editors, or what he would think of this very piece when we have direct evidence to the contrary, that is lawyered away as not relevant.
Journalism score - Intention misimpression:1, Full Transparency:0 David Every (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
If we drop the rule that is invoked here, fans of every crackpot will add links to every piece of crap that their crackpot ever wrote. You need secondary sources to make sure that what he said is actually relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate change denial(sorta)

While he doesnt deny it strongly, and I myself agree with him a lot of the time, he seems to have downplayed climate change quite a few times 36.83.180.32 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There are youtubes where he is undoubtedly denying the scientific consensus on climate change. It is kind of surprising for me that exactly zero is written about this in the article. This kind of a flat earther should be described as such. --Hg6996 (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Fire Video

The article contains this sentence: In the first video, Stossel argued that "while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires", instead primarily blaming government mismanagement of forests. Falsehood #1: it wasn't in the video, it was in the complaint for defamation. Falsehood #2: Mr Stossel wasn't saying those exact words, have a look at page 7 of the complaint, they are attributed to Michael Shellenberger. (Mr Stossel seems to have approved.) I believe that if the quote had been cited to the original source per WP:RS/QUOTE this wouldn't have happened. So I intend to replace the sentence with: "In the first video, Stossel featured a guest who opined that climate change was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires." Any better ideas? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody came up with a better idea. I changed the text as described. Inside the cite I included a quote= parameter, with a charge from the complaint. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be a bit of the typical Tucker Carlson-ish excuse ("What??? I didn't say that outlandish thing, the guest I solicited, booked, and featured on my eponymous talk show said that outlandish thing! Blame them!"), to be honest. Zaathras (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The edit appears advisable, but I removed the refquote because it did not describe the statement in the broadcast. Llll5032 (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The refquote that Lill5032 removed was in the complaint: Without identifying a single false fact contained in the video reports - and in one instance, apparently without even bothering to review the video at all - Defendants publicly announced that Stossel's reporting had failed a "fact-check." I support inclusion but consensus is required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Later in the paragraph, Ericgoldman on 12 October 2022 added In October 2022, the federal court ruled against Stossel, granting Facebook's motion to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motion (which requires Stossel to reimburse Facebook's attorneys fees). I see nothing in the cited document that directly supports the notion that reimbursement is required, I only see (at the end) that it might be requested. Have I missed something? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
An award of the defense's attorneys fees is required under CA's anti-SLAPP law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special_motion_to_strike Ericgoldman (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primary sources in the paragraph should be replaced by secondary sources for any interpretation (per WP:PRIMARY #1 #2 #4). Llll5032 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I see that Lill5032 removed the words about reimbursement, and believe that's right since Ericgoldman didn't show that the cited source directly supported them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Falsehood #3: In September 2021, Stossel sued Facebook, alleging defamation after fact checkers, including Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, labeled Stossel's video titled "Government Fueled Fires" as "misleading" and labeled another video titled "Are We Doomed?" as "partly false" and "factual inaccuracies". No, the cited source says that the defendant wasn't Facebook alone, but Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback. Also there's no evidence that Science Feedback applied any label, they're defendants for other reasons. Also the word "including" suggests others were applying the label for Facebook or being sued, which I don't see in the source. Also the linked term "fact checkers" is not applicable in the Misplaced Pages sense here, since the defendants said they were just giving an opinion (and apparently the actual application of the label in this specific case was by one person, Nikki Forrester). So I propose: In September 2021, Stossel sued Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback after Climate Feedback labeled Stossel's video titled "Government Fueled Fires" as "misleading" and labeled another video titled "Are We Doomed?" as "partly false" and "factual inaccuracies". Any better ideas? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
By "cited source", are you referring to the wording of Stossel's own lawsuit, or to one of the secondary sources? Llll5032 (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Lawsuit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I suggest wording closer to Variety's , which is probably the best independent RS in the paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
What "closer" wording are you suggesting? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDly edited the wording here. Llll5032 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, the Hollywood Reporter and some other independent RS discussed the dismissal last year. We should add them. Llll5032 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes that's bold. Two objections are: (1) My suggestion "Stossel sued Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback" is in my view shorter and clearer than Llll5032's change to "Stossel sued Facebook ... ... Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, were also named in the lawsuit". (2) My suggestion said Climate Feedback applied the label which in my view is more specific than fact checkers, and avoids wikivoicing an opinion (Mr Stossel disputes the term's use), while Llll5032's change keeps the label, with a Misplaced Pages link, and then repeats it. So:I believe my suggestion is better than Llll5032's change. Does anyone else care? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The independent RS have emphasized Facebook first and mentioned the other groups much later in their articles, so it is not incorrect to WP:STICKTOSOURCE and mention them slightly later. If secondary sources say Climate Feedback applied the label, then that can be noted. Your editing appears to rely too much on a single WP:PRIMARY source (the unsuccessful lawsuit), so please cite secondary RS instead per WP:PRIMARY #1 #2 #4. Llll5032 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The paragraph needed to be updated with RS descriptions from the lawsuit dismissal, so I made another WP:BOLD edit. I tried to align the paragraph and its summary sentence more with the cited independent RS per WP:PROPORTION, so aspects of the case have "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". I moved Science Feedback and Climate Feedback from the third sentence to the second sentence for better consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Since Llll5032 continues to make changes to the section without seeking consensus and despite my objections, I no longer believe I can fix the things that are wrong with it. I'll move on to other problems. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
If you make future changes to the article based on WP:BESTSOURCES, then you will have agreement from me. Llll5032 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Claim in Criticism and Controversies Section

Not only is it not specified that the article in question is an opinion piece, but the author of that article himself seems to shy away from using the phrase "conflict of interest", preferring insinuation. That said, neither the Misplaced Pages paragraph nor the Salon article point to any scenario that would correspond to the definition of a conflict of interest (namely, a situation in which one cannot treat two simultaneous roles equally, and where one of these roles typically involves the holding of public office). If no one voices opposition, I would suggest removing this paragraph altogether. CedricJ (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The bit about "conflict of interest" was added by 129.15.127.254 in 2006. David Mastio's mention of "conflicts" follows a sentence about "the fundamental ethical question of whether or not journalists and the news organizations they work for should align themselves with ideologically driven organizations". I agree with CedricJ. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:John Stossel: Difference between revisions Add topic