Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Patricia Roberts Harris

I've just edited the para about Sowell's public confrontation with the late Patricia Roberts Harris. I'm now unsure about whether this incident is significant enough to mention in this article.

Sowell's account of the incident can be read via [http://www.amazon.com/A-Man-Letters-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031967/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top#reader_1594031967 the Amazon page for A Man of Letters.] You'll see that Thomas's real dispute is with the late Carl Rowan. Apparently, Sowell's column created a fuss, with the WaPo later publishing "an entire page" of denunciations of Sowell by Rowan, Harris and others. Sowell comments: "This was due, I believe, not only to what I had said, or even that I had revealed the dirty little secret of internal color discrimination among blacks in a white newspaper, but that I did so in a Washington paper[.] ... [T]oo many blacks in Washington were all too aware of ... internal color discrimination."

So we have:

  • Sowell's debate(s) with Rowan and other black activists/commentators — certainly significant, IMO
  • The particular column from Sowell which set off this particular spat and the subsequent page of denunciations — might be significant; would need secondary sources
  • Sowell's sharp response to Harris — I'm not convinced either way (but the bit about "no running hot water" in their house in Charlotte could be used)

What do other editors think? CWC 06:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

I've just removed the following paragraph:

The Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen reached conclusions inconsistent with Sowell's research of price gouging.<ref>Amartya Sen Poverty and Famines. An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford) 1981</ref>

Using a whole book as a reference for this claim is not good enough for a BLP. (BTW, our article about price gouging currently mentions Sowell and Walter Williams but not Sen, for whatever that's worth.)

We really need a secondary source that is entirely/mostly about Sowell vs Sen before we can cover this in the article. Cheers, CWC 06:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters, again

I contend that any use of Media Matters as a source in any article about a US conservative violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. In my considered opinion, citing MMfA re Sowell is like citing a KKK newsletter. I have therefore removed all mention of MMfA, again. See previous discussion above at #Media Matters Criticism and #MMfA, plus this NPOVN discussion. I see a clear consensus. Remember: If the only cite for a negative claim is a maliciously deceptive propaganda site, that claim does not belong in Wikipedia.

Can anyone find an acceptable cite showing that Sowell received significant criticism for his "Race and Politics" column? If not, we should remove that paragraph. Also, we should change the <ref>s to use {{cite news}} etc. Cheers, CWC 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update re MMfA: more discussion at my talk page, this Arbitration request (permalink), Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Cheers, CWC 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted Chris Chittleborough's changes. The BRD process is that if an edit is disputed and reverted, you get consensus for it before editing it again. You do not repeat the removal, and then offer to discuss whether it should stay removed. Should consensus be reached for removal of Media Matters sourced content it can be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Read the discussions from last year. We have consensus: no MMfA. Also, Escape Orbit, you just violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, which no amount of consensus can ever justify. This is not about a BRD process, this is about conforming to Wikipedia's core rules. Reverted. CWC 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion of this source in regard to policy is already noted. Your opinion is disputed. However you haven't grasped that content disputes are not a reason for edit warring, which is what you are doing. I invite you to revert your change in order to avoid any danger of a block.
In regards to the policies you refer to; there is nothing in any of them to say that criticism of a person's actions should not be included, or must be neutral. All that policy requires is that the criticism is notable, (i.e. not given undue weight), is presented neutrally and is verifiable. What MMfA has said is a matter of fact that can be verified in the cite. I don't see much wrong with the article's presentation of things, so the only matter up for debate it is whether their opinion is notable. Whether it is 'lies' is not open to debate, so I am concerned that this is the thrust of your argument. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. Removing BLP violations is required, not edit warring, and silly talk about consensus does not change that.
And yes, it is OK and even desirable to prevent significant criticism in a BLP. That MMfA said something negative about a conservative is never significant. If something from MMfA creates a controversy that gets independent reporting, or causes significant events (eg., the DNC fund-raising letter mentioned in this article), we can and often/usually should report that ... but should rarely if ever cite MMfA in doing so.
Let me restate something I wrote above: If the only cite for a negative claim is MMfA, that claim does not belong in Wikipedia.
Now let me rephrase that: Any Wikipedia editor who wishes to include a criticism of a conservative coming from MMfA needs to find a good, notable source making that criticism.
So those of you who want to put lots of negative stuff about Prof. Sowell into this article should be looking for well-sourced criticism instead of reverting BLP violations into the article. Is that a big enough hint? CWC 12:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Something I thought of just after clicking "Save": as mentioned above, Sowell and Amartya Sen have conflicting theories about price gouging. Surely some academic economist has written a paper critiquing Sowell's theories that would be a good addition to this article? Cheers, CWC 12:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You're not following what I said. Your opinion of what constitutes a BLP violation is noted, and disputed. Your opinion of MMfA as a suitable source is noted, and disputed. I see no BLP violation in saying that the MMfA said something critical. There is a question of undue weight, but again that is a dispute of content that could be resolved through consensus. But if Prof Sowell chooses to employ himself as a political commentator on the internet, then it goes with the territory that what he says may be criticised by other political commentators on the internet, including the MMfA. Otherwise, despite you claims to the contrary, the content contains no lies and has no factual inaccuracies (unless you can explain where?). So your continued brandishing of BLP as a big stick isn't helping discussion (or your argument), and is not an excuse for edit warring. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason we're using MMfA and not something more neutral and reliable? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How on earth does Media Matters' opinion pass WP:DUE? Of all the criticism engendered by Sowell we can surely find better sourcing. I recognize MMFA is WP:RS, however in this instance it is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. – Lionel (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it does. We have sources that aren't MMfA already there, and CartoonDiablo, to this point, is the only person who wants to keep the MMfA part in there. We don't need it for the claim (if we need the claim at all). Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Attention Everyone Still Arguing Over Media Matters and Consensus

The case is has been decided and closed. Media Matters can be used and consensus is being misused by the editors who want to prevent it.

If editors continue to remove material based on questioning Media Matters as a RS or consensus based on it, it will result in sanctions. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you have any right or ability to threaten sanctions on anyone else. I was not part of the initial discussion, and there does not appear to be consensus to include it or not. Perhaps the entire section should be struck? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who made the decision, if you want to appeal it then by all means do so but don't violate it by reverting the article. And no, removing all criticism would be a worse POV omission then just removing Media Matters. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No one "made the decision." You went to a dispute resolution noticeboard with people who are not involved with you currently and are trying to apply principles of one person's thought regarding Media Matters as evidence of the consensus here. It certainly is not - there actually appears to be a fairly significant consensus here that the use of Media Matters is inappropriate in this context. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a third party made the decision which was needed because of a dispute. You can disagree with it, you can appeal it but it holds as legitimate based on the editing process. Here it is for reference:

  • Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments about consensus Based on the article's talk page, the biggest problem that I see is a misunderstanding of consensus by both sides of the debate. I saw a number of comments on the talk page about consensus that were wrong. A few things about Wikipedia and consensus: (1) Consensus cannot trump Wikipedia policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; (3) Consensus can change over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Wikipedia's "Don't revert solely due to non-consensus" disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. Debbie W. 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, as it stands Media Matters is an acceptable source and you can't use consensus to prevent it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A third party chimed in at DR, sure. The dispute was not involving me, and consensus can change, which it might just be... Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Well a few things. The fact that you weren't in the discussion is irrelevant, the parties to the dispute were and the issue was decided based on the rules of the site. Secondly, consensus requires an outside opinion in the first place. And even if consensus changes (or remains the same) it does not give carte blanche to violate NPOV.
As the decision points out:
(1) Consensus cannot trump Wikipedia policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
First, there was no "decision." A neutral third party chimed in, and now other people are chiming in. My suggestion may be to actually post this at RFC and see if other people will come in. There is no policy against removing contentious material, but there is policy regarding use of blog/self-published sources, which is a significant argument against using MMfA period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In effect it was a decision; a third party chiming in as well as me and others chiming making it a standard unless it was otherwise appealed in RFC. The Media Matters source is not self-published and blogs are not banned as sources on Wikipedia; they are just another medium which may or may not be used depending on the circumstances. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So why is it worth using here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it shows the organization's reaction to a controversial statement he made. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is it at all relevant? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Because they represented a criticism of the controversial comment? This is starting to sound like you're deliberately trying to draw out a non-issue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is the comment noteworthy of mention here? Is anything MMfA decides to cover worthy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The same reason why Sarah Palin's or the DNC's comment is noteworthy, this is last time I'm answering this question. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You haven't answered why. You simply state "it's noteworthy." Why is it noteworthy? Why is this statement worthy of being covered here? Is anything MMfA talks about worthy of note? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Given your lack of response over the last 2 days while doing other editing, should we assume you're retracting your protest over the removal of the MMFA-sourced section? Looking back over the discussions from last year, it actually appears you're the only person who actually thinks it should be included, so I'm not sure where the consensus you've claimed you have is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Given no further protest, I'm going to remove that section per the apparent consensus over the last year and the lack of any explained noteworthiness. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
There is further protest, that of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The only way to undue the decision is to take it up to arbitration. I'm reinstating the material and if you make such an attempt again you will be reported for conduct awaiting possible sanctions.
To answer your previous question, it's noteworthy because major politicians as well the DNC responded to it, and the validity of Media Matters' response has been upheld. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I love that you're dredging up a two week old conflict for reasons I cannot fathom. The consensus over the past year, based on what you provided for links, is that the section isn't worth keeping. You're the only one here continuing to defend its inclusion weeks later. Can you show links about the major politicians and the DNC responding to it, perhaps? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
We are now up to 5 days without a resolution on this. If we cannot bring up the evidence being requested, we should remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the issue addressed in the MediaMatters editorial hasn't been taken up by any other mass media, as far as I can see, then I don't see any reason to have it included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
And the criticism in question remains in the article sourced to non-MMfA groups, so it's pretty much dealt with. Still not convinced the criticism is worthy of merit, but the MMfA issue was the broader problem and it appears to have been solved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
-CartoonDiablo, after not checking in here for over 3 weeks, reverted basically without comment. Does anyone have any other input on this, or maybe CartoonDiablo would like to chime in? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Since Thargor has been so insistent I'll reiterate that the issue has been closed per dispute resolution and applies to everyone. Unless someone wants to go to mediation or arbitration to solve it then there is no discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution, of course, is not binding. You already tried arbitration, not a single arb wanted to bother with it. If you cannot justify including the material, we shouldn't have it. You'll note that we were able to have the information you wanted to add *without* using MMfA - why is that not acceptable for you? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes arbitration is only done when other options, including third opinion, mediation etc. have failed. As it stands, the editors here are trying to exclude an RS for obvious POV reasons, which is why the validity of MMfA was held up in dispute resolution and yet everyone still wants to remove it.
If Thargor Orlando or any other editor thinks they have a good case and aren't just doing it for POV exclusion via consensus, they can try mediation, or third opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Lionel is an unrelated party who chimed in up above. Cla68 is an unrelated party who chimed in above. You literally have no one supporting your side at this point. Where is the consensus for keeping MMfA? Heck, where is the consensus for keeping the criticism at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
@Cartoon: it is correct that the DR thread was closed. But consensus can change. Additionally, my reading of the DR thread was that pertained to whether MMFA is a reliable source. The current issue at hand IMO appears to be whether MMFA is WP:UNDUE. This is a different issue than the one discussed at DR. @Thargor: remember that discussions are not decided by a vote--but by strength of arguments. That said, Cartoon is arguing that MMFA is RS--but has failed to address the objection of MMFA on UNDUE grounds. Cla68 and myself have demonstrated how in the present case MMFA fails UNDUE. Since this is an UNDUE issue and not a RS issue, the prior dispute resolution doesn't apply. And since Cartoon has not offered a rebuttal to the UNDUE concerns of multiple editors here, we have consensus based on UNDUE that MMFA should be removed.– Lionel (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. CD also misunderstands the role of DR, believing it to be a binding issue as opposed to a resolution of a dispute he had with individual editors. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd also add that this is a BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Even though MMFA is a reliable source, for critical and negative content we need multiple reliable third party sources. – Lionel (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Criticism of the Hitler comparison certainly does not fail UNDUE. Rather, the removal of the MMfA criticism would violate UNDUE because it represents a prominent viewpoint. Also, there are multiple sources for everything in the controversy section (and the statements in the article are not really in question anyway because they accurately paraphrase statements in Sowell's columns, which are cited as sources). While the Rwanda comparison is less notable and I can support removing that part (though it is referenced, favorably, here, for instance), the Hitler comparison is well known, which is why references to it show up months afterward in places like this and this (and of course it was widely commented on at the time. Hugetim (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we prove the MMfA criticism is prominent specifically, or can we note that criticism using non-MMfA sources? I have no problem including the criticism if it's with valid sources. This is independent of the complete lack of consensus for using MMfA, BTW. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
An RS commenting on a notable event is prominent. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
They seem to be the first to criticize Sowell for the Hitler comparison, as is often the case in these sorts of incidents, and then other commentators followed. It also seems to be the most detailed critique. We can note the criticism using other sources, but I don't understand why you don't want to cite MMfA's views here, Thargor Orlando. Hugetim (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that other sources were not reliant on MMfA for the response (at least not explicitly), and I have no issue with referring to those sources. MMfA is not reliable, is self-published, is highly partisan, and really should be avoided in this context whenever possible. It's especially possible here when we have the DNC reference - a reliable, appropriate political respondent. To counter, we would never ever ever be okay with using NewsBusters to comment on liberal columnists for the same reason. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Serious claims require serious evidence. Partisan I get, but what evidence do you have that MMfA is not reliable, and what definition of self-published are you using which does not also include newspapers as "self-published"? Hugetim (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
MMfA has dedicated itself to the destruction of FNC. As reported in Politico], MMfA should not be considered a news organization in the least. They have a dedicated activist agenda and have no pretense of objetive reporting. Such a source can never be used as a reliable source for any factual information. Since they are actively targenting conservatives, anything they report on conservatives must be taken with a bag of salt. If something they report on is notable (ie has some weight behind it) it will have been reported in other mainstream sources, use those sources if it meets weight issues. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Arzel said it perfectly - they're not a news organization or a factchecking organization (like Factcheck.org or Politifact, for example), but a partisan subjective agenda-driven source. As for the difference between MMfA and newspapers, newspapers are places that do journalism, have a set of ethics, etc. MMfA is not, and does not claim to be, a journalistic enterprise. Nor do they claim to be a think tank, for that matter, which puts them in a different place than Brookings or Cato. There's no reason to ever use MMfA in a contentious article, if it's ever appropriate at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems like you are arguing they are a questionable source. Maybe, but only because they have an apparent conflict of interest. I see no evidence that they have a poor reputation for checking facts or that they lack editorial oversight. Hugetim (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
And I see no evidence that they have a good reputation for checking facts or that they have actual editorial oversight. They're clearly questionable, yes, and this doesn't even touch upon the complete lack of consensus or justification for addition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't happen to think using an RS once in an article makes it undue weight but I do think there is an effort at POV exclusion which is attempted to be justified by consensus. If anyone thinks that using an RS once in an entire article for about two words constitutes undue weight they can take it up in dispute resolution, third opinion or mediation but as far as I can tell it's a transparent attempt at a POV exclusion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
At this point, it's just as much about consensus as it is about BLP and undue weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, DebbieW, which CD is using to validate MMFA above is a banned sock abuser. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No he was banned for copyright which had nothing to do with his dispute resolution decision (if it did it would have been removed) BLP was determined to be fine in a previous discussion and the how can an RS be undue when it's used once in an article? This doesn't pass any kind of test, you are trying to use impose your POV by removing the material. It's ridiculous on its face.
No, she was caught because she was trying to use copyrighted material. The ban was for being a sockpuppet master. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but this is going to dispute resolution, there's no reasonable way it can be justified by Undue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been a few days and no valid reason for inclusion has been presented here on the talk page. The minor opinion of a known left-wing group dedicated to the destruction of conservative figures does not warrent inclusion on a BLP. If an event is notable it will have many other actual RS's to give it WP:WEIGHT. Without adequate weight this violates WP:NPOV as it gives an over-emphasized view of a minor event. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion at DRN makes it pretty clear it is indeed valid. Add yourself to the list of edit warriors below, Arzel. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not even close. There was no discussion at DRN, it was only another attempt at forum shopping by Cartoon Diablo. Arzel (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh? The discussion is there, and continues. Editors have weighed in with support for MMfA being in the article (including TFD, myself, Hugetim). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no discussion when the editor first added this crap back into the article under a false claim of discussion. I should have removed it right then, but I thought I would give editors a chance to provide some main stream sources which would give this some weight. None have been provided, so the original reasoning is invalid and the baseline returned. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what happened in the past with this. What matters is that right now, the MMfA stuff is acceptable per the DRN discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not without some actual reliable sources to back it up as notable. When MMfA declared all out war against conservatives its respect went from little to none. Now I know the left still breathlessly follows MMfA, but thankfully WP has higher standards, especially for BLP articles. Arzel (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've just dropped in from WP:DRN to look at the dispute here. Thargor and Cartoon need to cut out this edit warring bullshit immediately or I'm going to request full page protection. You may have both skirted around WP:3RR, but if I were to report you at WP:AN3 I'm pretty sure the slomo edit warring would be evident enough for you both to get sanctioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I requested page protection before you got here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
End yet you continued to edit war over the tags. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people should be discussing on talk instead of simply removing tags they don't like. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people should be discussing on talk instead of simply adding tags they do like. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If you can look at this talk page and say I'm the one refusing to engage, there's a problem. Meanwhile, the guy who hasn't visited in three days chooses to canvass for changes as opposed to discuss. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion continues at DRN, so "refusing to engage" is rather disingenuous, is it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really. He's barely been involved, and he only opened it to try and build a case for "sanctions," as seen above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. He opened it because there was a content dispute that could not be resolved here due to entrenched views. Anyway, all that is irrelevant. The material should be restored and the POV badge of shame should be removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, after he abandoned the conversation and opened an arbitration request over it 3 weeks later. It's like you haven't even read the thread, but feel like commenting on it anyway. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is that even important? Maybe he was busy with other things. The issue here is the content, and clearly the MMfA stuff is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's important because you're implying that I haven't been engaged here. It's the wrong question to the wrong person. And yes, overall, the issue is the content, and nothing has been demonstrated, after multiple times asking, as to how the MMfA stuff is fine or appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I never suggested you weren't engaged here. You said CartoonDiablo wasn't, and I replied that CartoonDiablo had gone to DRN instead. As far as the content dispute is concerned, it has absolutely been demonstrated that using MMfA as a source and using their opinion is perfectly acceptable. Please stop pretending otherwise with this needless tendentiousness. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Maybe people should be discussing on talk instead of simply adding tags they do like." Pretty solid implication right there. As for MMfA, can you please show where it has been demonstrated, since you're so sure of it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You were edit warring the tags. That is not in dispute. When you wrote your silly comment above, I simply copied what you said and altered it to make a point about how silly it was. Now you are compounding the silliness. As for MMfA, it has been discussed umpteen times on WP:RSN and I stated already that I did not think the organization was "partisan" and that their views were useful, since they monitor media generated by the right wing and are, therefore, an authority on it. Are we clear now, or do I need to draw up some sort of diagram? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been discussed "umpteen times" because there's no consensus that it's reliable or useful. If it was so cut and dry, why would it have to keep coming up? So they monitor media (and they don't just monitor right wing media, but any media reporting that meets their idea of conservatism, a blatantly partisan activity) - so what? How does simply monitoring something make them an authority? Should we start adding Newsbusters to a bunch of articles about columnists and reporters now, too, since they "monitor media generated by the left wing?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It keeps coming up because the extreme right wing keeps bringing it up in the hope that repeatedly bashing a reputable organization will tarnish their reputation. And your characterization of Newbusters is flawed. They monitor the mainstream media and present centrist stories as left wing bias, because they are so far to the right they can no longer see the center. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It is statements like that which take away any and all aspect of objectivity. Newsbusters and MMfA are two sides to the same coin. Only a fundamentally flawed perspective could ever see it otherwise. Arzel (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Media Matters has been upheld as a reliable source 25 times (I don't know about the reliability of Newsbusters) and Arzel has not attempted to justify his Rwanda edits per WP:BRD despite warnings each time. As far as the notability is concerned, the Rwanda criticism is upheld by the fact that MMfA is a reliable source and is mentioned in another source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll point you to the dispute resolution request you opened - MMfA certainly has not been upheld 25 times per the research I did. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many times. The indisputable facts are (a) MMfA is a reliable source per several discussions at RSN, and (b) the opinion of Sowell's disgraceful comments by MMfA is useful and relevant. Certainly at least as useful and relevant as the opinion of a crazy representative from the Hate State of Texas. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying "25 times!" 25 times does not make it true. Scjessey, you should refractor your comments. Calling Texas the State of Hate and their representative "Crazy" doesn't help your position in the least. I thought you said you were moderate? Arzel (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Scjessey, perhaps you'd like to show where MMfA is "indisputably" reliable, and where the consensus that MMfA's criticism has consensus for inclusion, and how you assume that a partisan website is "as useful and relevant" as a sitting US Congressman? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Current personal info?

This article is bereft of any. Is Dr Sowell married? Single? Children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.202.250 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

There's been a POV tag on top of the page for months. Is there any specific change being requested or should I just remove the tag? I'll give this a few days. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I already removed a tag that contained "pp-dispute|expiry=July 27, 2012", but this was reverted. Given that it's after July 27, this tag has expired, so I don't see why it's still there. I would like CartoonDiablo to get rid of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

POV?

Arzel, this is your chance to explain yourself. Please tell us what you object to, in detail. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Result of Dispute Resolution MMfA (again)

Again for the nth time, the opinion of dispute resolution has held that MMfA can be used as a source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gone WAY off track. The dispute resolution does not address conduct matters - and this discussion has been very unproductive. If a discussion has taken place regarding the use of a source on the RSN and a clear result was not achieved, you can ask for more input with a community RFC. Yelling at each other is not the way to resolve this. From the discussion here, it appears that the reliability of a the MMfA source has been confirmed - so the key here is attributing the point of view to MMfA - you cannot exclude a significant viewpoint from an article just because you don't like it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is a serious conduct matter. I suggest that the discussed material be included as long as it is attributed to MMfA, and everyone here gets on with their lives and does something more productive. Steven Zhang 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. The last few edits have confused me. My brain hurts. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears that there had been a misunderstanding, but it's all better now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah sorry about that, I misread the edit summary and thought the source was being removed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No big deal. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That seemed premature, but mostly because of the constant derailing. If you check the actual discussion, there's absolutely no consensus that MMfA can or should be used, I did a ton of research on it. I still oppose including it in any way in this article, as do many others, especially when we don't need it. Recall as well, CD, that dispute resolution is not binding. Your forum shopping will not end well for you, especially if you continue to refuse to answer questions about where this consensus lies, what makes it a reliable source, and why it's appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This dispute was settled at DRN, and the result was a consensus to keep. Tagging it like you did is just plain disruptive. Please self revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Where is this resolution you speak of? I see a premature closure of a situation that was never fully answered. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not under discussion

This specific issue has been solved twice in dispute resolution, the fact that Thargor and Collect are discussing it does not make it under discussion. Unless they want to go to mediation or arbitration the section is solved per two dispute resolutions. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Un named staff writer

I removed some material that doesn't seem that notable. Are there other citations that comment on Sowell's article that can be reviewed here? --Mollskman (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman

Mollskman, you just removed[1] an entire paragraph with the claim "rm non notable material from un named staff writer". This had two citations, the first from the primary source, in which he clearly did accuse the Democrats of playing the race card, and another from a reliable secondary source, Media Matters, which supports the notability of the statement. To be frank, it doesn't really matter which member(s) of the staff wrote the article. I was also unable to locate any record of a consensus being formed in favor of removing this item. I think it would be best if you reverted your own change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, people are edit warring over including a non notable blog entry from an un named staff wrtiter? How is this in way shape or form notable. If there are other citations that address this, please post them here since there is no consensus for including this material. --Mollskman (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I brought this to the BLP board so hopefully others can comment and consensus can be reached. Again, if there are other citations that show this perticular article or event is a notable, posting those here would help it seems. --Mollskman (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mollskman on this paragraph. Apart from a few liberal blogs, Media Matters was really the only organization to waste their time commenting on this particular Sowell screed. Recommend removal. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
So, on one side, we have Media Matters, a reliable source. On the other... nothing. Where's the argument?
If it's ruled a BLP violation, out it goes. But when it's not, I'm putting it right back. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Why put it back, though? What makes it worthy of note? I suggest reading the copious discussions above as well as at the dispute resolution board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
@Still-24-45-42-125, it being a RS or not is a red herring and has NOTHING to do with its inclusion or exclusion. The point is still whether it's notable enough to go in the article. --Mollskman (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, you need to pick an argument. If you're claiming it's a BLP violation, then having a reliable source is a solid defense. If you're claiming that it's not notable, you need to convincingly argue for that conclusion, which you have not even attempted to do. Hint: claiming staff writers don't count is not convincing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought it to the BLP board so other uninvolved editors who are interested in BIOs, like myself, could comment and help. The ownous(sp) for inclusion falls on the person(s) wanting to include material. Why for the umptenth time do you think this is notable and belongs in the bio? --Mollskman (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Wait, a second. You reported it as a BLP violation but you don't believe it is? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought maybe the BLP could help since there is a dispute and the material I removed seems to go against the BLP policy of balance by presenting a tiny view point. --Mollskman (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position on this, I think Media Matters for America is absolutely a reliable source that can be used for pretty much anything; however, I do not think this particular Sowell screed has received significant enough coverage for it to be included in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
How much coverage would you consider sufficient? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That's the irony of the position - MMfA is allegedly good enough (even though there's no evidence of consensus for such a position), but nearly everyone agrees that MMfA alone is not enough in this instance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Because this particular MMfA piece is not attributed to a particular writer (or the editorial board), I would expect at least one other reliable source to give some indication of importance. I don't think it is a BLP issue, but I do think it falls foul of WP:WEIGHT because it isn't a "significant viewpoint". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. Whatever a staff writer submits must go through the editorial board, so it's no different than if it listed their name. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I would expect at least one other reliable source of reasonable repute for something of this nature. All MMfA has done is quote Sowell's column and then attached an opinion in the form of a headline. There's nothing else to it, so I really don't see how it can possibly be called a "significant viewpoint". Believe me, if other reliable sources had written about this screed I'd be one of the first to insist on its inclusion, but there's nothing out there. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally don't understand your criteria for notability. The fact that a reliable source sees fit to pick out these particular selections and publish them with commentary would seem to be sufficient. Is there something else that you'd expect? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that it was published without commentary. The only writing from MMfA came in the form of the heading under which the excerpts were published. I'm sorry, but we've talked this to death and I don't see a consensus for inclusion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the additional sources below. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Those sources refer to a different paragraph. This discussion is about this paragraph. You should know this, because it was you who started the discussion about it! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right. Nobody who might be mistaken for a reliable source in a coal mine at midnight cares what Sowell said about Obama playing the race card. It looks like every last conservative blogger is having orgasms over it, but that's all. I say cut it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
At least with the Hitler thing, it goes plenty of coverage by politicians and newspeople alike, as compared to the Rwanda thing that no one save one hyperpartisan organization cared about. It's why we should a) keep the criticism b) sourced to the reliable coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's just as way out as the Hitler stuff, but nobody outside of the hyperpartisan right wing got excited about it. As always, I am a prisoner of our sources: I support what our sources do. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I do wish people would stop referring to MMfA as "hyperpartisan". Mostly, it just reports what the extreme right wing spouts in the media. Occasionally it is accompanied by some opinion from the political left, but it's not on the far left as some people are claiming. That is largely why it has found to be a reliable source, because it is largely just a presenter-of-facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't disagree. MMfA is a reliable source. I was referring to right-wing blogs as hyperpartisan, because they are. Half of them seemed to be only inches away from demanding that we lynch Obama for being so uppity. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you please point out where it has been "found" to be a reliable source? And yes, MMfA is hyperpartisan, and it is on the far left in the American spectrum, which matters in topics of American politics. I don't know where you're getting your information, to be frank. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been found to be reliable in multiple discussions in multiple articles and noticeboards, Thargor. Repeating the opposite will not make it so. And you need to recalibrate your political spectrum. Both political parties have shifted to the right, with the Democratic Party occupying a central position and the Republicans now much further to the right from where they were under Reagan (proof). MMfA is left of center, but not far left. Repeated claims by you that it is not a reliable source are disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been found not to be reliable in multiple articles and noticeboards as well. Your POV aside, you've provided no evidence that it's a reliable source yet, and the evidence doesn't support your assertions. Accusations of disruption are equally unfounded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been found to be reliable in two of the most recent dispute resolutions. You can keep claiming that somehow being banned for an unrelated reason impacted it or that the other was "pre-mature" when the editor clearly gave the outside opinion and closed it but it doesn't make it so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
DRN is not binding on content issues, as you certainly should know by now. And places where content issues are looked at much closer - the RS noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard - have not shown consensus for your position. So where's your evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The consensus has been shown twice over the course of the dispute discussions, the fact that it's non-binding is irrelevant. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus has not been shown at all yet. This is why I keep asking for proof of this consensus existing. If the consensus is real, you should have no problem showing it. I did the legwork to show the lack of consensus, why are you unable to do the same? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is why I keep telling you that those two dispute resolutions are the consensus and unless you happen to show that the two outside opinions of both discussions said the opposite of what they did, then no, you haven't shown anything. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
DRN discussions are not binding, and they don't show any consensus, especially in the light of the multiple discussions at different noticeboards that offer more possibly binding decisions. That's why I keep telling you that the DRN discussions are not demonstrating any consensus - they show no evidence to support the assertion, and to claim as such ignores the wealth of information that's been provided to you. We'd have this resolved by now if you'd accept these basics and work with those who are opposed with you as opposed to this tactic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a clear majority supporting CartoonDiablo's position when you include the folks who spoke up at DRN. All you disagree with is the use of a specific source because it has what you perceive to be a "liberal bias", yet you are perfectly comfortable to have the views of Palin and Gohmert who are conservatively-biased to the point where some of their own party find it alarming. That's an extraordinary double standard, Thargor, and I think you may as well stop pretending this has anything to do with Wikipedia policy and admit it's just your own biases controlling you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus isn't a vote count, and if we include the people who've opposed CD over the last 18 months he's tried to force this issue, that majority would disappear anyway. The views of Palin and Goehmert, both important voices in the public discourse, are there to provide balance. There's no double standard - MMfA isn't reliable, Politico is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No, consensus isn't a vote count but you are outnumbered. Palin and Gohmert are well outside the mainstream of normal public discourse. MMfA is reliable for what MMfA says, obviously. Your argument is basically "I don't like it". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Palin, much to the dislike of many, is within the mainstream of normal public discourse. You would not see it because she is vilified by the left media at the drop of a hat. She is certainly more mainstream than MMfA, and certainly more well known. The DNR included the opinion of one, who, with all due respect, was unable to provide a valid reason for his conclusion, he appears to have simply taken the word of those that were arguing the issue here without any additional research or thought. He was also unable and unwilling to illustrate that MMfA is a significant viewpoint. The only true concensus on MMfA that I have ever seen, is that they are a reliable source for their own opinion, and that their opinion alone is not sufficient for inclusion of critical information, especially within a BLP. You have even made the same argument above. And unless such a position is taken it opens up BLP articles to every critical screed from MMfA. Arzel (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Palin is well known - well known for being a quitter in particular. Nevertheless, the views she has are clearly to the far right of a Republican party that's already to the right of where it was under Reagan. MMfA is definitely a left-leaning organization, but it is much closer in editorial opinion to the mainstream than Palin is. What is certain is that there is no question of any sort of BLP violation with the use of MMfA as a source as proposed in this article. Any suggestion otherwise would just be complete nonsense. I noticed you didn't even bother trying to defend Gohmert LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Palin as a "quitter" has accomplished far more in her life than you ever will. I am not specifically knowledgable about Gohmert so I did not discuss him. As for the rest of your comment, you are simply just wrong, but I love how the left vilivied Reagan as a right-wing extremist back when he was president is now using him as a model of moderate conservatism! LOL back at ya.  :) Arzel (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Sowell/Archive_3&oldid=1050156820"