[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:John Stossel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn Stossel has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Bet with T. Boone Pickens

[edit]

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

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

Edited article John Stossel

[edit]

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

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

ScottSchaefer (talk • contribs)

Suggest removal of previously existing section

[edit]

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

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

His religious beliefs

[edit]

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

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

Watchdog groups

[edit]

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

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

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

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

In 1999 HIV/AIDS killed 14,802 Americans, compared to 14,593 killed by Parkinson's.[1]

In 2000 HIV/AIDS killed 14,478 Americans, compared to 15,682 killed by Parkinson's.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inconsistency

[edit]

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

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

Fairtax

[edit]

the article currently cites a 2006 interview for the support of a fairtax. i suggest we remove it as a more recent interview appears to contradict such. perhaps we could say he is for lower and much simpler taxes instead? [3] There's always danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax: We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax — or worse, a value-added tax — would replace the income tax then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great that they must retain the income tax, too. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dead Link/potential POV content in lede

[edit]

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

"ABC is reported to believe "his reporting goes against the grain of the established media and offers the network something fresh and different...[but] makes him a target of the groups he offends."[6]"

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

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

Womens' health

[edit]

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

FAIR and MMfA

[edit]

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

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

Re "discredited" before "journalist"

[edit]

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

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

Criticism and controversy section

[edit]

The Criticism and Controversy section of this page deserves to be updated with more recent material. Regardless of what Stossel did in the past for ABC, what he does these days should not be described as "investigative journalism." Here is a citation for his "reporting" being funded by right-wing donors: [4] Further support for describing Stossel as an advocacy pundit or personality, not a journalist, is detailed here: [5] To cite one recent example, Stossel "reports" by interviewing his own brother, Dr. Tom Stossel, "a visiting professor for health care studies at the American Enterprise Institute," who happens to share his views on what ought to be done about the Ebola crisis; should asking one's relatives about policy options via one's own Fox television program really be considered investigative journalism? In December 2013 yet another of his "investigations" involved pretending to be homeless in order to "report" that homeless people are doing just fine and do not deserve charity or other attention from policymakers; can other editors not come to some kind of consensus that whatever kind of "reporting" such shenanigans constitute they are far from what is understood as "investigative reporting" in the Wikipedia article we link to in the first paragraph? [6] Stossel's lack of credibility as a journalist is evident in many other places, and this article deserves not purely a left-leaning critique as I might personally offer but a true POV-free recasting. Johnpdeever 09:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elaboration on Emmy awards

[edit]

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

Request for Comments

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of bias here?

[edit]

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

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

Felons

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Time to reassess GA status

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

DDT

[edit]

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

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

Secondhand smoke

[edit]

"In 2014, Stossel falsely claimed, "There is no good data showing secondhand smoke kills people."[56] There is a scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful.[56]"

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

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

[edit]

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

Number of Emmys won by Stossell

[edit]

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

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

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

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

It has been four weeks; I am going to go ahead and restore the 19. Unschool 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say instead of reinstating facts we can not verify, we just correct it to whatever reliable sources are cited as saying. If we can't find reliable sources stating he won 19 emmys. Unfortunately we should remove any previous statements. As editors we simply just collect information put out by WP:RS Eruditess (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think Stossel's own claim to have won 19 Emmys ([7]) is a reliable source. I mean, I don't know that there is an actual comprehensive source that compiles all the Emmys won in all the different categories, other than the ones seen on the prime time awards show every year (which actually represents only a small fraction of all the Emmys awarded). Unschool 08:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added a source. Unschool 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stossel on Wikipedia Edit removed

[edit]

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

Here was my small addition:

  • In a April 2022 Stossel did a segment about bias on Wikipedia's political pages, quoting complaints of bias from Larry Sanger (Wikipedia co-founder) and complaining that Wikipedia won't consider right-leaning outlet "reliable", while doing the same for more dubious left-leaning outlets, and offered examples of what he considered biased treatment of various topics. [Stossel, John (April 26, 2022). "Wikipedia's Bias". Rumble. Retrieved May 23, 2022.]

The addition was immediately removed by User:Zaathras with the comment that "rumble is a haven for tinfoil nutters and fringe right-wing p.o.v.'s, it is not a usable source in the Wikipedia". Which to me sounds like he was going out of his/her way to take a non-neutral tone, and attacking the source instead of the content. However, the source wasn't rumble, it was John Stossel posting his own video. Rumble was just a video hosting provider. If any provider that has bad content isn't allowed, then I assume replacing the post with the YouTube source to Stossel's video [8] is just as wrong for the same reason. (YouTube is "a haven for tinfoil nutters and first left-wing/right-wing p.o.v.'s"). But I added it, just in case, as this seems to fix Zaathras' stated problem. Or I could post a link to John Stossel's own site (https://www.johnstossel.com/). This is not trying to provoke or play dumb, I'm sincerely asking. Why am I not allowed to provide a link to the source's video as a source for his own opinions? I didn't want to break the rules if I was doing something wrong. (I didn't find the edit description helpful or neutral). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Every (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

Climate change denial(sorta)

[edit]

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

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

Fire Video

[edit]

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

Nobody came up with a better idea. I changed the text as described. Inside the cite I included a quote= parameter, with a charge from the complaint. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a bit of the typical Tucker Carlson-ish excuse ("What??? I didn't say that outlandish thing, the guest I solicited, booked, and featured on my eponymous talk show said that outlandish thing! Blame them!"), to be honest. Zaathras (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit appears advisable, but I removed the refquote because it did not describe the statement in the broadcast. Llll5032 (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The refquote that Lill5032 removed was in the complaint: Without identifying a single false fact contained in the video reports - and in one instance, apparently without even bothering to review the video at all - Defendants publicly announced that Stossel's reporting had failed a "fact-check." I support inclusion but consensus is required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Later in the paragraph, Ericgoldman on 12 October 2022 added In October 2022, the federal court ruled against Stossel, granting Facebook's motion to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motion (which requires Stossel to reimburse Facebook's attorneys fees). I see nothing in the cited document that directly supports the notion that reimbursement is required, I only see (at the end) that it might be requested. Have I missed something? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An award of the defense's attorneys fees is required under CA's anti-SLAPP law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_motion_to_strike Ericgoldman (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources in the paragraph should be replaced by secondary sources for any interpretation (per WP:PRIMARY #1 #2 #4). Llll5032 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Lill5032 removed the words about reimbursement, and believe that's right since Ericgoldman didn't show that the cited source directly supported them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falsehood #3: In September 2021, Stossel sued Facebook, alleging defamation after fact checkers, including Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, labeled Stossel's video titled "Government Fueled Fires" as "misleading" and labeled another video titled "Are We Doomed?" as "partly false" and "factual inaccuracies". No, the cited source says that the defendant wasn't Facebook alone, but Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback. Also there's no evidence that Science Feedback applied any label, they're defendants for other reasons. Also the word "including" suggests others were applying the label for Facebook or being sued, which I don't see in the source. Also the linked term "fact checkers" is not applicable in the Wikipedia sense here, since the defendants said they were just giving an opinion (and apparently the actual application of the label in this specific case was by one person, Nikki Forrester). So I propose: In September 2021, Stossel sued Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback after Climate Feedback labeled Stossel's video titled "Government Fueled Fires" as "misleading" and labeled another video titled "Are We Doomed?" as "partly false" and "factual inaccuracies". Any better ideas? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By "cited source", are you referring to the wording of Stossel's own lawsuit, or to one of the secondary sources? Llll5032 (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lawsuit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest wording closer to Variety's [9], which is probably the best independent RS in the paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "closer" wording are you suggesting? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I WP:BOLDly edited the wording here. Llll5032 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Hollywood Reporter and some other independent RS discussed the dismissal last year. We should add them. Llll5032 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's bold. Two objections are: (1) My suggestion "Stossel sued Facebook and Science Feedback and Climate Feedback" is in my view shorter and clearer than Llll5032's change to "Stossel sued Facebook ... [about 30 words later in a different sentence] ... Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, were also named in the lawsuit". (2) My suggestion said Climate Feedback applied the label which in my view is more specific than fact checkers, and avoids wikivoicing an opinion (Mr Stossel disputes the term's use), while Llll5032's change keeps the label, with a Wikipedia link, and then repeats it. So:I believe my suggestion is better than Llll5032's change. Does anyone else care? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The independent RS have emphasized Facebook first and mentioned the other groups much later in their articles, so it is not incorrect to WP:STICKTOSOURCE and mention them slightly later. If secondary sources say Climate Feedback applied the label, then that can be noted. Your editing appears to rely too much on a single WP:PRIMARY source (the unsuccessful lawsuit), so please cite secondary RS instead per WP:PRIMARY #1 #2 #4. Llll5032 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph needed to be updated with RS descriptions from the lawsuit dismissal, so I made another WP:BOLD edit. I tried to align the paragraph and its summary sentence more with the cited independent RS per WP:PROPORTION, so aspects of the case have "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". I moved Science Feedback and Climate Feedback from the third sentence to the second sentence for better consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since Llll5032 continues to make changes to the section without seeking consensus and despite my objections, I no longer believe I can fix the things that are wrong with it. I'll move on to other problems. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you make future changes to the article based on WP:BESTSOURCES, then you will have agreement from me. Llll5032 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Claim in Criticism and Controversies Section

[edit]

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

The bit about "conflict of interest" was added by 129.15.127.254 in 2006. David Mastio's mention of "conflicts" follows a sentence about "the fundamental ethical question of whether or not journalists and the news organizations they work for should align themselves with ideologically driven organizations". I agree with CedricJ. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Stossel&oldid=1258207640"