Talk:National Public Radio/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Mediation

A mediation has been requested by MSTCrow because of a dispute over article content. It would be helpful if those involved (User:RattBoy, User:Calton, User:Bkonrad and User:ceejayoz) could signal their involvement by signing directly below using four tildes (~~~~). This is just to acknowledge you are willing to have a discussion about the issues, with myself as mediator. David L Rattigan 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • — ceejayoz talk 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • MSTCrow 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, but I'll only be on sporadically; might not be able to keep up if the discussion goes fast-n-furious.RattBoy 01:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • older ≠ wiser 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Though I'm not sure how much attention I'll be able to give to this.
  • Sign

Please add mediation comments below

  • Not that I'm itching to get involved, but it looks as if this is a 3 vs. 1 debate; I don't know how fair or constructive a 'mediation' is going to be. Haizum 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's precisely the advantage of a mediation. David L Rattigan 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I've never seen one in action. Good luck. Haizum 21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me start.

First, let me say that I dispute MSTCrow's characterization of my activities in this dispute.

Firstly, he accused me of making a "personal attack." That because I characterized his edit as "unsupported dogma" in this edit. Well, that's hardly a personal attack. I said nothing about the man. "Dogma" might be a charged word, but his edit was clearly unsupported. (His edit had another problem: by putting "misperceptions" in quotation marks, he was, in effect, using the article as an instrument of constructing an argument, belittling the word that another editor had chosen. I don't think that's very encyclopedic writing.)

Secondly, on his talk page, he accuses those who disagree with him of editing in bad faith, writing:

It's not clear at all if the content is disputed because the truth makes liberals look bad, that the criticisms section has to be censored to keep too much of NPR's faults publicly known, or that "truth" isn't even allowed, see disc. on talk page. All three are in bad faith reasons for disputing content.

I can't speak for others, but I've allowed criticisms of NPR (mostly from the right wing, but some from lefties) to stay on the page, in keeping with NPOV.


That-all said, what about the content itself?

It seems there are two issues in play here. The first is: is it relevant to include the poll results in the article in the first place? The second is: are MSTCrow's edits an appropriate "counterbalance" to the poll results?

Is it relevant?

I was the one who inserted the "Supporters contend..." paragraph. The reason that I included it was to bring some objective facts to the table.
Prior to my edit, the section was one of the typical "Criticism" sections found in articles on controversial subjects all over WP: "Critics say that it has a (left/right)-wing bias. Supporters contend that the critics are a bunch of (right/left)-wing loonies. Nobody can tell the truth, because there is no universal yardstick for determining bias..."
But here's a source for objective information about the fruits of NPR's product. Somebody actually found out how well consumers were informed. Turns out, NPR and PBS consumers were well informed about the Iraq war—more so than any other news-consuming demographic in America. I believe that this information is well sourced, credible, and extremely relevant to an encyclopedic reader's understanding of NPR. As schools are evaluated based on their students' performance on standardized tests, news organizations can fairly be judged based on the quality of their consumers' knowledge. "By their fruit shall you know them," a wise man once said.
Contrasting NPR's audience with that of Fox News might appear to be a gratuitous slam at the latter, but that's not the intention. The poll found NPR/PBS at one end of the spectrum, and Fox at the other. The gross disparity between the news consumers' overall knowledge about key current events is relevant and encyclopedic.

I hope to address questions about MSTCrow's edits at another time. I'll just say that, if the poll results are inaccurate or misleading, then they should be counterbalanced. But if they're accurate, as I believe they are, then "counterbalancing" only fogs up the issues and weakens the quality fo Wikipedia as a reference source.--RattBoy 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediator's observations

  1. I haven't seen any evidence of personal attacks. "Unsupported dogma" is not a personal attack, although I think it is in everyone's interest if we keep our explanations as non-inflammatory as possible. "Unsupported assertion" or "unsourced assertion" would have been better, and less likely to cause an argument.
  2. All arguments must be backed up by verifiable sources. Wikipedia:No original research prevents editors from creating their own original arguments or critiques.
  3. If the section is to remain as it is, it seems to me fair that User:MSTCrow should provide a verifiable source that makes his argument. MSTCrow, can we agree that in order to provide a counterargument to the poll (consistent with WP:OR), you need to cite another study or critique that makes your points (rather than making the arguments from scratch yourself)?
  4. I'm not sure we need this much detail at all. MSTCrow, do you think it is necessary to give detailed arguments about WMD, Al Q'aeda etc in this article? My instinct is to say that if a verifiable source can be found that challenges the results of the poll, the most that need be said is something like this: Joe Bloggs [verifiable source] has challenged the accuracy of the survey because of its assumptions about the Iraq War. It seems going into more detail could lead us down a rabbit trail that's not directly relevant to the article.

What do folk think about those points?

Basically, here's what I'm looking for:

  • Rattboy et al, do you agree that if MSTCrow can find a verifiable source that critiques the NPR survey, it is fair to mention the challenge in the article?
  • MTSCrow, do you agree that if you can find a verifiable source that critiques the NPR survey, it can be mentioned without having to go into actual arguments for and against aspects of the Iraq War?

David L Rattigan 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if MSTCrow can find a verifiable source that critiques the NPR survey, it is fair to mention the challenge in the article. <suckup>By the way, Mr. Rattigan, thank you for undertaking this effort. I was skeptical, because I didn't know how you would "run" this mediation, but you have been constructive and fair. </suckup>--RattBoy 12:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note the actual survey questions as posted by Sdedeo above. MSTCrow's statements and sources do not address the actual survey at all. Ideogram 12:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the most part, I agree with Rattboy's statements. This article is not the place to present evidence regarding the factuality of claims regarding the existence of WMD in Iraq or the level of contact and collaboration between Sadaam Hussein and Al-Quaeda (both of which are still matters of considerable uncertainty). IMO, the surevey itself is really not that essential to the article. It could be toned down to remove the fairly gratuitous slap at Fox News viewers or removed entirely, AFAIC. If there are any reliable sources that directly address the survey, then that could be included. older ≠ wiser 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I gave reasons why I think the poll is relevant to the article. Since you haven't rebutted my reasons, you haven't made a case for why you think it could be removed entirely.
I summed up "why" by saying I didn't think it was essential to the article. I personally do not object to it, but at the same time, I do not think it is a necessary component for encyclopedic coverage of NPR. If it is a bone of contention then I'd have no problem with simply removing it rather than engaging in protracted debates about the validity of the survey that are entirely superfluous to the NPR article. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Re. the "fairly gratuitous slap at Fox News viewers," here's why I think it's relevant to contrast the NPR numbers with those of the Fox News audience: by itself, saying "only 23% of the NPR / PBS audience believed those untruths" has no context and, thus, little meaning. The intrepid surfer wouldn't know how NPR compares with other news outlets. (The other outlets could all be insignificantly worse, at 25-27%, for all s/he knows.)
If there's still a concern that Fox news and its viewers are being singled out for ridicule, perhaps the following phrasing would work:
In particular, only 23% of NPR listeners /PBS viewers held one of three common misperceptions about the Iraq War; in contrast, 47-80% of the consumers of other print and broadcast media were similarly misinformed.
That would give context to the poll; the surfer could check the link if s/he wants to know exactly which outlet's viewers were misinformed at the 80% level, and Fox-hounds need not be offended.
By the way, where do you get "both (the existence of WMD in Iraq or the level of contact and collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda) are still matters of considerable uncertainty?" WMDs were not found by the autumn of 2003. They have not been found to this date—Senator Santorum's trumpeting of decades-old, decaying chemical munitions notwithstanding. [1] Similarly, no substantial connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda has been demonstrated. See the Saddam Hussein and the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda pages.--RattBoy 12:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that AFAIC, there has not been any solid evidence that either WMDs have been found or that there was any significant degree of collaboration between Sadaam and Al-Quaeda. But, I am willing to concede that others do not share my opinion on the matter and hence is still a matter of considerable uncertainty. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article actually states: "The question of a working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is still being debated. While some meetings between agents of Saddam's government and members of al-Qaeda have been documented, the consensus of experts and analysts has held that those contacts never led to an "operational" relationship." This is option 3 in the survey. The survey erroneously claims option 4 (no contact at all) is the correct one. If you admit they had even had a few meetings (which the survey hypocritically acknowledges somewhat), then you have to concede the survey is in error. As for the "decaying" munitions, read the article on Sarin gas both here and [2]. They found binary munitions, which do not degrade like unary sarin munitions. The fact that Saddam had them (and had them well hidden) basically turns the whole WMD issue on its head. 69.181.214.118 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As Ideogram states, MSTCrow's sources don't in any way challenge the poll. They are irrelevant to it. — ceejayoz talk 02:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are verifiable sources that don't critique, but contradict the survey not acceptable? Any critique of the survey would necessarily include sources contradicting the survey's assumptions, so this is going to more first hand sources. My comments most certainly do address the actual survey, as it eliminates the very premise on which the survey relies upon. - MSTCrow 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Read the questions. Ideogram 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC) The survey doesn't make any assumptions. Ideogram 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow, WP:OR prohibits making original arguments and analysis. Making your own arguments, even if based on evidence, would mean doing an original analysis of the survey. The policy "in a nutshell" reads: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. David L Rattigan 07:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, ok, then the survey itself needs to be tossed, as it gauged NPR listener "accuracy" based on false assumptions of fact. - MSTCrow 08:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You need to be careful, Mr. Crow. What you see as "verifiable sources" are in fact very partisan. You criticized me for listing Media Matters as a source on the Talk Page (despite the fact that I acknowledged that it was not a primary source, and that I offered to dig up better sources when I had more time), at the same time that you were listing Accuracy in Media and CNS News as sources in the main article. Your credibility will be maximized if you are consistent.
I agree with you, that the "assumptions of fact" listed in the survey are relevant to this discussion. You claim that the assumptions are false, but you make no good case for that POV in this discussion. Santorum's claim of WMDs having been found recently is both irrelevant to the 2003 situation and securely debunked (see the WaPo link given above, for one).
I agree that the NPR page is not the place to debate the whole issues of al Qaeda links and WMDs. We'd be here ad infinitum! For a reference, then, I think it's best to use the Wiki pages Weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, neither of which supports your position. The survey reflects the best knowledge about the two issues, and thus it is appropriate for continued inclusion in the article.--RattBoy 12:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda does have multiple quotes and sources from those who believe the two are linked, while Iraq and weapons of mass destruction also lends credence to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, most notably 'Then on June 21, 2006 a report was released stating that Coalition forces had recovered "approximately 500 weapons munitions" containing "degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" since 2003. [96] "Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions," it said, "filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War munitions are assessed to still exist." [97]' The survey was conducted in bad faith, claiming as undisputed fact matters where which either far from clear or positively known to be otherwise. It is not appropiate to include a heavily biased and skewed survey in the article. - MSTCrow 13:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Crow, what does the word, "degraded," mean to you?--RattBoy 12:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully we can drop this part of the discussion now. MSTCrow has agreed (below) to dig out a source that directly addresses the survey - wrangling over the Iraq situation is tangential. David L Rattigan 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Apologies, withdrawn, Sir.--RattBoy 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem, my fellow "Ratt"! David L Rattigan 08:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for/against Iraq - red herring

I think debating the pros and cons of the Iraq War is leading us in the wrong direction. It amounts to a new analysis of the survey, which is original research. We need to stick to primary sources. The survey itself is one primary source. MSTCrow, it is fine to bring in a counterargument, but it must be sourced rather than argued from scratch. Do you have or could you find an appropriate source that challenges the survey? I think this should be the focus now, as trying to construct new arguments against the survey violates OR. David L Rattigan 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to locate a counter-source. - MSTCrow 10:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, great. That would be the most helpful thing at this stage. David L Rattigan 10:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? The Saddam-Osama Connection: The Terrorist Testimony - MSTCrow 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, The survey never claimed there were no links between Saddam and Osama. --Ideogram 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please ignore ideogram, he is not taking place in the mediation. - MSTCrow 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
He may not be taking place in the mediation, but he clearly is taking part. Is it your place to say who has a right to engage in this discussion in the free medium of the Internet? (Did you tell anyone to ignore Wkerney...or are your rules determined entirely by who's on which side)?
Does your biased source (citing cnsnews.com, AIM, frontpagemag.com, etc., you have no standing to challenge the use of Media Matters as a biased source!) challenge the results of the survey? I can't see where it does. Therefore, please remember the "no original research" rule. Thanks so much for understanding.--RattBoy 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram was removed due to his consistently fighting over an issue already absolved by the mediator, and then entering into a running flame-war with another user. Please do not continue to emulate. - MSTCrow 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Only the Arbitration Committee can decide to "remove" me from the discussion here. Not you. If you want to "remove" me, file a case with ArbCom. Until they render a decision, I am perfectly free to participate. --Ideogram 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Crow, I believe you are misstating the facts. I don't believe Ideogram was removed (how? bodily? from something as ephemeral as an online encyclopedia? it wobbles the mind.) Rather, a discussion in which Ideogram took part was moved to the archive because it was deemed not pertinent and a distraction. On July 4, you committed to finding a source which challenged the survey. You've had four days of determined searching, with no results thus far. You'd be well advised to continue your search, rather than focusing on other editors' behavior. Thank you!--RattBoy 11:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting for the mediator to get back to me on some sources I found. - MSTCrow 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The mediator isn't going to force acceptance of your sources if the other participants find them unacceptable. --Ideogram 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "In February, by providing more fine-grained response options it became clearer that only about one in five Americans believed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but that a majority did believe that Iraq had given substantial support to al-Qaeda -- both propositions unsupported by the US intelligence community. Other polls found even higher numbers responding positively to the idea that Iraq was involved in September 11 or had some type of close involvement with al-Qaeda. These perceptions of Iraq's involvement with al-Qaeda and 9/11 persisted largely unchanged in numerous PIPA/KN polls through September 2003, despite continued disconfirmation by the intelligence community."

This is about what the intelligence community believed, not what a small sampling of newspaper articles stated. The intelligence community is quite clearly a better source than some biased journalists.

Please note that the survey is carefully written to avoid making statements of what is right and wrong -- it only states what other people believe, which is a fine example of the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and NPOV, which you would do well to think about. --Ideogram 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The entire survey is them creating what they believe to be truth without any basis in fact, or even being logically self-consistent. This is why it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for a good resources. For example, it states that a majority of people worldwide didn't support the war, and then deceptively presents an unrelated statistic to prove this. This is exactly a problem of verifiability and trustworthiness. It also draws incorrect and even self-contradictory conclusions about what is "truth" -- for both then and now -- which is a NPOV problem as well as all the other ones I mentioned. The survey is inherently flawed, and should not be used. I recommend finding a similar survey without the unverifiability and lack of fact this one quite obviously shows. Wkerney 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone interested can read the survey and decide for themselves. --Ideogram 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the actual survey questions:

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

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

None of these questions could possibly be argued to be true at the time of the survey. Iraq was not involved in Sept. 11. It had not been proven (at the time) to be supporting al-Qaeda. Weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq at the time. International popular opinion was against the war.

MSTCrow keeps asserting the poll was based on false assumptions of fact. I invite him to specifically explain how finding WMD in 2006 implies weapons of mass destruction had been found as of 2003. Also let him explain how any of his other sources contradict the survey which specifically speaks of the situation as proven in 2003. Ideogram 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, you are not a part of the mediation process, as your name is not on the mediation form, and you are an outside party who entered the mediation process after it had begun. This is disruptive. Also, as the current mediator is missing, I'm working on acquiring another one. - MSTCrow 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Crow, I'll renew the question which you conveniently ignored above: why is it that you criticize Ideogram as "disruptive," but are not similarly critical of Wkerney (Quite the contrary, in fact![3]), whose name is also not on the mediation form? Could it be for ideological reasons? It's not civil to harass other editors for ideological reasons.
David Rattigan isn't "missing." He had a contribution on July 10.[4] I trust that you will not attempt to fix the game by suddenly finding yourself a friendly referee.--RattBoy 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Any interested party can participate at any time. --Ideogram 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say that? It seems to me that would just lead to so many people coming into the mediation that it never gets resolved. - MSTCrow 05:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious. Ask any experienced Wikipedian. Wikipedia encourages the broadest participation possible. --Ideogram 06:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You're clearly out it. You cannot butt into any mediation you find a tasty target to then retard or terminate the mediation's progress. - MSTCrow 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Where mediation concerns the content of an article and takes place on the article's talk page -- it is, like nearly everything else on Wikipedia, a Wiki process meaning that anyone can participate. Mediation cannot dictate the contents of an article, nor overrule any individual's objections. It is intended to seek consensus. However, actions such as disruption of mediation discussions or persistent subversion of content decisions arrived at through mediation would likely be counted as negative factors against an individual if brought before the Arbcom. In some cases though, mediation involving individual behavior (e.g., incivility, personal attacks, etc.) may occur off-wiki. But that is not the case here. And in any case, mediation is inherently non-binding unless the participants voluntarily agree to abide by it. Mediation is a process whereby a disinterested party attempts to help cool down heated disagreements and find some mutually acceptable middle ground--it is not a judicial or administrative procedure. older ≠ wiser 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow if you're so sure you're right, take it up with arbcom. --Ideogram 23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - back in action

Apologies for my recent absence. I will be back later today to comment. Thanks, ya'll! David L Rattigan 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources challenging the NPR survey

MSTCrow is trying to find a source that directly addresses the NPR survey. Hopefully we can now concentrate on that, as a legitimate source directly addressing the survey would be fine within WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Would be great if we can steer clear of Iraq-related discussions for now, as they are only tangential and likely to get in the way of improving the article. Cheers! David L Rattigan 12:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion from yesterday and today has been archived. I did ask that we steer clear of debating the survey, and stick to finding primary sources for and against the NPR survey. Getting back into debating the Iraq War/Fox News etc is a distraction. It's only going to produce original research, which is not what we should be doing.
Just to reiterate: MSTCrow has agreed to look for a source that directly addresses the survey. It would be great if everyone could concentrate on the issue at hand and avoid being drawn back into political arguments. Cheers, ya'll. David L Rattigan 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My argument isn't original research. The survey is akin to finding a website somewhere that said that the September 11th attacks occured on September 12th. It is not fact-checked or accurate, therefore is not suitable for use as a wikipedia source. Wkerney 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop repeating yourself. Your argument was answered and archived. --Ideogram 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Answering your "objections" (Give me a quote! No, another quote! Which part of that quote is the quote?) reduced the thread into an inane argument answering the same questions to you over and over. And over. My central thesis remained unchallenged. (By the way, asking someone to quote himself for the tenth time doesn't count as a counter-argument.) While the use of the study might be appropriate in a discussion about the reportage on Iraq, it's inappropriate for use in an article on public radio. My advice would be to find a similar study that is reputable and fact-checked, unlike this one. Wkerney 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately saying something doesn't make it so. --Ideogram 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW ridiculing your opponent is not being civil. --Ideogram 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. Wkerney 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is over, which was my original point. --Ideogram 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to win an argument by repeating yourself endlessly. Wkerney 10:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Broader input

You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation update

Apologies again for going AWOL.

It seems to me there is still no counter-source against the NPR survey. User:MSTCrow, can I remind you that we are not looking for a source that you can use to build an argument against the survey (that would be original research, but a source that directly challenges the survey itself. If the criticisms of the survey are strong, I find it difficult to believe that no one has written a verifiable report or essay addressing its claims or debunking it. David L Rattigan 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised. I've three times been the only person to notice wide gaping flaws in widely reported storied. I think I wrote something on the subject back when this survey came out, but just posted it on a comments section somewhere. It doesn't change the fact that the survey doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for valid sources. Wkerney 10:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not been able to find a direct argument against the survey, but I am beginning to suspect the survey itself is non-notable. In any case, does it really require someone to say "The Earth is not flat" instead of "The Earth is round?" - MSTCrow 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable? It was widely reported on. Moving to have it removed entirely after not being able to find a countersource smells of bad faith editing. — ceejayoz talk 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't have to go sneering at us. - MSTCrow 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Two things:
1) Us?
2) If you think that qualifies as "sneering", you are sore in need of a good dictionary.
--Calton | Talk 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, we use English dictionaries here, what are you using? Seriously, there's a don't be a dick rule somewhere. - MSTCrow 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Crow! Remember what you told me way back, before you requested the mediation (which turned out not to go your way—so sorry about that, old chap)? You told me "No personal attacks." I'll help you out: what you characterized as a "personal attack" on my part was nothing of the sort. In contrast, your edit above fits the definition of "personal attack" nicely. Personal attack says "Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning 'toward the man'." I hope this clears up your confusion.--RattBoy 10:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Where this mediation is going

My assessment of the mediation so far is as follows:

  1. It was established that User:MSTCrow needed a source that directly challenged the NPR survey, rather than building arguments from scratch (as disallowed by Wikipedia:Original research.
  2. MST agreed to find the source.
  3. MST offered one source, but it did not directly address the survey.
  4. Edit wars appeared to have stopped, with the article as is - with the NPR survey and no source contradicting it.
  5. MST acknowledges lack of sources, but now says the NPR survey does not belong in the article in the first place.
  6. Some personal attacks are made.

Here's my conclusion at this stage: No one appears to have demonstrated (unless I missed it) why the NPR survey is not a verifiable source; no verifiable source has been located to provide a counterargument to the survey; therefore it is reasonable for the NPR survey to stay in the article, and if at any stage someone finds a source that can be added to challenge it, by all means do so. Seems to me that on Wikipedia, dem's da rules - provide sourced information and no original research. Do people find that fair? David L Rattigan 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have found a source that indicates the NPR survey is flawed and dishonest. See The real truth on the Maryland PIPA Fox News Study. This source directly addresses the survey. - MSTCrow 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not so sure that's a very good source- I mean, he quotes approvingly Tenet's "... Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad." as evidence of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda; this sort of cluelessness makes one want to smack one's forehead and groan "No, really?". --maru (talk) contribs 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
We've already proven the connection above, what was wanted was a direct challenge to the survey. We don't want to go back to old stuff that has been moved on from via the mediator. - MSTCrow 02:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you misunderstood me... to be painfully explicit, my point is that if the author of that page can be so clueless as to think that that quote supports his contention of solid and substantial pre-Iraqi War links between Saddam and al-Qaeda and its affiliates, then why should we take any of the rest of it seriously? --maru (talk) contribs 13:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly my point on the survey in the first place. It is self-contradictory in one place, deceptive in another, and wrong where it isn't self-contradictory or deceptive. Why should we take it seriously when it even contradicts itself? If we were writing a math article would we include an external reference that stated 1 is equal to 2, just because it's an external reference. The original survey does not meet wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Any counterpoint (which I haven't read yet) certainly couldn't be worse than the original survey.Wkerney 00:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Prove it. We have the full text of the survey on the web. Quote two contradictory statements, quote where it is deceptive, quote where it is wrong. You have failed to do any of that. --Ideogram 00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, here is the actual quote from the survey:

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

The survey does not claim there were no links between Iraq and al Qaeda, it explicitly states that the view that "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" had some evidence in support. This source of yours was written by someone who either did not read or did not understand the survey.

Furthermore your source is a website called "www.frankenlies.com", hardly a reputable NPOV source. If I wanted to I could find a website denying the Holocaust. This is just plain pathetic. --Ideogram 11:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Or you can find a survey claiming things true that are false, and vice versa, and then using that to talk about how much smarter NPR's viewers are than Fox's. The survey in question is no more credible than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Wkerney 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A survey from a respected university is more credible than a random website. --Ideogram 00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Not when it suffers from the exact same problems you hold with the website. According to wikipedia policy on sources (which you have selectively chosen to apply to this source but not the survey) the more outrageous the claim, the more evidence it should have to back it up. The survey not only doesn't have evidence, but it is self-contradictory to boot. Either the survey fails on those merits, or the new source is allowable. You can't have it both ways. Wkerney 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit the article during the mediation. --Ideogram 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was not edited, only the references. Do not interfere with the Wikipedia process, and do not leave comments simply designed to provoke others. We have been following the agreed upon guidlines set forth by the mediator, and you are attempting to ruin the mediation. So far, you have not been at all constructive. - MSTCrow 20:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have every right to participate. Do not accuse me of trying to ruin the mediation, that is a violation of Assume Good Faith. --Ideogram 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you don't, and now you're trying to start a revert war on NPR. - MSTCrow 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't get to decide whether I get to participate. Only the ArbCom can do that. If you have a problem with me, take it up with ArbCom. --Ideogram 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not participating, you're sabotaging and indirectly attacking the mediator. - MSTCrow 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide. Now, since this conversation is not productive, I will not be continuing it. --Ideogram 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram Removal of Information

Ideogram has been removing a link to the references section, claiming it is not NPOV. I would like to point out that per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, removing references because they are not NPOV is against policy, and views that are referenced, or references with views, are fully allowable on Wikipedia. I call upon Ideogram to cease his removal of information against Wikipedia policy in the future, and refer him to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial to better handle such confusion in the future. - MSTCrow 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversial link and we disagree on whether it should be included. Of course it is not going to be productive for us to revert back and forth as we have been doing. By the way, simply removing a link does not constitute vandalism by any Wikipedia policy, I defy MSTCrow to find and quote the relevant policy.
I object to this link because it is an opinion piece. The opinions of Frontpagemag.com are not notable by any stretch of the imagination. I invite MSTCrow to explain why an opinion column on a non-notable website should be linked to by an encyclopedia. --Ideogram 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow, the link that you mention is not used as reference. It is an external link, which on the face of it appears to be from a rather extremely biased and not very credible opinion blog. I see little reason to keep it as an external link. Wikipedia is not a collection of links to blogs that happen to mention the subject of the article. older ≠ wiser 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a silly link, written in a hysterical fashion. The only purpose for its inclusion would be to discredit NPR, employed by editors with an anti-NPR bias. It should be terminated with extreme prejudice.--RattBoy 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The referenced link is to a notable source critical of NPR, and is worthy of at the very least a lone link at the very bottom of the page. - MSTCrow 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "notable" about the source? It is a hyperbolically biased opinion piece. If that is the best source that you can find for criticism, that is a pretty poor showing. older ≠ wiser 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please quote the relevant policy from WP:EL that justifies including this link. Be sure to read WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:RS. --Ideogram 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that external links to not have to adhere to NPOV, but the question is, as Ideogram said, why should a rant from a fringe website complaining about a handful of NPR stories be included in this article? Even if this screed meets standards of reliability, etc., every short complaint about a very narrow issue involving NPR should not be included. Also, a content dispute is not vandalism and it is not appropriate or civil of you to describe it as such. Gamaliel 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fringe site, it's a rather significant player. NPR is rather infamous for its anti-Jewish animus (as noted on LittleGreenFootballs.com, "NPR devotes 2/3 of its stories about Arab conflict with Israel to anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian voices/talking heads/partisans", while others state "NPR has made it 'official' policy not to label suicide bombers in Israel as 'terrorists' because this label would be prejudicial," so I thought it was worth inclusion as a reference. You can imagine what would have occurred if I had placed it in the article itself. - MSTCrow 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
All of this is beside the point. Read the policy in WP:EL and quote why this link should be included, or it will be removed. --Ideogram 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The link is acceptable, proper, entered correctly, is an article about the organization, contains accurate information not in the article, and is meaningful. Anything other complaints are beside the point. - MSTCrow 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can't convince the rest of us, it doesn't go in. --Ideogram 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazing how your standards for inclusion change depending on if you agree with the source or not. Ideogram, the point of wikipedia isn't to advance your personal agenda. If the heavily flawed survey is allowed, an opposing reference should be put in as well. I suggest removing yourself from this discussion since you just appear to be trying to sabotage the process. Wkerney 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AGF and NPA. --Ideogram 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AGF doesn't apply since you have been prima facia operating in bad faith. NPA doesn't apply because I applied a rational argument, not an ad hominem attack. If you allow one source, you must allow the other by the same standards. Neither pointing out errors in logic nor stating that you have been operating in bad faith count as personal attacks. They are valid points to raise in a wikipedia discussion, and your attempt to use them to shield yourself from contravention just further proves the point. Wkerney 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm simply going to ignore you until you say something relevant. --Ideogram 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
David Horowitz isn't a "significant player" anywhere except in his own imagination. If NPR's "anti-Jewish animus" is indeed "rather infamous", than you should be able to back this up with a wider variety of sources other than the rantings of DH. What does, say, Alan Dershowitz have to say? The Anti-Defamation League? Gamaliel 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
David Horowitz is indeed a significant player. Wkerney 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, proof by assertion doesn't work. --Ideogram 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1) I gave as much proof as the assertion he is not a major player. Again, this demonstrates your very different standards of evidence for people that agree with you and disagree with you. 2) Wikipedia talk entries are not subject to the same standards as the articles. 3) As for not being important, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz. Wkerney 07:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about he's a famous critic of the Left, having been a Marxist radical in the 60s and 70s, with reassessment in the 80s, and became a conservative icon in the 80s and 90s, and is famous for his critical views on anti-Semitism, Noam Chomsky, and the domination of the radical Left in American higher education? - 05:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if we all agreed that Horowitz was a prince among men and not a fringe self-promoting loon, just because he or his website said it doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't make it a widespread criticism worthy of inclusion in this article. Gamaliel 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"...and not a fringe self-promoting loon." Ok, we know your POV and bais. Knowledgable and self-contained users are desired here. It is a wide-spread criticsm, simply look at sites such as CAMERA.org or HonestReporting.org to get up to speed. - MSTCrow 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. Everyone's biased but you. Gamaliel 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Single-minded pressure groups as source for saying criticism is "wide-spread"? Snort. Pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League has this to say about NPR:

  1. "Jennifer Ludden's report on the life of Yasir Arafat (Morning Edition, November 11) was shocking in its whitewashing of Arafat's record on terrorism and peacemaking"
  2. "In a letter to National Public Radio, the Anti-Defamation League expressed disappointment with the recent seven-part series, The Mideast: A Century of Conflict...ADL noted endemic problems that would lead listeners to develop serious misperceptions about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
  3. "National Public Radio broadcast more than 15 segments about Jenin in April. NPR focused on the mistreatment and suffering of Palestinians without sufficiently explaining the reasons for Israeli actions or the complicity of Palestinian terrorists in the punishment inflicted on the camp’s population."

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe columnist, had this to say about NPR:

  1. "If you want to see Israel blamed, listen to NPR."

So, the record of NPRs anti-Israel and/or anti-Jewish trending is not at all held by only a small minority of the population, but is a widespread and well-known charge. As it is such an important issue that is widely public, it should be included in the article. The fact that some users do not agree that NPR is as such does not proscribe such information from inclusion. - MSTCrow 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide adequate citations for these quotes, we can include material referencing them in the article. --Ideogram 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Horowitz isn't enough to base anything on, but this material seems reasonable. Gamaliel 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NPR Report Whitewashes Arafat, ADL Analysis: Concerns with NPR's The Mideast: A Century of Conflict, [http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/jenin.pdf Anatomy of Anti-Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn't] and Alan Dershowitz is Wrong About the Right….and the Left. - MSTCrow 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we can include the links to the Anti-Defamation League website with a comment like "The Anti-Defamation League has criticized NPR as having an anti-Israel bias." The last link is to a bulletin board and is not appropriate. Of course you also have to get the agreement of the other editors on this. --Ideogram 02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow adding links

MSTCrow you aren't going to get anywhere by adding controversial links, simply because there are more than enough editors willing to remove them that you will fail 3RR. If you want to add these links, you have to discuss them and achieve consensus. --Ideogram 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR is not a right, and revision wars should be avoided whenever possible. Wkerney 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram Blanking Section

Well, ideogram, what problems do you have now with a fully sourced and NPOV-phrased section in NPR? Also, note that blanking an article or section is a form of vandalism per WP:Vandalism. If you have a problem with a section, add the appropriate tag over it and discuss it in talk. Do not blank. - MSTCrow 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, you have again blanked the section and not even left a note here, but you have the admin Bishonen on your side, who has shown himself to be so partisan as to pretend 2 reverts is 3, so I have forwarded you to the ArbCom for your blanking vandalism and destruction of the mediation process. - MSTCrow 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen can count. You can't. Your problem, not ours. --Calton | Talk 08:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on The Mediation

When I first came across the NPR article, I didn't know the section was under mediation. As someone that corrects obvious errors in wikipedia out of habit, I changed the PIPA reference, knowing it as a heavily flawed source. It got reverted, so I checked the talk page and saw it was under mediation. IMO, the mediation has gone on long enough (the recommended time period is 2-10 days),

You have no concept of how mediation operates. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

and one or two users have been operating in bad faith, further complicating the issue. I propose one of the the following four solutions (in order of my preference):

1) Since users like me (that know the PIPA survey is flawed) are perhaps not uncommon, if the reference is left in, it will continually get removed as people attempt to fix it. Any reference that will cause long-term edit wars should be scrutinized closely. I propose is we find a similar survey that is not self-contradictory/wrong.

2) Alternatively, we delete it as we already have information on the differences in education levels in NPR, which is all we really need to talk about. The reference is somewhat redundant to the existing statements on education level.

3) This is an article on NPR, not on the Iraq war. Highlighting very controversial issues like WMDs in Iraq will undoubtedly bring the conversation on the article off-track time and time again. The statement is also an attack on Fox News, and so is also off-topic for that reason. I recommend finding a reference that does not bring in a huge pile of emotional baggage with it in through the front door.

4) Using a survey which we can agree is self-contradictory and flawed is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. (Ideogram, please do not ask me to repeat my evidence for the 10th time here, such statements have gotten tedious, and you can always check the archives.)

Your evidence was based on misquoting the survey. You never presented any valid evidence. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to get at the truth,

Wrong again. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

and using a document which has been shown to be false

You never proved this. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

should only be done under extraordinary circumstances (which an Iraq War survey for an NPR article is not), and with a counter-claim note prominently attached. The defense that the evidence showing the survey to be false constitute Original Research holds no weight, as Wikipolicy itself contradicts this belief: [5]. Users' statements on talk pages can be original research, especially when discussing the merit of a source. If the survey is not removed, at the very minimum a counter-note should be made, as we do not want to give readers the wrong impression about the PIPA survey.

The only other option (leaving it in unchanged) will just lead to this same tired debate over and over as new readers discovered the flawed reference. It would be like having the wrong birthday for some famous person (perhaps the typo was printed by the PIPA people too) -- every time someone discovers the flaw they would correct it.

By this argument, we shouldn't leave any controversial claims in, anywhere in Wikipedia. This is not how Wikipedia works. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend waiting 48 hours for a cooloff period, and then people posting their final thoughts on here so that we can bring this to a close. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wkerney (talk • contribs) .

You do not have the authority to close this discussion. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be taking Wkerney's advice for the 48 hour hiatus. - MSTCrow 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Ideogram Removal of Information

Ideogram has been removing a link to the references section, claiming it is not NPOV. I would like to point out that per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, removing references because they are not NPOV is against policy, and views that are referenced, or references with views, are fully allowable on Wikipedia. I call upon Ideogram to cease his removal of information against Wikipedia policy in the future, and refer him to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial to better handle such confusion in the future. - MSTCrow 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversial link and we disagree on whether it should be included. Of course it is not going to be productive for us to revert back and forth as we have been doing. By the way, simply removing a link does not constitute vandalism by any Wikipedia policy, I defy MSTCrow to find and quote the relevant policy.
I object to this link because it is an opinion piece. The opinions of Frontpagemag.com are not notable by any stretch of the imagination. I invite MSTCrow to explain why an opinion column on a non-notable website should be linked to by an encyclopedia. --Ideogram 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow, the link that you mention is not used as reference. It is an external link, which on the face of it appears to be from a rather extremely biased and not very credible opinion blog. I see little reason to keep it as an external link. Wikipedia is not a collection of links to blogs that happen to mention the subject of the article. older ≠ wiser 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a silly link, written in a hysterical fashion. The only purpose for its inclusion would be to discredit NPR, employed by editors with an anti-NPR bias. It should be terminated with extreme prejudice.--RattBoy 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The referenced link is to a notable source critical of NPR, and is worthy of at the very least a lone link at the very bottom of the page. - MSTCrow 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "notable" about the source? It is a hyperbolically biased opinion piece. If that is the best source that you can find for criticism, that is a pretty poor showing. older ≠ wiser 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please quote the relevant policy from WP:EL that justifies including this link. Be sure to read WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:RS. --Ideogram 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that external links to not have to adhere to NPOV, but the question is, as Ideogram said, why should a rant from a fringe website complaining about a handful of NPR stories be included in this article? Even if this screed meets standards of reliability, etc., every short complaint about a very narrow issue involving NPR should not be included. Also, a content dispute is not vandalism and it is not appropriate or civil of you to describe it as such. Gamaliel 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fringe site, it's a rather significant player. NPR is rather infamous for its anti-Jewish animus (as noted on LittleGreenFootballs.com, "NPR devotes 2/3 of its stories about Arab conflict with Israel to anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian voices/talking heads/partisans", while others state "NPR has made it 'official' policy not to label suicide bombers in Israel as 'terrorists' because this label would be prejudicial," so I thought it was worth inclusion as a reference. You can imagine what would have occurred if I had placed it in the article itself. - MSTCrow 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
All of this is beside the point. Read the policy in WP:EL and quote why this link should be included, or it will be removed. --Ideogram 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The link is acceptable, proper, entered correctly, is an article about the organization, contains accurate information not in the article, and is meaningful. Anything other complaints are beside the point. - MSTCrow 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can't convince the rest of us, it doesn't go in. --Ideogram 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazing how your standards for inclusion change depending on if you agree with the source or not. Ideogram, the point of wikipedia isn't to advance your personal agenda. If the heavily flawed survey is allowed, an opposing reference should be put in as well. I suggest removing yourself from this discussion since you just appear to be trying to sabotage the process. Wkerney 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AGF and NPA. --Ideogram 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AGF doesn't apply since you have been prima facia operating in bad faith. NPA doesn't apply because I applied a rational argument, not an ad hominem attack. If you allow one source, you must allow the other by the same standards. Neither pointing out errors in logic nor stating that you have been operating in bad faith count as personal attacks. They are valid points to raise in a wikipedia discussion, and your attempt to use them to shield yourself from contravention just further proves the point. Wkerney 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm simply going to ignore you until you say something relevant. --Ideogram 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
David Horowitz isn't a "significant player" anywhere except in his own imagination. If NPR's "anti-Jewish animus" is indeed "rather infamous", than you should be able to back this up with a wider variety of sources other than the rantings of DH. What does, say, Alan Dershowitz have to say? The Anti-Defamation League? Gamaliel 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
David Horowitz is indeed a significant player. Wkerney 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, proof by assertion doesn't work. --Ideogram 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1) I gave as much proof as the assertion he is not a major player. Again, this demonstrates your very different standards of evidence for people that agree with you and disagree with you. 2) Wikipedia talk entries are not subject to the same standards as the articles. 3) As for not being important, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz. Wkerney 07:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about he's a famous critic of the Left, having been a Marxist radical in the 60s and 70s, with reassessment in the 80s, and became a conservative icon in the 80s and 90s, and is famous for his critical views on anti-Semitism, Noam Chomsky, and the domination of the radical Left in American higher education? - 05:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if we all agreed that Horowitz was a prince among men and not a fringe self-promoting loon, just because he or his website said it doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't make it a widespread criticism worthy of inclusion in this article. Gamaliel 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"...and not a fringe self-promoting loon." Ok, we know your POV and bais. Knowledgable and self-contained users are desired here. It is a wide-spread criticsm, simply look at sites such as CAMERA.org or HonestReporting.org to get up to speed. - MSTCrow 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. Everyone's biased but you. Gamaliel 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Single-minded pressure groups as source for saying criticism is "wide-spread"? Snort. Pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League has this to say about NPR:

  1. "Jennifer Ludden's report on the life of Yasir Arafat (Morning Edition, November 11) was shocking in its whitewashing of Arafat's record on terrorism and peacemaking"
  2. "In a letter to National Public Radio, the Anti-Defamation League expressed disappointment with the recent seven-part series, The Mideast: A Century of Conflict...ADL noted endemic problems that would lead listeners to develop serious misperceptions about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
  3. "National Public Radio broadcast more than 15 segments about Jenin in April. NPR focused on the mistreatment and suffering of Palestinians without sufficiently explaining the reasons for Israeli actions or the complicity of Palestinian terrorists in the punishment inflicted on the camp’s population."

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe columnist, had this to say about NPR:

  1. "If you want to see Israel blamed, listen to NPR."

So, the record of NPRs anti-Israel and/or anti-Jewish trending is not at all held by only a small minority of the population, but is a widespread and well-known charge. As it is such an important issue that is widely public, it should be included in the article. The fact that some users do not agree that NPR is as such does not proscribe such information from inclusion. - MSTCrow 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide adequate citations for these quotes, we can include material referencing them in the article. --Ideogram 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Horowitz isn't enough to base anything on, but this material seems reasonable. Gamaliel 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NPR Report Whitewashes Arafat, ADL Analysis: Concerns with NPR's The Mideast: A Century of Conflict, [http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/jenin.pdf Anatomy of Anti-Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn't] and Alan Dershowitz is Wrong About the Right….and the Left. - MSTCrow 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we can include the links to the Anti-Defamation League website with a comment like "The Anti-Defamation League has criticized NPR as having an anti-Israel bias." The last link is to a bulletin board and is not appropriate. Of course you also have to get the agreement of the other editors on this. --Ideogram 02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on The Mediation

When I first came across the NPR article, I didn't know the section was under mediation. As someone that corrects obvious errors in wikipedia out of habit, I changed the PIPA reference, knowing it as a heavily flawed source. It got reverted, so I checked the talk page and saw it was under mediation. IMO, the mediation has gone on long enough (the recommended time period is 2-10 days),

You have no concept of how mediation operates. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

and one or two users have been operating in bad faith, further complicating the issue. I propose one of the the following four solutions (in order of my preference):

1) Since users like me (that know the PIPA survey is flawed) are perhaps not uncommon, if the reference is left in, it will continually get removed as people attempt to fix it. Any reference that will cause long-term edit wars should be scrutinized closely. I propose is we find a similar survey that is not self-contradictory/wrong.

2) Alternatively, we delete it as we already have information on the differences in education levels in NPR, which is all we really need to talk about. The reference is somewhat redundant to the existing statements on education level.

3) This is an article on NPR, not on the Iraq war. Highlighting very controversial issues like WMDs in Iraq will undoubtedly bring the conversation on the article off-track time and time again. The statement is also an attack on Fox News, and so is also off-topic for that reason. I recommend finding a reference that does not bring in a huge pile of emotional baggage with it in through the front door.

4) Using a survey which we can agree is self-contradictory and flawed is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. (Ideogram, please do not ask me to repeat my evidence for the 10th time here, such statements have gotten tedious, and you can always check the archives.)

Your evidence was based on misquoting the survey. You never presented any valid evidence. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to get at the truth,

Wrong again. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

and using a document which has been shown to be false

You never proved this. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

should only be done under extraordinary circumstances (which an Iraq War survey for an NPR article is not), and with a counter-claim note prominently attached. The defense that the evidence showing the survey to be false constitute Original Research holds no weight, as Wikipolicy itself contradicts this belief: [6]. Users' statements on talk pages can be original research, especially when discussing the merit of a source. If the survey is not removed, at the very minimum a counter-note should be made, as we do not want to give readers the wrong impression about the PIPA survey.

The only other option (leaving it in unchanged) will just lead to this same tired debate over and over as new readers discovered the flawed reference. It would be like having the wrong birthday for some famous person (perhaps the typo was printed by the PIPA people too) -- every time someone discovers the flaw they would correct it.

By this argument, we shouldn't leave any controversial claims in, anywhere in Wikipedia. This is not how Wikipedia works. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend waiting 48 hours for a cooloff period, and then people posting their final thoughts on here so that we can bring this to a close. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wkerney (talk • contribs) , 23:59, 25 July 2006.

You do not have the authority to close this discussion. --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be taking Wkerney's advice for the 48 hour hiatus. - MSTCrow 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Current status summary

This is my summary of the current status. The mediator requested that MSTCrow find a source that directly challenged the survey. No such source has been found. MSTCrow has tried to insert a couple of external links that have been rejected by other editors. MSTCrow has found statements on the Anti-Defamation League's website that may be accepted. --Ideogram 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Active Conversations

We had a number of posts today in a section. I count 16 edits in the last few hours to a new section I created attempting to reach consensus and find common ground. Ideogram made some answers to the section and then promptly archived it (preventing people from answering him) without moving the active conversation forward, which is in violation of wikipedia policy on archiving. I reverted the talk page to continue the conversation, but Carlton has now re-reverted, asking "What Active Conversation?" It's an odd statement to make... Wkerney 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You and MSTCrow stated you would be observing a 48 hour cooling off period so I assumed the conversation was over. You are again failing to assume good faith. --Ideogram 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENational_Public_Radio_archive2_c331.html"