Talk:Kyra Phillips

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kyra Phillips article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
On December 5, 2005, John Seigenthaler Sr. and Jimmy Wales appeared on Phillips' CNN show. See the segment here.

Contents

[edit] Bias

I'm not sure I agree that mediamatters.org has documented her Republican bias. I've looked at what Brock has on her and I don't think it supports that interpretation. It seems to me she just suffers from a pretty superficial mind and inarticulateness. This thing with Pelosi, for instance, seems like a misunderstanding: I kind of buy it when Kyra says "Believe me I'm not defending the White House" or some such. Maybe I'm wrong, though I'm not one to be charitable toward Bushies. But I think she's not so much a conservative shill as a mediocrity with a fancy hairdo. 68.110.199.122 03:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just delete this whole page? It has turned into a puff piece for a puff journalist. The fact is that there is a legitimate controversy around the quality of her journalism, but any serious mention of it (in a factual manner) is immediately deleted. As far as what is there now, you might as well simply place a link to her bio on the CNN website. What is next: removing information about Mr. Limbaugh's drug abuse? Then maybe we can remove the Monica information from Bill Clinton's article. And Iran Contra from Ronald Reagan's article. And so forth. I certainly don't think you need the whole transcript of her infamous interview with Pelosi, but to delete all reference to is makes me think you are more afraid of negative publicity from CNN than you are concerned with the complete truth. (One last point, I genuinely believe that if it weren't for the Nancy Pelosi interview and the play it got, most people would neithter know or care who Kyra Phillips is!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.177.3 (talk • contribs) 13:19, December 6, 2005 (UTC)

You won't make a good politician.
Nevertheless, what was that expression? Put up or shut up. In the sense, who in the world gave you the right to talk about the pursuit of truth? You aren't paying for Wikipedia. --VKokielov 01:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe God gave me the right to talk about the pursuit of truth. I was not aware that it was widely accepted it was something that could be bought and sold. I guess it is reactions like this that has led to so many negative comments in the last days about the credibility of Wikipedia. Sad. Hope you won't begrudge my right to that opinion, too. December 7, 2005|24.131.177.3
You all really believe this, don't you? You really would kill just to hear yourself speak?
How can you speak? Tell me. What happens if Wikipedia burns? Nothing, of course, so long as you have the truth just the way you want it.
The truth can always be bought and sold, but don't lie to yourself and tell yourself you are its endowed propagator and protector. Anyone can throw eggs from the audience. Do you see anyone throwing eggs onstage? And that'll answer any questions you have about Jimbo Wales's interviews. --VKokielov 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
When "the other side" talks about accountability, that's exactly what it means. Don't for one moment think that the authors of any paper encyclopedia were free from constraint. Somewhy -- I can't fathom why -- it is thought here that these constraints are the foundations of fascism. Look around, and color your vision. Not everybody you can piss off is the Mafia, and to think that to smear, even with the truth, is dignified is to posture from a position which you don't deserve to occupy. --VKokielov 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
See User_Talk:VKokielov for my apology. --VKokielov 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


She accuses WIKIPEDIA of “gossip” and distortion of facts especially about her (when it is all true) there should be some mention of that on her wikipedia page (look at the CNN clip) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MavrickDoc (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Vandalism

this page is SOOOOOOO about to be vandalized SOOOOOOO bad Pellaken 20:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pelosi interview

the pelosi interview seemed to me to definitely involve a good portion of bias. she simply repeated any number of assertions made by the white house and republicans, w/o taking into account some of the evidently false (or at least easily falsifiable) nature of these claims

mcg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.11.186 (talk • contribs) 14:56, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent CNN interview

I recently saw an interview including Kyra Phillips, John Seigenthaler, and Jimmy Wales... in this interview, Kyra claims that information on her page (in addition to information on John's page which no longer exists) is false; however, it should be clear that as an objective source, it's okay for a wikipedia article to say that one was "accused" by someone or some group by being something; providing the article does not validate or negate such allegations. The objective fact is that Kyra has been accused by some people as having a bias, and that remains a fact whether or not she actually has a bias or not. As for Seigenthaler, his view towards the first amendment contradicts his attack on Wikipedia in that Wikipedia functions as a community forum of factual information that must, by nature, be edit-able by anyone. However, it is the responsibility of Wikipedia volunteers to seek out false information and bias and get rid of it so that the 99.999999% of Wikipedia that carries factual, objective information can retain its credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.91.111 (talk • contribs) 15:37, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't hear Phillips say that anything on the page is false, she only complains that it isn't the way she wishes to present herself; she says the page makes her sound like "a right-wing commie" -- whatever that is. However, the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to present their subjects as their subjects would wish to be portrayed, so her complaint has no merit. -- 68.6.40.203 06:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The observation by Fennec that "You know what? Her dealings with Wikipedia and the history of this page are not notable. Let's shred 'em." is wrong. I came to this article because of that interview. I think the section should be reinstated alnog with a link to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. 156.153.255.195 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does Media Matters represent "Liberals"?

We have this sentence :

She has been accused by liberals of showing a right-wing bias, particularly by the blog Media Matters

What is the support for the assertion that "liberals" actually do this? It seems to me this would have to be kind of notable or reputable media criticism that cites Phillips as biased would seem to be the source for this; or alternative some kind of poll, or a statement by somebody authoratative or representative of "liberals". It doesn't seem like Media Matters is any of these. Secondly, is the fact that this blog reported what it believes to be evidence of relevant in itself for a bio on Phillips? Demi T/C 01:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The current criticisms seem really week to me. I certainly wouldn't accuse Phillips of any excess of intellecutalism, but a couple isolated failures to ask the "right questions" is awfully weak evidence of political bias. I'm aware that the section cites specific sources, but it shouldn't if we don't think those sources are credible and notable. I don't really see how they are either. The "smear" thing was poorly chosen as a word, but it seems like mere carelessness. The homophobic pseudo-statistics cited by a guest were just that, presented by a guest. An interviewer doesn't always question ever statement that is factually wrong, not should they necessarily. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You have failed to make an argument that Media Matters isn't notable or that its claims aren't credible. 'The "smear" thing' is a fact; how it seems to you isn't notable. That the homophobic pseudo-statistics were presented by a guest is stated by Media Matters, yet you state it as if they somehow had said otherwise. And your opinion as to what interviewers should or should not necessarily do is not notable.

I put the adjective "progressive" before media research institute for two reasons. First, Media Matters primarily targets what it considers conservative news journalists. Second, Media Matters identifies itself as a "progressive" group.

[edit] Target of vandalism?

The current protection notice says "...experiencing higher than normal traffic, and has become the target of vandalism..." Is this true, or has the protection been applied as a preventative measure, before any vandalism took place? Kappa 02:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

  • The page was shown on CNN. As such, it was experiencing higher than normal traffic and as such was logically, naturally, a target for vandalism, whether or not such vandalism was ever given a chance to occur. There is nothing in the statement which is inconsistent with that state. On a related note, however, I couldn't find a more specific template. =D -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For God's sake, line up your priorities!

Do you want an encyclopedia? Or the satisfaction of having wedged your word in?

There are rules. If nothing else. --VKokielov 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Is this a response to the section above? Kappa 05:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean to direct it at you. But there are rules. You know, codes of conduct. You know, for all of Benjamin Franklin's womanizing and for all his other pretty habits, he never stuck his chest out and beat it. We shouldn't, either. --VKokielov 05:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Most of us already understand the code of conduct... - Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am on earth not talking about your rules. I'm talking about the other sort of rules. The rules of the big world, in accordance with which sometimes it's better to heel. Especially when it isn't your skin that's under the pliers. --VKokielov 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm another reader who has no idea what you're talking about. There seems to be some sort of random sentence generator attached to your keyboard. -- 68.6.40.203 07:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. Let me be a little clearer.
What the fuck is more important to you: Wikipedia -- or what you want to say?
And, for all that, I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia's code of conduct the sentence, "always tell the truth. No matter what anyone says." --VKokielov 16:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You have posed a false dichotomy. I believe it is possible to be both principled and not lose WP. -- 68.6.40.203 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Interview

Why was the section called "Controversial Interview" removed without trying to summarize the deleted information? --JWSchmidt 05:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it's not good for Wikipedia just now. --VKokielov 05:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Are we really all anarchists in disguise? Have we no respect at all for boundaries? --VKokielov 05:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what is good for Wikipedia is documented facts. Not what we think some media commentator has to say about us. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"...it's not good for Wikipedia just now."???? So are we to change every article depending on which way the wind is blowing? If something is a fact and notable, it should stay. Period. End of story. Is this an encyclopedia or a PR department? Dismas|(talk) 13:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I never said "every". Any which it is wise to change. And that decision is not up to you or to me, but to the man whose sweat lies in this project. Then his decisions must be final. --VKokielov 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Because we don't need a transcript of this specific interview in this context, it relevancy to the article was slight, it was already present in some of the linked articles... Seriously. We had like two lines on the woman and what she does, and this enormous transcript and accusations of bias- accusations whose notability themself is questionable. It's overkill at best and selective-quoting POV-mongering at worst. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the first person to make a large contribution to an article is POV-mongering just because there is nothing else on the page to "balance" that addition? If a later editor wants to add something else, that is fine. The question was why an editor made a major deletion without explaining the deletion. --JWSchmidt 19:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's stuff in some facts already

Before we start butting heads and screaming about "right-wing bias!" "interview removed!" et cetera et cetera.... we should stuff in some good concrete facts about the woman and her actual reporting. This is an encyclopedia, after all. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Emmy awards

CNN's bio says that Kyra has recieved four Emmy awards, but I can't find any reference to these awards anywhere. I don't think CNN is making this stuff up or anything, but I'd like to see an actual source about the awards in questions, so we can identify the specific awards in question and maybe even provide links to more information... just in case. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

December 2005 "outstanding hard-news reporting, awarded to Kyra Phillips"[1]

[edit] birthday?

Does anyone know how old she is? I saw somewhere that her birthday was in August 1968. If her Kyra Phillips is her real name, then there was a Kyra J. Phillips who lived in Texas that was born on May 8, 1961.--Fallout boy 05:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just added her birthday as 8 August 1968 per this. That date makes sense if she got her undergrad degree around 1989 at age 20/21 per this. Jokestress 00:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no source

"Long after it was proven that tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff did not directly donate any funds to Democrats in Congress, Kyra maintains in her reporting that both parties received funds from Abramoff, which is factually incorrect. Many Republican members of Congress received funds directly from Abramoff, while some organizations he is tied with, have donated to Democrats. Abramoff's investigation, is about his admittedly illegal actions, not those of people he was once affiliated with."

The above was added to the article without any source. Please provide a verifiable source. --JWSchmidt 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

does this woman understand the words that are coming out of her own mouth? KɔffeeDrinkerMcIzzl 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Negative opinion of her by an editor removed per WP:BLP. It applies to editors opinions and to talk pages. GRBerry 19:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced?

What is so unbalanced about this article? I've removed the tag, but if there's a claim that the article's (current) content is unbalanced, we can discuss it here. Neilc 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole controversy section is in dispute.
  • Relevance: It's is irrelevant and does not belong in a short biography, especially one on a living person.
  • Unbalanced: The list of facts provided is a long list of shes "right wing" arguments without any counterbalance. It is even self referencing to the unbalance, such as the transcript from live from on the air on Dec 5th, 2005!
  • Sermon: Semon or story, It either looks like wikipedia is preaching that she is right wing or telling the story that she is.
  • NPOV: Using terms like left wing, right wing, are POV terms in a journalism-related article, especially about a non-pundit.
  • Dubious Facts: Referencing Blog sites, organizations with an underlying political agenda, or irrelevant transcripts.
Summary: I am throwing "the book" at the section. If it has to stay, it needs to be very short and reference 1 or 2 sources from both sides of an argument. The kind of references need to be by people with strict journalism or historical journalism backgrounds to provide proper context and relevancy. It doesn't matter if the section is referenced to the gills, its unbalanced, NPOV, irrelevant...need I go on? Electrawn 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not justification for removing the material you have been removing. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan.2C_religious_and_extremist_websites states "neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source" and that "they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization." So citing Media Matters to say that MM criticized Phillips is acceptable. Gamaliel 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If WP:RS isn't, WP:NPOV is. From http://mediamatters.org/about_us/ : "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Note the use of the word conservative. This makes the source politically biased and unsuitable for use in wikipedia except in an article about MediaMatters itself. Electrawn 00:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
While care should be taken to ensure that the section properly attributes the criticism of Phillips to the critics, none of the policies Electrawn has cited justify removing text because the source is a gay publication. Gay newspapers are not blogs. They're not personal websites. I guess some are "extremist" but being gay-oriented doesn't make them so.
On a side note, the section does not resemble a sermon in the least. Clean it up, summarize where possible, but do not delete it.--Birdmessenger 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the source, a Gay/Lesbian newspaper is a great article for issues on gay and lesbianism. As a source in regards to journalistic objectivity, questions about the objectivity of these type publications themselves makes the source unreliable and poor. Advocacy Journalism and vanity publication come into play here. Electrawn 00:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, that is absolutely false. A gay/lesbian newspaper is a reliable source unless you can produce evidence which tends to show otherwise. FCYTravis 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I just provided the evidence. Vanity Publication, Advocacy Journalism, audience targeting. This implies extreme bias beyond a typical mainstream publication. A counterexample would be use of a church bulletin/publication. Most of those have to be thrown out as well. Electrawn 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, church bulletins are not even the same ZIP Code. You have no idea what you're talking about. Ethnically and culturally-focused newspapers are reliable sources, just as business-focused newspapers like Investor's Business Daily are reliable sources. FCYTravis 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea why the Financial Times is "borderline" or what that means, sorry. Could you clarify? Gamaliel 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced and a little nonsensical. The article says "Kyra Phillips has been accused by peers for not maintaining proper objectivity and holding a conservative political bias. Some examples of this are..." In this case, we would expect to see examples of peers accusing her - but none of the examples relate to peer accusation. I'm just passing by the article, but the "Objectivity" section reads as an excuse to mention a bunch of minor points by someone with an agenda. The examples are mostly uninteresting and arbitrarily chosen. I'd delete the whole section. (The second example says she "just" called a statement "bold" rather than criticizing it. How is that not journalistic?) Outriggr 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Outriggr, attempts have been made to remove the section and seem to bounce back with reversions like a rubber ball. Divide and Conquer was the next strategy, take apart the sources, clean NPOV. Finally, if it has to stay, a counterbalance. With a counterbalance in place, the whole section seems like a "duh" for removal, but then someone restores the whole mess again, and we have to dismantle piece by piece. Electrawn 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


The issue people appear to have with the "bold statement" remark was that she identified an outright falsehood as merely an opinion. (Unknown)
If you have a better way to intergrate these notable incidents into the article, please offer it. Gamaliel 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Financial Times reports on finances issues, opinions by the editorial board about journalism issues are rather unreliable and should be avoided. For an article about Virgin Records FT is reliable, for Kyra Phillips, CNN Host - marginal. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability: A source is more reliable within its area of expertise than out of its area of expertise. The Times is also UK centric and CNN/Phillips is USA Centric. Electrawn 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So only a publication that... what? covers journalism? can be used as a source for any statements about Phillip's journalistic objectivity? With all due respect, that defies any sort of common sense, in my opinion. If the purpose of the section is to recount criticisms of Phillips' ability to be objective as a journalist, we do not need to limit ourselves to journalistic commentators and no reasonable reading of the policies you have cited imply that we do.
After viewing the history of the "objectivity" section in this article, I suppose I'm rather neutral on whether it should remain. Still, I'm concerned that you're imposing a very idiosyncratic reading of the policy in your efforts to remove it. I am also somewhat concerned that you would cite the 'extremism a la Stormfront.org and al-Qaeda' text in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability as a reason not to include a reference to a gay paper that is reporting on a criticism of concern to the gay community (and identified as such in some versions of the deleted text).
(For what it's worth, I do agree with your removal of the ref to Wikipedia.)--Birdmessenger 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It all boils down to NPOV. Biographies of Living Persons must be held to extremely rock solid high standards. Multiple sources from GLBT newspapers, even if true, break the underlying NPOV of Wikipedia and slant the article left, even if unintended. "So only a publication that... what? covers journalism? can be used as a source for any statements about Phillip's journalistic objectivity?" - Bingo. And to further define, a rather neutral organization/publication. This is why mediamatters (regrettably) also fails as a source. Electrawn 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"So only a publication that... what? covers journalism? can be used as a source for any statements about Phillip's journalistic objectivity?" - Bingo. Apologies for failing to assume good faith, but in this case (and as per your comments above to Outriggr) I suspect that you are setting an unreasonable standard (how many publications specifically cover journalism itself?) so that when a source fails that test you can delete the text entirely and claim justification for deleting the text. Whether or not that section is worth keeping, I strongly protest this and find it abusive of the editing process. Please consider finding some other tactic.--Birdmessenger 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about unreasonable standards. However, since the Siegenthal controversy, the standards have been raised very high for biographies. This article itself is linked into the Siegenthal web by the discussion on Dec 5th, 2005. From that point until a day ago, this article read that same leftist viewpoint. Since this article was mentioned in the media by the host herself, expect it to be revisited at some point in the future. By that time, the article needs to a featured article candidate!
The litimus test is to take an extreme leftist or conservative position and attack the sources and composition of the article as a blogger would do. If you can make any direct or implied bias to text or sources, throw it out. Other types of articles, the test may be looser. Electrawn 01:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is perhaps indirectly related to the above, but one thing should be corrected in the "objectivity" section right now for the sake of accuracy: very few of those criticisms are being made by her peers (that is, other journalists). Regardless of disputes over this section, someone should probably delete that statement as soon as possible.--Birdmessenger 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, very few of the criticisms actually directly deal with her objectivity, a possible journalism ethics breach. The references/examples cited just prove her to be conservative (or as in the case of the tianamen remark, stupid!), which is not alone in itself a bad thing. Once we seperate objectivity from neutrality, the entire section falls apart. I assume for the most part Phillips has been objective for most of her career, with minor human slips now and then. Right wing commie and extensive "Controversy" on wikipedia? No. Properly framed, its a poison pill unto itself for removal. The only claim of improper objectivity that keeps is the CBDaily citation. Electrawn 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Electrawn, you are attempting to turn this article into a hagiography, not a biography. WP:BLP is quite clear: Legitimate, sourced and notable criticisms of public figures (and Kyra Phillips is certainly that) cannot be deleted just because you don't like them. The events are notable, relevant to her career as a reporter and have reliable sources such as the Washington Post and the Columbia Journalism Review. FCYTravis 13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalists are measured against their own ethics code, not against public criticism of left or right leanings. Please read and understand Journalism, Media bias, Objectivity_(journalism), Journalism_ethics_and_standards and most importantly Historical Method. I am deleting the criticisms not because I don't -like- them (personally I find them interesting, humorous and sometimes disgusting) but because they violate WP:Libel and by inclusion are defamatory. I have never attempted to remove the CJR or Washington Post sources, those are the valid ones. All the others fail. Electrawn 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Journalists are measured against their own ethics code, not against public criticism of left or right leanings. Well, that's certainly not true. Take the article on objectivity (journalism). If you read closely, you'll see that it cites all sorts of non-journalistic sources in trying to figure out what "objectivity" is. That's because journalists are pretty famous for not really agreeing on a single definition or whether it's an ideal or practice.
I guess some journalists wish they could they didn't have to endure criticism by non-journalists, but that era is over.
At any rate, you're the one who changed the section so that it was oriented on objectivity. More on that later.--Birdmessenger 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, further clarification then. Journalists in historical context are measured against their own ethics code. Criticism in itself is ok and is a good thing, but let historians and journalistic academics say it. If conservative or liberal news analysts are a bad thing, polarize America and fail to support gays...that belongs on a blog, moveon.org or a letter to the editor of a newspaper. For most of wikipedia, articles protect public interest rather than the interest of an individual or members of an organization. In biographies of living people, this is FLIPPED to protect the individual against potential libel and slander. Therefore, Kyra Phillips needs to make a blunder on a Dan Rather scale for criticism to be notable. Electrawn 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct, there is a stronger presumption toward sourcing all material to avoid problems with WP:BLP. I am a very big supporter of WP:BLP as my past actions will show. But you are misusing WP:BLP here to imply that somehow, no criticism of this person at all should be included. That is absolutely not what WP:BLP says. What it says is that all material will be scrupulously sourced to reliable, credible sources to prevent the introduction of defamatory material. All the negative material in this article has been scrupulously sourced, cited and referenced. You have not asserted that any of it is false - thus you are admitting that it is not libelous. And as there is no libel in the article, and the negative material is directly related to her credibility as a journalist, it shall not be removed simply because you don't like it. FCYTravis 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Factuality of statements included in the article is not under dispute. Libel and Slander encompasses much more than if an article is true or not. We now head into a legal area. The wording, structure and comments in the criticism/objectivity/whatever section could cause injury to her profession or reputation. If we want to head down further in this path without entering too much wikilawyering, lets take a scenario that Kyra Phillips sues Wikipedia for defamation. Put yourself in a foundation lawyer shoes.
Slander_and_libel#Defense Privilege, Consent and Innocent Dissemination likely do not apply at all. Opinion could not be used as a reasonable defense as wikipedia claims to be almost entirely factual, disclaimers aside. Since the section is subjective...(a controversy boils down to a debate on truth) Truth does not apply. This leaves Fair_comment amd Mistake_of_fact and would be where the lawyers would square off arguments.
From Slander_and_libel#truth: "In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.
Of course public interest is not "that which the public is interested in".
We can defend ourselves with Substantial truth. This involves setting the bar for statements and sources so high as to not allow any underlying potential malice to enter a biography. Clear away any potential for a libel argument to be made. Electrawn 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
When was the last time you took a media law course? Truth is an absolute defense in the United States to any claim of libel. It is true that the Columbia Journalism Review has commented on Phillips. It is true that a WSJ op-ed columnist has criticized Phillips' grasp of statistics and studies. It is true that her statements on the French protests were called "regrettable" by other CNN reporters. We can in no way be held liable for reporting these simple facts. No claim for defamation would be entertained because of the several privileges attached to free speech. "These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. In addition, it is generally accepted in the United States that a sufficiently public figure is "fair game" for all but the grossest libels." FCYTravis 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So what are we claiming here? That she is conservative? That is allowed, if it is a bad thing, it is handled by Media bias. That she is unobjective? Thats more serious, and only lightly proven by CJB source. Calling a disputed fact a "bold statement" needs to be taken in context. It is up to producers and staff of a show to research guests and fact claims, only partially on the host. Saying something stupid like that is only in the realm of a minor human error and while may have caused controversy in the gay community and a minor blip in op-ed pieces nationwide, it is hardly notable for a short biography.
Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#information_suppression. "... verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV." The selection, representation and sources used in the section are biased. "Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other points of view (strawman tactics). " The strong and citeable points against it are lack of coverage of Kyra Phillips in mainstream media. Compared to more controversial figures like Fox's Bill O'Reiley, Dan Rather... her criticisms are minor and much harder to find. This questions relevancy of including the section in the article. Electrawn 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Repsonse

I'm here in response to a broad RFC. I'll restrict myself to materials within the purview of WP:BLP. First, it applies to every page in Wikipedia, talk pages, user space, etc..., not just articles. I have accordingly removed a couple portions of this page.

Second, the burden of showing references to be reliable always lies with those that want material included. It is not acceptable to say "why isn't X a reliable source", you have to persuasively show that "X is a reliable source because...". WP:BLP raises the bar for this extremely high - all editors are expected to remove negative material with prejudice unless it is already clearly very well sourced.

Reviewing the Southern Voice website, I find no evidence of a fact checking staff, an ombudsman, or a way to submit corrections to them. This is evidence that they do not have the fact checking staff that makes the major papers reliable sources, and thus that they are not a reliable source. I compared this to the Boston Globe website, the one for the better of the two daily papers in my city, and with one click from the front page I was clearly at the right spot to either submit a correction or send a email to the Ombudsman. As most of the material in the sentence that supports is also in the reliable source for the next sentence, most can stay, but some has to go. In the next sentence, however, it is claimed that her work was criticized by the columnist. That, in fact, is not in the WSJ column, it is at best original research by an editor, as his article does not say that she should have done anything more or different. So the claim that she was criticized has to go. I've rewritten the sentence to accurately reflect what the WSJ columnist did.

Similarly, in the discussion about the French protest issue, the material was not "written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." If anything, such material should be "understated". It is irresponsible to conflate discussions of live coverage of an event with facts that could not possibly have been known until after the live coverage ended. So I've copyedited this. The Financial Times "citation" is only to the publication, not a specific citation, so it is poorly sourced and needs to be removed. To be properly cited, the citation needs to be exact enough to get to the right article and/or page (hard-copy or web). Until that citation is available, the sentence it supports has to go.

The Columbia Journalism Review material looked at more closely, is a blog by their staff. The key word is blog, as in not a reliable source. So it also needs to go. In an post published before 5pm, the incident is described as occuring "this afternoon" - a key giveaway that this is blog material that is not fact checked, as if the header of "Real-Time Media Criticism" wasn't enough. If this incident is important, it should be found again in a non-blog source and cited to that source. The next sentence is partially cited (to a newspaper and date), and probably could be fully cited at some point in the future, but the sentence it is supposedly supporting now has to go for two reasons - it isn't well-sourced and it makes no sense without the prior sentence that needs to be deleted.


Additionally, the first sentence of the paragraph has no support in the citations, so it must also go as it is a criticism different from the supported criticisms.

WP:BLP doesn't mean that articles should turn into hagiographies on a permanent basis, but balancing the article is not an excuse for using poorly sourced negative material. If it needs balancing, the negative material absolutely must be cited to the highest standards of reliable sources and written about in a responsible fasion. It isn't enough to be good enough to win a libel case, we have to adhere to our policy, but if it isn't good enough to win a libel case that is good evidence that it also doesn't adhere to our policy. GRBerry 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

More eyeballs on the page, the better. Thanks for commenting, surprising conclusions. Electrawn 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not try and claim that the Southern Voice and CJRDaily are not reliable sources. That is absurd. FCYTravis 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. You got the burden of proof wrong, you have to explain why they are reliable sources. The discussion above my comment absolutely fails to do so.
  2. I didn't just claim why they are unreliable, I showed it.
I have reverted to exlude the material per WP:BLP. Futher reverts on your part will be viewed as vandalism and tagged as such. It is your responsibility, since you want the material included, to be persuasive here about why it fulfills WP:BLP. Until you have done so, any editor that sees the material and judges it to fail WP:BLP is expected to remove it. GRBerry 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Then I will explain it. The Southern Voice is a reputable newspaper. CJRDaily is a blog published by the Columbia Journalism Review, a respected journalism education and improvement organization. FCYTravis 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
To submit corrections, contact the Southern Voice using the address and telephone number listed at their masthead: here That took me 30 seconds to find. Of course they don't have an ombudsman - 95 percent of newspapers do not have them either, does that make all of them unreliable? Their editorial staff is most likely responsible for fact-checking. Call up Chris Crain and find out. FCYTravis 20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
CJRDaily is an edited and maintained blog published by CJR - that is, they take responsibility for its content. Personal blogs are clearly not reliable sources but blogs published by newspapers (USA Today's Today in the Sky is another example) and magazines can be reliable sources. FCYTravis 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Now that discussion has started, lets walk through it more slowly, as the above is an assertion far more than an explanation. We should separate the two sources, as the issues are completely different. I'll put Southern Voice first as it has been more disputed. I'll also reset the indenting. I'm also signing each paragraph separately to facilitate threaded conversation. GRBerry 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The Southern Voice web-page as a source - fact-checking. I see no evidence of a fact checking staff or ombudsman when I look at their staff list [2], no evidence of an online opportunity to send in corrections or contact an ombudsman. If the material was also published in the printed paper, then we should also test the printed paper's fact checking quality (and cite the printed paper if we rely on that.) Contrast above with the ease of finding specific ways to address fact checking failures on the website for the Boston Globe website. You've claimed on my talk page that having an editorial staff is adeqate evidence of fact-checking. I disagree. See Editing, the relevant article here, which explains that fact-checking is either the role of the "substantive editor", who usually would not have an editor title, or the "copy editor", which might be for web-pages "Steve Koval", based on their staff list. Please email him and ask specifcally what degree of fact checking is given to Action Alerts, then come back with a quote from his response. Or, of course, get consensus from others by another means. GRBerry

2. The Southern Voice web-page as a source - derivative and advocacy. The web-page that was being called as a source is explicitly an "Action Alert!", which is advocacy. (I accept the statement that the newspaper as a whole is not advocacy.) Finally, the page is clearly based on the WSJ source that was kept, given among other things the second to last paragraph, so for any duplicate material the WSJ article is preferrable as a source. GRBerry

3. The Southern Voice web-page as specifically used previously. (It shouldn't be used unless discussion under the prior point concludes that it should.) The SoVo article does have additional material that comes closer to criticizing Phillips, but read carefully, the relevant quote begins "This is one of the faults of live TV" ... so it is criticizing the medium more than the specific anchor. Its use should reflect this if it is to adhere to WP:BLP's requirement for being neutral, encyclopedic, and understated. GRBerry

The use of this is definitely evolving in the right direction. However, are we now failing to adequately quote the source? The quotation marks currently present are within the source in that form if I recall correctly. Deal with this proper quotation concern in the normal editing process. GRBerry 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

4. CJRDaily We both recognize that this is a blog. As a blog, its reliability is dubious, but not unprovable. The relevant section of WP:RS is WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources. However, WP:BLP says to be very firm about high quality sources. Thus it would be far better to find an alternative source, and the source can be rejected solely for being dubious unless there is a solid explanation of why the blog is a high quality source. If the criticism is important, there should be other sources. If there aren't the WP:BLP instruction that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." may come into play. I think the best thing to do here is look for an alternative, clearly high quality source. GRBerry


  • I further note that listed on the Southern Voice's masthead is an "Editorial Assistant," Bo Shell. Per a quick Google search, "Editorial assistants" are often responsible for fact-checking. So, they might even have their own fact-checker. Perhaps you can call Mr. Shell up (his phone number is conveniently listed on the Web site) and find out for yourself. Regardless, it's pretty clear that before you went off on this orgy of removal, you didn't do one bit of your homework. FCYTravis 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This comment is evidence that you haven't understood WP:BLP fully yet. Editors are expected to remove negative material until it is proven that it is well sourced. The burden of evidence for removal was never mine, the burden of evidence was always on the parties wanting it included. (Additionally, Jimbo would like us to apply that standard to all assertions of fact on all articles, but that isn't yet required by policy.) GRBerry 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Do we need the Southern Voice cite? The reason Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association, in addition to a statement from the American Sociological Association criticizing his research, is also cited by this Boston Globe article[3], in particular the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3. If the Boston Globe locks you out after viewing a few pages, clear your cookies. I would volunteer to re-add this info, with the Boston Globe as a reference, but this article is currently locked. -- Sungrazer 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we do need the SoVo cite. It references the quote by a representative of the Poynter Institute, a highly-regarded non-profit organization dedicated to media improvement. FCYTravis 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I read the Southern Voice article.[4] Since they are quoting an ethics group leader at a journalism school, and no one (yet) is impugning her reliability, it seems the cite shouldn't be a big deal. It's not Southern Voice stating this opinion, it's Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute (and it's a pretty benign opinion, that journalists should "push back"). GRBerry -- do you think that Southern Voice is not reliable enough to accurately quote McBride? -- Sungrazer 00:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In current form as a quote, it is now properly a proper cited criticism. If SoVo is the only source of McBride's remarks, it can remain. Reading the article, CNN made a statement, can we find that as an additional citiation? Investigating the Poynter Institute and McBride, seems reliable, if not highly, as a source of criticism of Phillips. Browsing poynter.org, I found no articles related to Cameron or the source/fact checking in this instance. This cleans up WP:V, but still leaves debate about the entire section WP:NPOV. Specfically, Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression Electrawn 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As to Southern Voice, I'm currently taking a nice cup of tea, but have always said that if FCYTravis can convince a consensus of editors here that the source is reliable then it should be used. Before I came in response to the RFC, Electrawn was the strongest objector, and he appears to accept it in current form. In the last edits before the protection, I adjusted but didn't remove the SoVo material. The most important adjustment was downplaying the bit about Cameron, as some of that content isn't even in the SoVo page and we have no evidence that Phillips knew even that the research was based on work by Cameron. I don't object strongly enough to this source strongly enough to argue for overriding the views of other parties not previously involved.
As to the CNN statement, that can be found at least in part in the already cited Wall Street Journal column, as it was originally made in an email to that columnist.GRBerry 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A cup of tea sounds kind of nice.
I read the Information suppression section. It defines suppression like this: "Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability."
I think the concern is that information is intentionally omitted. However, if criticism is well-documented, and the person and others do not respond to that criticism, it’s impossible to provide a response without conducting original research or inserting the editor’s own opinion into the piece. Take Mel Gibson – if, after the drunk driving incident, he refused to comment on it, it would still be appropriate to mention it in his biography (providing you had a documented, reliable source), even if Gibson never offered a response to the charges.
I don't think anything is being concealed, deleted, or intentionally omitted to slant the section. The only response from Phillips that I know of was on the December 5, 2005 edition of "Live From".[5] This response was in an earlier version of the article, before the whole section get deleted. I think that it should be added again once the article is un-locked. -- Sungrazer 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the article went overboard on the Cameron material - to the extent it was supported by SoVo, it was as "over allegations that he “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research” about gay men and lesbians." (followed by a paragraph on the particular study details) Before my final reworking, the sentence omitted the allegations wording and went on to opine about Cameron's motives for the misrepresentation. That, on the sources offered, violated WP:BIO as unsourced negative material about Cameron that a mixture of material not supported by the sources or written in a more inflammatory tone than the sources. I also think that no evidence that she knew or should have known both that it was by Cameron and his history, it isn't relevant to her performance. What is relevant is the McBride quote, where the standard is independent of Phillips knowledge, or a criticism based about what she did know/should have known. I see thus far no reason to believe she knew Cameron from a hole in the wall, or that she knew it was based on his work, as this evidence was first aired in the WSJ column, where the columnist got the guest to tell him what the source was. If she didn't know it was by Cameron, excessive time dicussing his failings is an attempt at guilt by association. The last sentence of WP:BIO#Critics says to "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." (this statement on WP:BLP links to a no longer extant topic on WP:V), so this whole material seems clearly frowned upon by WP:BLP, and the combination with being partially unsourced and partially written more inflammatory than the source required a rewrite. I'm not convinced that we should mention Cameron at all, thinking it through as I write this paragraph. The real criticism of her work is that she didn't ask the guest to say where the number was from, not that she knew it was from a dubious source and let it go because she knew that. GRBerry 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How about this?
On the April 21, 2005 edition of Phillips' show "Live From", Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, claimed that "children in same-sex couple homes are 11 times more likely to be abused sexually."[1] Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, criticized Phillips for not challenging Adams to find the source behind this figure,[2] a statistic that a Wall Street Journal article later called "dubious".[3] According to McBride, "It is the anchor’s job to push back. You have to have the skills to question. The idea is not to say 'yes, this is right,' or 'no, this is wrong,' but to give the audience some kind of context of where the research comes from."[2] Phillips instead let another guest respond, who eventually conceded that they were not familiar with the research.[3]
Sungrazer 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that paragraph falsely presents that claim as even the least bit credible. For perspective, we clearly need to state that the source for that statement was ultimately a discredited, rejected homophobic axe-grinder who was expelled from the American Psychological Association. GRBerry's assertion that this is unsourced is, yet again, untrue - one needs only examine Paul Cameron to discover that there is extensive reliable sourcing on that man's career. I perhaps agree that there was too much, but going from too much to nothing at all is not acceptable. Also needs a Wikilink on the Poynter Institute. FCYTravis 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't want this to get too long. Attempt #2.
On the April 21, 2005 edition of Phillips' show "Live From", Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, claimed that "children in same-sex couple homes are 11 times more likely to be abused sexually."[4] Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, criticized Phillips for not challenging Adams to find the source behind this figure,[2] a statistic that the Wall Street Journal found was the result of Adams' bad math and research performed by Paul Cameron, who believes that "homosexuality is one of the greatest public-health threats of our time" [3] and was expelled by the American Psychological Association and denounced by the American Sociological Association for his unscientific research methodology.[5] According to McBride, "It is the anchor’s job to push back. You have to have the skills to question. The idea is not to say 'yes, this is right,' or 'no, this is wrong,' but to give the audience some kind of context of where the research comes from."[2] Phillips instead let another guest respond, who eventually conceded that they were not familiar with the research.[3]
Read denounce as meaning "To accuse or condemn openly or formally" (the ASA issued a resolution condemning Cameron, as per Boston Globe article). -- Sungrazer 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
FCYTravis - I understand your point, but I think that the longer the paragraph gets, the easier it is to discount as not being about Phillips. Attempt #3 (the compromise between #1 and #2):
On the April 21, 2005 edition of Phillips' show "Live From", Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, claimed that "children in same-sex couple homes are 11 times more likely to be abused sexually."[6] Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, criticized Phillips for not challenging Adams to find the source behind this figure,[2] a statistic that the Wall Street Journal found was the result of Adams' bad math and research done by Paul Cameron, [3] who was expelled by the APA and denounced by the ASA for his unscientific research on homosexuality.[7] According to McBride, "It is the anchor’s job to push back. You have to have the skills to question. The idea is not to say 'yes, this is right,' or 'no, this is wrong,' but to give the audience some kind of context of where the research comes from."[2] Phillips instead let another guest respond, who eventually conceded that they were not familiar with the research.[3]
I think additional information on Paul Cameron can be incorporated into the Paul Cameron article. -- Sungrazer 05:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is stated in WP:RS "Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines; however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikilink freely." It is not enough to source negative material about Cameron by wikilinking to his article here. Any negative material about Cameron must be sourced in this article to a reliable source, and WP:BLP makes it every editors responsibility to remove such negative material when seen. Introducing the Boston Globe article definitely sources the versions in #2 and #3 above. I think we can make them better, my moving the criticism specific to Phillips' behaviour (which is more important and more legitimate) ahead of the criticism of Cameron, which as guilt by association material we are supposed to be very wary of. I'll do this with #3, but the move for #2 is equivalent. Call it attempt #4, which still has problems.
On the April 21, 2005 edition of Phillips' show "Live From", Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, claimed that "children in same-sex couple homes are 11 times more likely to be abused sexually."[8] Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, criticized Phillips for not challenging Adams to find the source behind this figure,[2] According to McBride, "It is the anchor’s job to push back. You have to have the skills to question. The idea is not to say 'yes, this is right,' or 'no, this is wrong,' but to give the audience some kind of context of where the research comes from."[2] Phillips instead let another guest respond, who eventually conceded that they were not familiar with the research.[3] Later, the Wall Street Journal found the statistic was the result of Adams' bad math and research done by Paul Cameron, [3] who was expelled by the APA and denounced by the ASA for his unscientific research on homosexuality.[9]
What problems do I see as remaining? First, McBride was criticizing live TV in general, not just Phillips, as made clear by the full paragraph at the SoVo. This version loses that, and I think we should put it back. Second, we say who goofed and their likely bias, but not the other guest and their bias. We should be even handed there and include or exclude both sets of biases. As criticism of Phillips, I think excluding both biases is better. Third, as the Cameron material is guilt by association, and there is no evidence that Philips did know it, it is guilt by association material and we should be actively looking for ways to remove it from this article. One way might be to remove some of the specifics about what the statistic was and where it came from, as that would make those partisans who think the claim is wrong feel less need to insert balancing material about the claim. (If the 11x claim should be discussed in Wikipedia, it would either be on Adams page as the that result is her math or as an example on a page about dubious statistics in political discourse. As I read two books on that topic earlier this year, and we have here a WSJ columnist specializing in it, one certainly could be written.) GRBerry 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Attempt #4 looks good. I'm fine with adding "This is one of the faults of live TV," back onto McBride's quote. Regarding bias, I don't think anyone's bias is mentioned. No one is called homophobic, right-wing, anti-gay, or even conservative. It sticks close to the facts -- claim made, claim goes unchallenged, claim turns out to be based on bad math & research from a source discredited by the ASA and APA. In the WSJ piece, even Adams, when confronted for misrepresenting Cameron's (already bad) research, says, "I believe I didn't have that articulated as well as I should have." -- Sungrazer 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I am on WP:TEA from this article as well, gathering thoughts for WP:LPU. Arguments related to information suppression really should point to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, as I feel this hits the mark for what I was trying to describe. Using SOVO as a source for Poynter is WP:RS, however, the statements and comparisons in the overall paragraph are still WP:NPOV#Undue_weight Electrawn 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the CJRDaily cite, CNN has a transcript of this show that could be used instead.[6] Search for "Rove", then read up to the Phillips' quote: "Bob, definitely a major smear campaign going on." -- Sungrazer 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement needs context from a secondary source being critical of Phillips. Electrawn 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the CNN transcript is adequate evidence of the statement, but to include it in the "criticism" in an encyclopedic fashion we also need a solid reliable source criticizing her for doing it. As I said originally above, to the sentence containing the quote had to go for two reasons - first because it wasn't adequately sourced an second because it made no sense to include without the prior CJRDaily sentence, which isn't going to be supported by the CNN transcript. If the criticism is important, there will be other sources to support including the criticism, if it isn't important, we shouldn't include it. GRBerry 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving out the CJR article. -- Sungrazer 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

I agree with your removal of the YouTube links, Electrawn. One is enough to simply demonstrate the facts. I have removed a critical Weekly Standard external link from Dan Rather - if Media Matters for America is biased, then Weekly Standard certainly is, too. FCYTravis 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You can safely remove most The Nation links as well. Looking at Weekly Standard, just by the phrase advocacy journalism, it should be purged from wikipedia. I want to remove the youtube link itself for commercial reasons/relevancy, but most would object to that. Current Event and all. Electrawn 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Citing the edit summary as "remove biased external link per User:Electrawn over at Kyra Phillips. No double standards allowed." could be a construed as a personal attack. Keep civil. Electrawn 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, purging all biased sources from Wikipedia is nowhere supported by official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability never mentions bias, except in regards to editors. The focus is repeatedly on "fact-checking and accuracy." For example, its section on unreliable sources states, "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." No mention of bias, advocacy journalism, or a partisan viewpoint. If The Nation and Weekly Standard have good fact-checking, and are not known for being inaccurate, they are perfectly reliable (albeit biased) sources.
Think about it -- politicians are notoriously biased, but that does not mean every quote by a politician should be purged from Wikipedia. -- Sungrazer 23:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, and think that both Media Matters for America and the Weekly Standard should stay. But clearly, if we are going to remove one, we must remove both. FCYTravis 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have thought about it, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV set a higher bar that make any possibility of a biased source as a criteria for removal. Electrawn 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP does set a higher bar. I have to think more about this. However, in regards to WP:NPOV, this only deals with the tone of the article, not the tone of the sources. In regards to opinions, it states, "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."
For an example of using biased sources in a NPOV article, take a look at Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which is a featured article. The last two sections are replete with biased sources, but the information and opinions are presented in a NPOV way. -- Sungrazer 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Political Humor is a much looser referenceable/citeable subject than journalism. Remember journalists hold themselves accountable against their ethics code. Criticisms of journalists should not be taken lightly or willy nilly as they can harm reputation and status in their industry...as in the Siegenthal controversy. We now have to/should take into account tones of the sources to protect reputation. Attacking the sources as biased is one method, and is a great debate that needs to be expanded to wikipedia as a whole. With WP:V out of the way, this still leaves the article unbalanced and criticism section by Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression. Strawman argument. Electrawn 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In regards to whether the section should be included: The problem, as I discuss in more detail above, is that these are documented criticisms that Phillips has only briefly responded to (see above). We can't make up responses for her. But there's no evidence, that I know of, that contrary information is being deleted or actively suppressed. -- Sungrazer 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that YouTube should also go if possible. If I understand it correctly, anyone can upload material there, making it a video equivalent of a site that anyone can edit. In the short run it is good enough to be a source, but we don't need one link as a source and saecond different one as an external link (the current status). In the long run we know there will be a CNN transcript page, and if it is really important the written media will cover it adequately. We already have one written media link in the Reuters story, and hopefully we can entirely source the paragraph from such text links, leaving the YouTube video as an external link instead of a source. GRBerry 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


I removed this - [10] from the page due to the fact that the video was removed from youtube. Apparently it was taken down for terms of use violations. I tried to find it on CNN's site but I get the feeling that they probably didn't save something like that. Drsocc 7 March 2007

[edit] Financial Times citation

One expressly does NOT have to cite a Web link for an article to cite that article. It helps, but it is not a requirement. Otherwise, it is tantamount to saying that anything you can't find after five seconds on Google News is not verifiable or reliable - which, you'd agree, is horsepuckey. Of course, again, a five-second Google search found several references (including The Times Online) noting that the incident described in the FT citation did, indeed happen. FCYTravis 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Phillips is guilty of a poor comparison, more on the likes of a mishap or gaffe. We can cite the orignal transcript if we have to. It is sure to draw criticism, but please explain why such criticism is notable to her biography? Electrawn 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding what I said above. I said it is poorly cited because it only cites to the issue, not to the article or page. I explicitly said that either to hard-copy or web form would be good. I continue to believe that this is poorly sourced without a full citation, but this may not be all that significant. GRBerry 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
http://search.ft.com/searchResults?queryText=kyra+phillips&x=0&y=0&javascriptEnabled=true . FT back issues require a subscription. I make earlier claims that using FT as a source is outside FT's normal field of view for this article. The actual claim/statement supported by the source itself is just a poor analysis/comparison of the french riots to china by Phillips and is not really needed in the article. Just a notable incident. Electrawn 00:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
When a colleague has to apologize for Phillips to the French Foreign Minister in front of a room full of journalists, I think that’s a rather noteworthy event in her career. Other sources -- we can combine the original Phillips quote[7] with the New York Times quoting the "regrettable" response [8]. There's also this article from the Bangkok newspaper, The Nation (Thailand)[9] (not related to the other Nation). There's this French source[10] Agence France-Presse had an article on March 29, 2006 titled "Un journaliste de CNN à Paris juge "regrettable" l'évocation de Tiananmen". AFP serves its news in French, English, Arabic, Spanish, German, Portuguese, and Russian, but I don’t think there’s a lot of English newspapers that subscribe to the AFP wire service. Yahoo does, but unfortunately doesn’t have this article. And AFP doesn’t let you search their website, but a staff member did post the article on the Liberation blog (scroll down for Isabel's comment)[11], if anyone wants to use this to find a more reliable (and ideally English) source. -- Sungrazer 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times link here can readily be made into a full citation, so it is better than the Financial Times one that hasn't yet been made a full citation. I'd treat the times bit as reliable, and I don't think which CNN person said it is important enough to chase down. In fact, knowing that it was a correspondent is more significant than knowing a specific name. GRBerry 14:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The name of the CNN reporter is Chris Burns. It's right there in the article. If you'd like a copy of the Financial Times article, I can email it to you. There is no byline, so that's why the citation is incomplete. Gamaliel 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is no byline, its likely the opinion of the paper, and can be cited by "editorial board" or via style guides. Electrawn 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the more important part of the incompletion was not citing the article. The citation was only to the paper and date. Anyone trying to look it up as hard copy would want the title and/or page. GRBerry 16:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The page number is now in the citation. Gamaliel 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Incidents Section per Dan Rather

I see the solution to the debate here may be a notable incidents section like Dan Rather. Controversial statements/interpretations can then be left up to the reader. Electrawn 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] References

  1. ^ "Live From", CNN, April 21, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08031.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Dyana Bagby. "Anti-gay numbers game", Southern Voice, May 13, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08-31.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Carl Bialik. "Debate Over Gay Foster Parents Shines Light on a Dubious Stat", Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08-31.
  4. ^ "Live From", CNN, April 21, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08031.
  5. ^ Michael Kranish. "Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks", July 31, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08-31.
  6. ^ "Live From", CNN, April 21, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08031.
  7. ^ Michael Kranish. "Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks", July 31, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08-31.
  8. ^ "Live From", CNN, April 21, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08031.
  9. ^ Michael Kranish. "Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks", July 31, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-08-31.
  10. ^ Youtube: CNN Anchor Flubs Audio During Bush Katrina Speech (English). CNN via Youtube (2006-08-29). Retrieved on 2006-08-30.

[edit] Overenthusiastic envocations of WP:BLP

Everyone, especially those of you wildly misapplying rules like BLP and WP:RS, should read Jmabel's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Libel-Protection_Unit#Beware_of_the_chilling_effect. Gamaliel 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting!

I watched the youtube videos of Kyra's washroom mishap and it was interesting, because look at the time that is displayed on the screen. It shows 12:48 pm EST and 9:48 am PST and it also displays that the show is Live From. However, Live From starts at 1:00 pm EST! Also, after CNN realizes that this is happening Daryn Kagan saves the day and now Ms. Kagan doesn't work for CNN anymore! Interesting!

  • I saw this live...they were running Live From for some extra time (either before or after, or both) that day, perhaps due to Hurricane coverage. It absolutely happened and I can tell you I had no idea what I was listening to at the time. Once I heard "control freak" I knew something was not right. Also, Daryn didn't stop Kyra from what I could see. Daryn waited for the conversation to be over (it was stopped by someone telling Kyra her microphone was on in the bathroom...Daryn was at the anchor desk). Hope this helps!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/y/r/Talk%7EKyra_Phillips_04b6.html"