Misplaced Pages

Talk:NPR: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:23, 26 July 2006 editIdeogram (talk | contribs)11,726 edits →Thoughts on The Mediation: you fail to understand how this works← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:13, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,781,982 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(848 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
] (July 2003 - June 2006), ]
{{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Radio|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}}
}}
{{Connected contributor|User1=Dgorsline |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=]}}
{{refideas
|1=
}}
{{tmbox
| small =
| type = delete
| text = The related ''']''' was nominated for '''deletion, merging, or renaming]''' The result of the ] was: '''Rename''' ] to ].
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Mediation==
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(92d)
|archive = Talk:NPR/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Translation into Chinese Misplaced Pages ==
A mediation has been requested by ] because of a dispute over article content. It would be helpful if those involved (], ], ] and ]) could signal their involvement by signing directly below using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This is just to acknowledge you are willing to have a discussion about the issues, with myself as mediator. ] 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
* — ] <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
* ] 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.] 01:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
* ] ≠ ] 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Though I'm not sure how much attention I'll be able to give to this.
* Sign


is translated into ] to expand an existing article there.--] (]) 08:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
===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. ] 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
**That's precisely the advantage of a mediation. ] 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
***OK, I've never seen one in action. Good luck. ] 21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


== NPR or National Public Radio ==
Let me start.


From their website in 2010: " Our legal name remains National Public Radio, as it has been for more than 40 years, but our trademarked brand has long been NPR. " ] (]) 18:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
First, let me say that I dispute MSTCrow's characterization of my activities in this dispute.


== State-run media note ==
Firstly, he accused me of making a "personal attack." That because I characterized his edit as "unsupported dogma" in . 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.)


There's a big kerfuffle about Twitter posting misinformation, so I added this line to the lead, but I think it's also useful framing long-term due to the peculiar way it was founded and funded. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 18:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Secondly, on his , he accuses those who disagree with him of editing in bad faith, writing:


:Sourcing NPR in an article about NPR is rather silly, and against Misplaced Pages guidelines, no?
''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.''
:This whole situation is hilarious, US media hates being held to the same standard as foreign media. ] (]) 19:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::The Misplaced Pages article on ] defines it as:
:::State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly.
::NPR is not under the financial ''control'' of the United States government.
::Per (a conservative leaning site), NPR receives 8% of its funding from the ] (which itself receives government funding) and 4% from federal, state, and local governments via member stations. Together that's 12% of its funding.
::Compare that to 38% from individual donations and 19% from corporate sponsorships.
::If they lose that money, it would be a significant hit to their budget, but they could continue operations after cutting overhead.
::In my read of the situation, that's in opposition to true financial ''control'' where if the org lost government support, they'd lose the majority of its operating funding.
::-- ] (]) 19:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::It is not, no. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::The nonsense about NPR being "state-run media" should be dispensed with in the lead section using clear language. Such a statement doesn't need attribution because NPR has never, ever been controlled by the government, despite Elon's right-wing Twitter exertions. Hundreds of ] sources describe NPR as independent. ] (]) 18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::::'''every''' statement that has been challenged needs attribution or a citation. If Hundreds of ] sources describe NPR as independent, just add one of them to the statement. ] (]) 20:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you. The fact that IP addresses ''remove'' it proves my point. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 19:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:It is interesting for sure. But "Twitter posting misinformation" is an opinion and not a fact. Did anyone not notice that YouTube has provided labels similar as:
:* "NPR is an American public broadcast service."
:* "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
:* "CBC/Radio-Canada is a Canadian public broadcast service."
:"National Public Radio (NPR) is a national nonprofit media outlet created and funded by the federal government. Though the organization claims to strive for objectivity, many media watchdogs consider NPR to have a left-of-center bias. 1
:NPR’s funding has been a point of controversy since its founding in 1970. NPR is officially a private company, but up until 1983, it received over half of its funding from the federal government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)."
:(https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
:How is this a fact: "NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content" citing a book originally published October 27, 2010. -jim 08:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{od}}I pruned some details about funding from the lead section, and shifted all of the funding statements downward to the bottom of the lead section. Per ], the lead section should emphasize the most important points about the topic, which it had been pulling away from recently. Too much ] in the lead section is not suitable for a long-term, established, stable article like this one. ] (]) 02:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


:Lmao this thread. To say that NPR isnt state run media is hilarious. They have an obvious political slant, and they take taxpayer money. It doesnt get much more state run than that. ] (]) 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
::It ''does'' get more state run than that: e.g. by actually producing the content or censoring them. Also, was their "obvious political slant" pro- the last administration? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Holy moley this article needs to be corrected right this minute. This absolutely needs an admin to step in and resolve. "NPR claims it's not state run media" is at the top of the page, which links to the Misplaced Pages page for state-run media, which says at the top of the page "...media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government..." Someone source me something from any reputable source that breaks down how NPR is under control by the government. Tons of corporations receive public money and subsidies and are not state-run, and even more make a majority of revenue from state contracts. This is an obviously biased statement that is equating NPR with outlets like RT. Saying they "take taxpayer money" is absolutely reductionist. SpaceX has billion-dollar contracts with NASA, are they state-run? ] (]) 22:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Yes, you are 100% correct: not every company that gets a grant from the feds or an SBA loan is "state-owned". This is so stupid. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::As someone mentioned earlier, this absolutely offends ] and ]. I'm reverting the page to a previous state before the edit war and elevating page protection. If anyone disputes this then we're getting a mediator involved. ] (]) 22:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::I dispute that it offends ]. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 23:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::To back up that claim, I would point to the ] section on the page. That being said I mainly want to support my reasoning for reverting the page and requesting protection, and then a mediator or admin can decide if my point is fair. If I was trying to make my own edits on the page then I'd rather cite some actual journalism on why NPR is not state-run media and not just a WP policy page. At this point I just want to stop the edit war immediately. ] (]) 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, well I'm just responding to your solicitation. I in no way think this contravenes ]. Agreed that edit-warring is not constructive. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I believe the section about the controversy can be trimmed per ], but removing it altogether seems like a wrong option given the abundance of mainstream coverage. ] (]) 01:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Not having anything during discussion would be better until consensus is reached. The controversy is handled with nuance in its section and all the information provided in the lead of NPR’s percentage is better in my opinion than saying in a strong statement “NPR is state sponsered,” “NPR claims it’s not state sponsered,” or “NPR is NOT state sponsered” ]🚀 <sup>]</sup> 01:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Honestly the way the article reads right now seems perfect in terms of NPOV, etc. What changes do we want? ]🚀 <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::It seems ] . I think the current version is fine but open to discussion. ] (]) 13:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Nithin}}, your viewpoint is wildly out of balance with the published literature about NPR which emphatically states that is independent from state interference. No, we are not going to let the reader decide after reading a few sentences about funding. Those sentences are intended to cast doubt on NPR's independence, which is completely inappropriate. If we keep those sentences, we must have a solid statement representing decades of scholarship about NPR, which is of course that NPR is independent, not state-run. ] (]) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with this Point ]🚀 <sup>]</sup> 06:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::What point of view is being pushed by providing reliable information showing that NPR gets a substantial portion of its funding from the federal government and that it claims that said funding is "essential"? ] (]) 00:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Is "less than 1 percent", as NPR claims, really a substantial portion? Even if you accept the InfluenceWatch calculation of 12% from federal, state, and local governments, is that really a substantial portion? Is that truly such a large ampunt of money that the government could exert financial control on NPR? Likewise, could NPR calling "less than 1 percent" of its funding "essential" simply be ] to help secure support? ] (]) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::WP:DROP. I highly suggest we leave the article the way it was before the edit war. A random fight with Elon Musk is not particularly notable (people fight with NPR all the time) and certainly not enough to change the article introduction. At the very most, it could occupy one or two sentences in the 2020 section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information on a subject, not a place to air out grievances. ] (]) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::The controversy is covered by major news outlets that qualify as RS per ]. {{tq|"A random fight with Elon Musk is not particularly notable (people fight with NPR all the time) and certainly not enough to change the article introduction."}} is clearly your opinion, so that cannot be used to justify the content's removal. ] (]) 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::We can both cite Misplaced Pages policy pages forever. The truth is this was added to the top of the page explicitly as a response to Musk. This will have to be mediated, I just find this unacceptable vandalism of an article classified as vital. ] (]) 12:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I do not think it has anything to do with vandalism. Removing funding from the lead and creating a separate section discussing the Twitter controversy seems like a compromise option to me. ] (]) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}{{yo|Pizzigs|koavf|Bayou Tapestry|RickyCourtney}} I don't know how useful this message would be, but me and ] were (I believe) the first ones to add information about NPR's decision to pull out from Twitter, starting from . Any decision you'll take for the lead section will be fine to me, since I wouldn't really know what to do there. However, I believe we ''need'' to create a separate section specifically for the Twitter controversy, since it's likely the first time a news organization has ever left the platform due to a mistake by... the platform's owner himself, who is also a very highly-influential person in the current world. Plus, Misplaced Pages (or at least, of its pages) literally in this messy situation, so I think this is an extra reason to cover the news... ] (]) 14:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:I agree, having already proposed that to ]. {{tq|"Creating a separate section discussing the Twitter controversy seems like a compromise option to me."}} I also believe the last paragraph of the lead should be preserved, but that's up to the community to decide. ] (]) 14:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::"...extra reason to cover the news" I just disagree with this sentiment. Misplaced Pages is to cover historically relevant information and I'm dubious that this is all that relevant. However I agree with ] that it seems like a good compromise to have some sort of other section for the controversy just to end the edit war for now.
::1. I'm going to remove the "state-run media" portion from the summary.
::2. I'll pull the relevant info that other users have collated into a separate (short) section. ] (]) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::@] @] Good, thank you for chipping in! ] (]) 16:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


== Funding in the 2020s ==
The article currently says "NPR receives receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts amounted to less than 0.1% of revenues, according its IRS filing". (I changed it just now from claiming that this is according to ProPublica- the reference is actually to NPR's IRS form 990, hosted on ProPublica's site, but is not a statement by ProPublica).


The form itself does not contain the "less than 0.1% of revenues" claim. This number seems to have been derived by taking the line item for "Government grants" (Part VIII, 1-e) - 210,000, and dividing it by total revenue, yielding ~0.07%. But I wonder if this is permissible without the source explicitly saying so. Especially when we have addiotnal line items (such as 1-d, for "related organizations") whose definition is not clear. ] (]) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
That-all said, what about the content itself?


:Basic arithmetical calculations are allowed on Misplaced Pages, per ]. ] (]) 21:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
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?
::Per ], only if "there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and '''a meaningful reflection of the sources'''" - that bolded part is what I am questioning. Do you have a clear idea what the "related organizations" are (as just one example)? If not, this is not a meaningful reflection of the source. ] (]) 22:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
:::NPR gets a very small amount of direct federal money. Indirect federal money is about 9 percent. Generally, the media are in agreement that somewhere around 1 percent of NPR's income comes directly from federal grants. ''Forbes'' said ''The New York Times'' said . Politico said The ''Boston Globe'' quoted Influence Watch saying , but added that NPR gets "almost 10 percent of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly." Note that ProPublica does not need to be involved for access to filings. NPR hosts its own income tax filings at , and they state "On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments." Of course they mean "directly" from the federal government. They don't chart out the indirect paths. ] (]) 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


== Contradiction ==
'''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&mdash;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.


"Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors, and annual grants from the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content."
: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.


Now, English isn't my mothertongue, but isn't this a contradiction?
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 Misplaced Pages as a reference source.--] 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If NPR receives money from sponsorships, doesn't that mean that they're dependent on corporate donations?
If they are at least partially dependent on corporate donations, they're by definition usually not "independent of any government or corporation". ] (]) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


:Observers agree that NPR retains full and independent editorial control despite their funding sources. ] (]) 12:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
===Mediator's observations===

#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.
#All arguments must be backed up by verifiable sources. ] prevents editors from creating their own ''original'' arguments or critiques.
#If the section is to remain as it is, it seems to me fair that ] 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 ]), you need to cite another study or critique that makes your points (rather than making the arguments from scratch yourself)?
#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 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?
] 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>--] 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. ] 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. ] ≠ ] 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. ] ≠ ] 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&mdash;Senator Santorum's trumpeting of decades-old, decaying chemical munitions notwithstanding. Similarly, ''no'' substantial connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda has been demonstrated. See the ] and the ] pages.--] 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. ] ≠ ] 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::The ] 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 ] and . 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. ] 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. — ] <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 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. - ] 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Read the questions. ] 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC) The survey doesn't make any assumptions. ] 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::MSTCrow, ] 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.'' ] 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. - ] 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 ] 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 ] and ] 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 ] and ], 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.--] 12:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::The Misplaced Pages page ] does have multiple quotes and sources from those who believe the two are linked, while ] 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. "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." ' 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. - ] 13:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Mr. Crow, what does the word, "degraded," mean to you?--] 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. ] 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::You're right. Apologies, withdrawn, Sir.--] 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::No problem, my fellow "Ratt"! ] 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 ]. We need to stick to primary sources. The survey itself is one primary source. ], 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. ] 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:I'll try to locate a counter-source. - ] 10:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::Okay, great. That would be the most helpful thing at this stage. ] 10:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? - ] 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:No, The survey never claimed there were no links between Saddam and Osama. --] 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

::Please ignore ideogram, he is not taking place in the mediation. - ] 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 ]...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.--] 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. - ] 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. --] 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? ]) 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!--] 11:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::I'm waiting for the mediator to get back to me on some sources I found. - ] 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::The mediator isn't going to force acceptance of your sources if the other participants find them unacceptable. --] 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 Misplaced Pages policy of verifiability and NPOV, which you would do well to think about. --] 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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Anyone interested can read the survey and decide for themselves. --] 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. ] 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. - ] 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!), 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. I trust that you will not attempt to fix the game by suddenly finding yourself a friendly referee.--] 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

::Any interested party can participate at any time. --] 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. - ] 05:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

::::It's obvious. Ask any experienced Wikipedian. Misplaced Pages encourages the broadest participation possible. --] 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. - ] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. ] ≠ ] 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::MSTCrow if you're so sure you're right, take it up with arbcom. --] 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! ] 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 ] and ]. 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! ] 12:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:The discussion from yesterday and today has been ]. 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 ], 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. ] 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. ] 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Stop repeating yourself. Your argument was answered and archived. --] 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. ] 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Fortunately saying something doesn't make it so. --] 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::BTW ridiculing your opponent is not being civil. --] 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. ] 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::This discussion is over, which was my original point. --] 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::You're trying to win an argument by repeating yourself endlessly. ] 10:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== Broader input ==

{{Broad input}} --] 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. ], 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 ], 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. ] 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. ] 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?" - ] 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. — ] <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Don't have to go sneering at us. - ] 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.
:::::--] | ] 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. - ] 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&mdash;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. ] says "Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a ] called '']'', a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning 'toward the man'." I hope this clears up your confusion.--] 10:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

==Where this mediation is going==

My assessment of the mediation so far is as follows:
#It was established that ] needed a source that directly challenged the NPR survey, rather than building arguments from scratch (as disallowed by ].
#MST agreed to find the source.
#MST offered one source, but it did not directly address the survey.
#Edit wars appeared to have stopped, with the article as is - with the NPR survey and no source contradicting it.
#MST acknowledges lack of sources, but now says the NPR survey does not belong in the article in the first place.
#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 Misplaced Pages, dem's da rules - provide sourced information and no original research. Do people find that fair? ] 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:I have found a source that indicates the NPR survey is flawed and dishonest. See . This source directly addresses the survey. - ] 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?". --] ] ] 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. - ] 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? --] ] ] 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.] 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. --] 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. --] 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. ] 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::A survey from a respected university is more credible than a random website. --] 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. ] 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit the article during the mediation. --] 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:The article was not edited, only the references. Do not interfere with the Misplaced Pages 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. - ] 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. --] 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::No, you don't, and now you're trying to start a revert war on NPR. - ] 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. --] 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not participating, you're sabotaging and indirectly attacking the mediator. - ] 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. --] 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 ], removing references because they are not NPOV is against policy, and views that are referenced, or references with views, are fully allowable on Misplaced Pages. I call upon Ideogram to cease his removal of information against Misplaced Pages policy in the future, and refer him to ] to better handle such confusion in the future. - ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 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. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links to blogs that happen to mention the subject of the article. ] ≠ ] 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.--] 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. - ] 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. ] ≠ ] 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

:Please quote the relevant policy from ] that justifies including this link. Be sure to read ] and ]. --] 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. ] 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. - ] 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

::All of this is beside the point. Read the policy in ] and quote why this link should be included, or it will be removed. --] 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. - ] 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::::If you can't convince the rest of us, it doesn't go in. --] 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. ] 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::AGF and NPA. --] 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. ] 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I'm simply going to ignore you until you say something relevant. --] 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? ] 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::David Horowitz is indeed a significant player. ] 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Again, proof by assertion doesn't work. --] 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) Misplaced Pages talk entries are not subject to the same standards as the articles. 3) As for not being important, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/David_Horowitz. ] 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. ] 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. - ] 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Single-minded pressure groups as source for saying criticism is "wide-spread"? Snort. Pull the other one. --] | ] 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The Anti-Defamation League has this to say about NPR:
# "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"
# "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."
# "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:
# "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. - ] 01:16, 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. --] 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:3RR is not a right, and revision wars should be avoided whenever possible. ] 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 ]. If you have a problem with a section, add the appropriate tag over it and discuss it in talk. ''Do not'' blank. - ] 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. - ] 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::Bishonen can count. You can't. Your problem, not ours. --] | ] 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages. (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. --] 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of Misplaced Pages is to get at the truth,

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

and using a document which has been shown to be false

:You never proved this. --] 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. --] 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.

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

Latest revision as of 21:13, 28 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NPR article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about NPR. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about NPR at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconJournalism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRadio High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
The related Category:National Public Radio was nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:National Public Radio to Category:NPR.


Translation into Chinese Misplaced Pages

Version 01:51, 19 October 2022‎ X-Editor of this article is translated into Chinese Misplaced Pages to expand an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

NPR or National Public Radio

From their website in 2010: " Our legal name remains National Public Radio, as it has been for more than 40 years, but our trademarked brand has long been NPR. " 164.47.179.32 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

State-run media note

There's a big kerfuffle about Twitter posting misinformation, so I added this line to the lead, but I think it's also useful framing long-term due to the peculiar way it was founded and funded. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing NPR in an article about NPR is rather silly, and against Misplaced Pages guidelines, no?
This whole situation is hilarious, US media hates being held to the same standard as foreign media. 88.91.75.12 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages article on State media defines it as:
State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly.
NPR is not under the financial control of the United States government.
Per InfluenceWatch (a conservative leaning site), NPR receives 8% of its funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which itself receives government funding) and 4% from federal, state, and local governments via member stations. Together that's 12% of its funding.
Compare that to 38% from individual donations and 19% from corporate sponsorships.
If they lose that money, it would be a significant hit to their budget, but they could continue operations after cutting overhead.
In my read of the situation, that's in opposition to true financial control where if the org lost government support, they'd lose the majority of its operating funding.
-- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not, no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The nonsense about NPR being "state-run media" should be dispensed with in the lead section using clear language. Such a statement doesn't need attribution because NPR has never, ever been controlled by the government, despite Elon's right-wing Twitter exertions. Hundreds of WP:SECONDARY sources describe NPR as independent. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
every statement that has been challenged needs attribution or a citation. If Hundreds of WP:SECONDARY sources describe NPR as independent, just add one of them to the statement. Red Slapper (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. The fact that IP addresses remove it proves my point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It is interesting for sure. But "Twitter posting misinformation" is an opinion and not a fact. Did anyone not notice that YouTube has provided labels similar as:
  • "NPR is an American public broadcast service."
  • "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
  • "CBC/Radio-Canada is a Canadian public broadcast service."
"National Public Radio (NPR) is a national nonprofit media outlet created and funded by the federal government. Though the organization claims to strive for objectivity, many media watchdogs consider NPR to have a left-of-center bias. 1
NPR’s funding has been a point of controversy since its founding in 1970. NPR is officially a private company, but up until 1983, it received over half of its funding from the federal government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)."
(https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/)
How is this a fact: "NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content" citing a book originally published October 27, 2010. -jim 08:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs)

I pruned some details about funding from the lead section, and shifted all of the funding statements downward to the bottom of the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should emphasize the most important points about the topic, which it had been pulling away from recently. Too much WP:RECENTISM in the lead section is not suitable for a long-term, established, stable article like this one. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Lmao this thread. To say that NPR isnt state run media is hilarious. They have an obvious political slant, and they take taxpayer money. It doesnt get much more state run than that. 2600:6C64:78F0:8000:BD88:4B81:1CFB:C92 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It does get more state run than that: e.g. by actually producing the content or censoring them. Also, was their "obvious political slant" pro- the last administration? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Holy moley this article needs to be corrected right this minute. This absolutely needs an admin to step in and resolve. "NPR claims it's not state run media" is at the top of the page, which links to the Misplaced Pages page for state-run media, which says at the top of the page "...media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government..." Someone source me something from any reputable source that breaks down how NPR is under control by the government. Tons of corporations receive public money and subsidies and are not state-run, and even more make a majority of revenue from state contracts. This is an obviously biased statement that is equating NPR with outlets like RT. Saying they "take taxpayer money" is absolutely reductionist. SpaceX has billion-dollar contracts with NASA, are they state-run? Bayou Tapestry (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are 100% correct: not every company that gets a grant from the feds or an SBA loan is "state-owned". This is so stupid. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
As someone mentioned earlier, this absolutely offends WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV. I'm reverting the page to a previous state before the edit war and elevating page protection. If anyone disputes this then we're getting a mediator involved. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I dispute that it offends WP:NPOV. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
To back up that claim, I would point to the section on the page. That being said I mainly want to support my reasoning for reverting the page and requesting protection, and then a mediator or admin can decide if my point is fair. If I was trying to make my own edits on the page then I'd rather cite some actual journalism on why NPR is not state-run media and not just a WP policy page. At this point I just want to stop the edit war immediately. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm just responding to your solicitation. I in no way think this contravenes WP:NPOV. Agreed that edit-warring is not constructive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe the section about the controversy can be trimmed per WP:RECENT, but removing it altogether seems like a wrong option given the abundance of mainstream coverage. Pizzigs (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Not having anything during discussion would be better until consensus is reached. The controversy is handled with nuance in its section and all the information provided in the lead of NPR’s percentage is better in my opinion than saying in a strong statement “NPR is state sponsered,” “NPR claims it’s not state sponsered,” or “NPR is NOT state sponsered” Nithin🚀 01:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly the way the article reads right now seems perfect in terms of NPOV, etc. What changes do we want? Nithin🚀 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems User:Bayou Tapestry wants it removed or trimmed. I think the current version is fine but open to discussion. Pizzigs (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Nithin, your viewpoint is wildly out of balance with the published literature about NPR which emphatically states that is independent from state interference. No, we are not going to let the reader decide after reading a few sentences about funding. Those sentences are intended to cast doubt on NPR's independence, which is completely inappropriate. If we keep those sentences, we must have a solid statement representing decades of scholarship about NPR, which is of course that NPR is independent, not state-run. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this Point Nithin🚀 06:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
What point of view is being pushed by providing reliable information showing that NPR gets a substantial portion of its funding from the federal government and that it claims that said funding is "essential"? GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Is "less than 1 percent", as NPR claims, really a substantial portion? Even if you accept the InfluenceWatch calculation of 12% from federal, state, and local governments, is that really a substantial portion? Is that truly such a large ampunt of money that the government could exert financial control on NPR? Likewise, could NPR calling "less than 1 percent" of its funding "essential" simply be puffery to help secure support? RickyCourtney (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:DROP. I highly suggest we leave the article the way it was before the edit war. A random fight with Elon Musk is not particularly notable (people fight with NPR all the time) and certainly not enough to change the article introduction. At the very most, it could occupy one or two sentences in the 2020 section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information on a subject, not a place to air out grievances. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The controversy is covered by major news outlets that qualify as RS per WP:V. "A random fight with Elon Musk is not particularly notable (people fight with NPR all the time) and certainly not enough to change the article introduction." is clearly your opinion, so that cannot be used to justify the content's removal. Pizzigs (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We can both cite Misplaced Pages policy pages forever. The truth is this was added to the top of the page explicitly as a response to Musk. This will have to be mediated, I just find this unacceptable vandalism of an article classified as vital. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think it has anything to do with vandalism. Removing funding from the lead and creating a separate section discussing the Twitter controversy seems like a compromise option to me. Pizzigs (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pizzigs, Koavf, Bayou Tapestry, and RickyCourtney: I don't know how useful this message would be, but me and Codyave were (I believe) the first ones to add information about NPR's decision to pull out from Twitter, starting from here. Any decision you'll take for the lead section will be fine to me, since I wouldn't really know what to do there. However, I believe we need to create a separate section specifically for the Twitter controversy, since it's likely the first time a news organization has ever left the platform due to a mistake by... the platform's owner himself, who is also a very highly-influential person in the current world. Plus, Misplaced Pages (or at least, one of its pages) literally got involved in this messy situation, so I think this is an extra reason to cover the news... Oltrepier (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, having already proposed that to User:Bayou Tapestry. "Creating a separate section discussing the Twitter controversy seems like a compromise option to me." I also believe the last paragraph of the lead should be preserved, but that's up to the community to decide. Pizzigs (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
"...extra reason to cover the news" I just disagree with this sentiment. Misplaced Pages is to cover historically relevant information and I'm dubious that this is all that relevant. However I agree with Pizzigs that it seems like a good compromise to have some sort of other section for the controversy just to end the edit war for now.
1. I'm going to remove the "state-run media" portion from the summary.
2. I'll pull the relevant info that other users have collated into a separate (short) section. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pizzigs @Bayou Tapestry Good, thank you for chipping in! Oltrepier (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Funding in the 2020s

The article currently says "NPR receives receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts amounted to less than 0.1% of revenues, according its IRS filing". (I changed it just now from claiming that this is according to ProPublica- the reference is actually to NPR's IRS form 990, hosted on ProPublica's site, but is not a statement by ProPublica).

The form itself does not contain the "less than 0.1% of revenues" claim. This number seems to have been derived by taking the line item for "Government grants" (Part VIII, 1-e) - 210,000, and dividing it by total revenue, yielding ~0.07%. But I wonder if this is permissible without the source explicitly saying so. Especially when we have addiotnal line items (such as 1-d, for "related organizations") whose definition is not clear. Red Slapper (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Basic arithmetical calculations are allowed on Misplaced Pages, per WP:CALC. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:CALC, only if "there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" - that bolded part is what I am questioning. Do you have a clear idea what the "related organizations" are (as just one example)? If not, this is not a meaningful reflection of the source. Red Slapper (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
NPR gets a very small amount of direct federal money. Indirect federal money is about 9 percent. Generally, the media are in agreement that somewhere around 1 percent of NPR's income comes directly from federal grants. Forbes said "NPR gets roughly 1-2% of its funding from the federal government". The New York Times said "About 1 percent of its budget comes from federal money". Politico said "less than 1 percent of the news outlet’s annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies and departments." The Boston Globe quoted Influence Watch saying "Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1 percent of its budget directly from the federal government", but added that NPR gets "almost 10 percent of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly." Note that ProPublica does not need to be involved for access to filings. NPR hosts its own income tax filings at this webpage, and they state "On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments." Of course they mean "directly" from the federal government. They don't chart out the indirect paths. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors, and annual grants from the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its member stations are owned by non-profit organizations, including public school districts, colleges, and universities. NPR operates independently of any government or corporation, and has full control of its content."

Now, English isn't my mothertongue, but isn't this a contradiction? If NPR receives money from sponsorships, doesn't that mean that they're dependent on corporate donations? If they are at least partially dependent on corporate donations, they're by definition usually not "independent of any government or corporation". NeutralerNutzername (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Observers agree that NPR retains full and independent editorial control despite their funding sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: