Talk:NPR/Archive 2

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

message: --Ideogram 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader input 

message: My assessment of the mediation so far is as follows:
#It was established that User:MSTCrow needed a source that directly challenged the NPR survey, rather than building arguments from scratch (as disallowed by Wikipedia:Original research.
#MST agreed to find the source.
#MST offered one source, but it did not directly address the survey.
#Edit wars appeared to have stopped, with the article as is - with the NPR survey and no source contradicting it.
#MST acknowledges lack of sources, but now says the NPR survey does not belong in the article in the first place.
#Some personal attacks are made.
Here's my conclusion at this stage: No one appears to have demonstrated (unless I missed it) why the NPR survey is not a verifiable source; no verifiable source has been located to provide a counterargument to the survey; therefore it is reasonable for the NPR survey to stay in the article, and if at any stage someone finds a source that can be added to challenge it, by all means do so. Seems to me that on Wikipedia, dem's da rules - provide sourced information and no original research. Do people find that fair? David L Rattigan 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found a source that indicates the NPR survey is flawed and dishonest.  See The real truth on the Maryland PIPA Fox News Study.  This source directly addresses the survey. - MSTCrow 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure that's a very good source- I mean, he quotes approvingly Tenet's "... Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad." as evidence of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda; this sort of cluelessness makes one want to smack one's forehead and groan "No, really?".  --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already proven the connection above, what was wanted was a direct challenge to the survey.  We don't want to go back to old stuff that has been moved on from via the mediator. - MSTCrow 02:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you misunderstood me... to be painfully explicit, my point is that if the author of that page can be so clueless as to think that that quote supports his contention of solid and substantial pre-Iraqi War links between Saddam and al-Qaeda and its affiliates, then why should we take any of the rest of it seriously? --maru   (talk)  contribs 13:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly my point on the survey in the first place. It is self-contradictory in one place, deceptive in another, and wrong where it isn't self-contradictory or deceptive. Why should we take it seriously when it even contradicts itself? If we were writing a math article would we include an external reference that stated 1 is equal to 2, just because it's an external reference. The original survey does not meet wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Any counterpoint (which I haven't read yet) certainly couldn't be worse than the original survey.Wkerney 00:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it.  We have the full text of the survey on the web.  Quote two contradictory statements, quote where it is deceptive, quote where it is wrong.  You have failed to do any of that.  --Ideogram 00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, only 20% chose the option that "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks". Another 36% chose the position that "Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks" --still a position at odds with the dominant view of the intelligence community, but less egregiously so. Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials." Just 7% chose the option, "There was no connection at all."
The survey does not claim there were no links between Iraq and al Qaeda, it explicitly states that the view that "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" had some evidence in support.  This source of yours was written by someone who either did not read or did not understand the survey.
Furthermore your source is a website called "www.frankenlies.com", hardly a reputable NPOV source.  If I wanted to I could find a website denying the Holocaust.  This is just plain pathetic.  --Ideogram 11:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. Or you can find a survey claiming things true that are false, and vice versa, and then using that to talk about how much smarter NPR's viewers are than Fox's. The survey in question is no more credible than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Wkerney 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A survey from a respected university is more credible than a random website.  --Ideogram 00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when it suffers from the exact same problems you hold with the website. According to wikipedia policy on sources (which you have selectively chosen to apply to this source but not the survey) the more outrageous the claim, the more evidence it should have to back it up. The survey not only doesn't have evidence, but it is self-contradictory to boot. Either the survey fails on those merits, or the new source is allowable. You can't have it both ways. Wkerney 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: MSTCrow you aren't going to get anywhere by adding controversial links, simply because there are more than enough editors willing to remove them that you will fail 3RR.  If you want to add these links, you have to discuss them and achieve consensus.  --Ideogram 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR is not a right, and revision wars should be avoided whenever possible. Wkerney 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSTCrow adding links 

message: Well, ideogram, what problems do you have now with a fully sourced and NPOV-phrased section in NPR? Also, note that blanking an article or section is a form of vandalism per WP:Vandalism. If you have a problem with a section, add the appropriate tag over it and discuss it in talk.  Do not blank. - MSTCrow 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideogram, you have again blanked the section and not even left a note here, but you have the admin Bishonen on your side, who has shown himself to be so partisan as to pretend 2 reverts is 3, so I have forwarded you to the ArbCom for your blanking vandalism and destruction of the mediation process. - MSTCrow 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen can count. You can't. Your problem, not ours. --Calton | Talk 08:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideogram Blanking Section 

message: When I first came across the NPR article, I didn't know the section was under mediation. As someone that corrects obvious errors in wikipedia out of habit, I changed the PIPA reference, knowing it as a heavily flawed source. It got reverted, so I checked the talk page and saw it was under mediation. IMO, the mediation has gone on long enough (the recommended time period is 2-10 days),
:You have no concept of how mediation operates.  --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your evidence was based on misquoting the survey.  You never presented any valid evidence.  --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: You do not have the authority to close this discussion.  --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on The Mediation 

message: When I first came across the NPR article, I didn't know the section was under mediation. As someone that corrects obvious errors in wikipedia out of habit, I changed the PIPA reference, knowing it as a heavily flawed source. It got reverted, so I checked the talk page and saw it was under mediation. IMO, the mediation has gone on long enough (the recommended time period is 2-10 days),
:You have no concept of how mediation operates.  --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your evidence was based on misquoting the survey.  You never presented any valid evidence.  --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: You do not have the authority to close this discussion.  --Ideogram 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on The Mediation 

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

message: We had a number of posts today in a section. I count 16 edits in the last few hours to a new section I created attempting to reach consensus and find common ground. Ideogram made some answers to the section and then promptly archived it (preventing people from answering him) without moving the active conversation forward, which is in violation of wikipedia policy on archiving. I reverted the talk page to continue the conversation, but Carlton has now re-reverted, asking "What Active Conversation?" It's an odd statement to make... Wkerney 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and MSTCrow stated you would be observing a 48 hour cooling off period so I assumed the conversation was over.  You are again failing to assume good faith.  --Ideogram 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Conversations