Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

New addition

An IP is adding information to this article which is not fully supported by the claimed source (the source doesn't speak of "propaganda" or Wikipedia at all, for instance.) The IP has also removed info sourced to Forbes.com, which seems like a reliable source. The rotating IP needs to get consensus for their change instead of edit warring. Yobol (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

“The Red Pen of Doom” and “Yobol” expressing their opinion that Forbes.com, Seth Mnoonkin (or others agendists advancing the pharmaceutical propaganda) "seems like a reliable source" doesn’t magically make the sources reliable. And it’s certainly not good enough to justify posting contentious, libelous material on a Wikipedia bio page. It’s not surprising that, to “The Red Pen of Doom” and “Yobol,” those who agree with their agendas “seem like a good source.” Neither has any business editing their personal viewpoints and agendas into a bio page as they have repeatedly done here.

As for the idea that Forbes.com must be considered reliable because the organization presumably uses a “fact-checking” process: Forbes acknowledges that Salzberg, the opinion blogger, is not fact-checked and doesn’t even work on Forbes’ staff:

"From: @forbes.com Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:07 PM Subject: FW:

… Mr. Salzberg is an outside blogger for Forbes and not a staff writer. As such, none of his content is reviewed by Forbes prior to publication on our platform."

The cite should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.248.59 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Biased Wiki Editors Dig into their Positions to advance their agenda

The stand-alone sentence, "In July 2012, Attkisson's reporting on vaccines was characterized as spreading "anti-vaccine misinformation" and "anti-science" by Steven Salzberg," is entirely inappropriate for a biography of a living person and violates the neutral point of view policy, specifically undue weight:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

This claim about Sharyl Attkisson's focus on vaccines comes from a linked article that connects her with an outbreak of whooping cough with absolutely no credulity. The only credit we seem to take into account for including this reference is that the author is a reliable source. Unfortunately, his material isn't and has no solid ground after reading the piece. Even more damaging to the credibility of the source is it's own source.

This is a recent, isolated criticism by a minority, turned into a single sentence on Wikipedia without context or care for Neutral Point of View. I open this conversation for why it should be included, but I note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the issue that I have with the line is based solely on policy and has nothing to do with the global conversation about vaccination political camps. The burden of evidence is on those who wish inclusion for contentious material in BLPs. Keegan (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is NOT a blanket for removing any content critical of a living person's actions/misactions/errors. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the specific way in which this violates WP:UNDUE; the position that Attkisson appears to be promoting (vaccines are dangerous/may cause autism) is clearly the minority (actually fringe minority) opinion in the medical community. That her reporting promotes such a view is also not a minority, as it has been thus described by others such as Seth Mnookin here , Media Matters here, and Paul Offit in his book and appears to be the mainstream opinion (to the extent there exists one). Do you have a reliable source that says her vaccine reporting isn't anti-vaccine or praises it, from outside the anti-vaccine movement?

Also, you seem to have declared this source as unreliable based merely on the fact that you disagree with the assessment of the author and how he arrived to it, Salzman. This would seem to fly in the face of how we determine the reliability of sources here on Wikipedia. While I agree that we cannot connect Attkisson directly to the cases of whooping cough, neither the source nor our mention here in this Wikipedia article does so, so using that as an argument against this source seems to be a non sequitur. The consensus on WP:BLPN appearss to be that it is a reliable source, however, so I'm not sure we even have to go over this ground again. So far, I see no convincing argument that this material shouldn't be placed back in. I also agree with the comment above regarding the use of WP:BLP. Yobol (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"While I agree that we cannot connect Attkisson directly to the cases of whooping cough, neither the source nor our mention here in this Wikipedia article does so, so using that as an argument against this source seems to be a non sequitur." Right, that column had absolutely no evidence of connection of Attkisson's news reports to any detrimental effect, nor does it, aside from accusations, make her a supporter of the anti-vaccination crowd. It's just innuendo. What you have found here is the one source on the web that you could include that qualifies as a RS and taken it out of context to label someone on Wikipedia with a single sentence. This is highly inappropriate and a highly irresponsible way to treat a biography, and again is fundamentally not neutral. At all. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it out of context? The author specifically describes her position as anti-science and anti-vaccine, "The media has been complicit in spreading some of anti-vaccine misinformation. Sometimes it comes straight from the media itself, such as the credulous, anti-science, anti-vax CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson." No context removed. The commentary regarding Attkisson was regarding her reporting as part of the media promoting anti-vaccination. Neither the source, nor does the proposed text, tie Attkisson to the Whooping cough or any "detrimental effect", so again, this is a non sequitur as no one is arguing that position. Please stay on topic and stop arguing against straw man arguments. Yobol (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On topic? This is far off topic to my exact point. You, Yobol, wish to inject a theory that you agree with that The Media® is anti-vaccination. Can I go into a different article and write a sentence about "The liberal media thinks that..." or "Media wants you to believe..." No, I cannot. Your editing this article has a very visible POV, and it is clear that your position is in no way to support a neutral biography of Sharyl Attkisson, but to make sure that and idea that you support is placed into the article. That is more conflict of interest than if she edited the article herself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for us drop one sentence into biographies because it relates to our promotion of a particular self POV. It is your position that is a red herring, because it gets people to focus on a single issue rather than the overall tone, comprehension, and accuracy in presenting a biography. Keegan (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keegan can you come back to the specific content article content that you originally claimed was UNDUE becuase it was from only one source. We now have multiple sources supporting the analysis of Attkissons coverage of the issue and so at this point it is seeming that it is UNDUE to NOT include those criticisms in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also suggest Keegan should follow our behavioral guidelines by commenting on the content, not the contributor as well. If Keegan feels I have a true conflict of interest, they can certainly take this up on WP:COIN, but I would prefer to stay on content in resolving this dispute. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A sentence or two seems proportionate for a minority position, and RedPen correctly notes that BLP specifically allows minority opinions from reliable sources. On the other hand, is it too tiny a minority (isolated criticism) or too trivial an issue at all (overall significance) for the article topic? I dispute Keegan's assertion that we should base our decision on the underlying sources the cited ref uses--we now have an expert that appears to endorse the position himself by re-reporting it, highlighting it as an example of his own position, without criticism or substantial counter-evidence for that source. It's the reliability of the source we cite (the usual expert-opinion or other WP:RS requirements as usual) that matters. If our medical expert wants to write in support of nonsense or fringe rather than mainstream (note, I am not making judgement about the case at hand) or base his position on a bunch of poor sources, well then that makes the nonsense or fringe more notable and worthy of inclusion because now an expert apparently agrees with it. That's exactly how secondary sourcing works: because we are not experts, rely on those who are to help highlight what is significant or a notable example of...whatever. What's left to decide I think is whether this particular reliable source really is endorsing the position that Attkisson is a notable example of this position on vaccines--nobody seems to dispute that Salzberg is generally qualified to statements that carry weight per RS or that the media portrayal of vaccines and inter-related social issues are notable. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One sentence + one source + recent news = Undue weight. I am not reading any argument here relative to why it should be included in her biography in such a manner. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

are you suggesting that we remove all other content from this article that has only one source as it would also then be UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

i dont think there is even evidence that the criticism of her reporting on vaccines is a minority position. the criticism seems pretty well be the prevailing scientific view of such coverage, although I dont know that the criticism has been widely applied specifically to her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that her occasionally reporting on vaccines gives her a position whatsoever, or how it merits inclusion in her Wikipedia biography aside from the fact that a few editors just seem to really, really want it in the article about her without explanation for motive for the overall good of her biography but as yet another platform to talk about the vaccine issues. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is Seth Mnookin specifically commenting on her general pattern of reporting on this topic. He appears to be well-regarded for his coverage of the public-health aspects of vaccination, so his writing about it would be a WP:RS expert-opinion. Now it's not just one voice holding her up as an example, and it's not just one story of hers in this area (or one study she just happened to be the one to cover) that drew attention. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) her anti-vaccine blog gives her an anti-vaccine position. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The mention in the source is very trivial and passing; I rather think we'll have to cut it. Unless someone can come up with some firmer or more in depth dicussion of her vaccine views. --02:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than the conjecture of biased and/or conflicted editors, there is no evidence that Attkisson has any anti-vaccine views at all. The term "anti-vaccine" is an agreed-upon propagandist phrase which the vaccine industry and its surrogates apply to anyone who examines vaccine safety, in an attempt to halt independent investigation of vaccine safety scientific questions. It's as inflammatory and misleading of a label as calling someone who is "pro-choice" -- "pro-murder." Merely reporting on vaccine safety issues -- even if the pharmaceutical industry and its surrogates don't like it -- is no more "anti-vaccine" than reporting on Firestone tire safety issues is "anti-tire," or reporting on Congressional corruption is "anti-Congress," or reporting on a dangerous drug is "anti-medicine," or reporting on a charity scandal is "anti-charity." In fact, one could easily make the argument that reporting which results in discussions regarding make vaccines safer is in fact pro vaccine, not anti vaccine. Extreme caution should be used in allowing propagandists or anyone else to perpetuate a potentially false, libellous label regarding a living person who has, in fact, not expressed a position or viewpoint. Simply because many propagandists/bloggers can be found making the same false claims does not make them true (especially when they all come from those on one side in the debate, and do not include the equally vehement opposing views from others in the debate who believe the same reporting is responsible, fair and conducive to a safe vaccination program). At least one of the sources (Dr. Offit) who is mentioned above by those who wish to have a one-sided opinion blog cited in an out-of-context fashion on the bio has been successfully sued for libel regarding his vaccine-related statements at least once in the past, and has already been the subject of a high profile correction regarding false statements he specifically made about Attkisson in the past. Referring to him and others connected to the vaccine industry as though they are "experts" who should be highly regarded, while many opinions to the contrary are disregarded, is unfair. Those who wish to falsely label this reporter as "anti-vaccine" recklessly ignore or disregard quotes from Attkisson's stories such as:

“Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective, and that they have not found a link to any deaths. They also say illnesses reported after vaccinations may not have been caused by the shot, and that Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with 'half the average' reported serious adverse events.”

“Vaccines have saved countless lives, nearly eradicating horrible, deadly and disfiguring diseases that once threatened many Americans.”

“In 1994, the government's Immunization Advisory Committee recommended routine vaccination against hepatitis B virus. It was a widely welcomed strategy to fight a serious and sometimes deadly disease. The CDC currently recommends vaccination for 'all infants, beginning at birth,' people under age 19, and at-risk adults.”

Those who wish to characterize the reporter or reporting as taking a personal position are simply factually incorrect.

As to the writer above who said nobody has disputed that Salzberg is generally qualified to make his statements: consider it disputed, now. Salzberg is called a "computer scientist" in one article, does not know Attkisson personally, mischaracterizes her reporting as stated above, fails to disclose his (and his institution's) own industry financial ties and relationships, and -- most notably -- blames Attkisson in an article on a topic (whooping cough) on which she has never published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.29 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Those who wish to characterize the reporter or reporting as taking a personal position are simply factually incorrect." Important point to consider. Keegan (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That one has some bits of correct information does not mean that there are not significant parts / an overall slant that are better and more appropriately characterized as "spreading misinformation". -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal opinion of any individual Wikipedia editor about the "correctness" of Salzberg is not really relevant to this discussion. Certainly if Attkisson has been praised by medical or scientific authorities (not associated with the anti-vaccine movement) we can include those here as well if they are also published in reliable sources. Rather than arguing about the subject of the BLP, we need editors to provide sources. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You cannot shift the burden of proof. It is not up to anyone to provide sources contrary to yours, the proof is on you to provide encyclopedic significance in a neutral tone that does not affect the reader of the article's perception of the subject. Your stance here denies the subject, which is contrary to care in a biography of a living person. Your arguments are fine by wikilawyering policy about reliable sources, but they completely ignore the concept of a biography. Sharyl Attkisson's reporting in her profession as a journalist does not reflect her personal opinion, and we're characterizing that it does and, even worse, providing no context. You do not have high quality sources, you have not gotten it right.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Wikipedia:Biography of living persons

Now, how is this single sentence doing that again? Keegan (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that nowhere in the one sentence about Salzman's characterization does it describe her personal opinion, just her "reporting". Quoting parts of BLP policy that do not apply in the current instance, and mischaracterizing the content in discussion, would seem to not be a very convincing argument. Yobol (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, two other relevant cites were provided but deleted by the biased editors so there is not a genuine search for truth, facts and balance here. For example, the biased editors deleted mention that Attkisson had won an independent international award that included her vaccine reporting. The biased editors also removed the context and legitimate source (Orange County Register) that proved Attkisson had been a target of false statements in the past of bad actors in the pro-vaccine-injury movement. In any event, you continue to place yourself in the position of falsely labelling people (or accepting propagandists' label) as "anti-vaccine" while, at the same time, not seeming concerned that the cited source (Salzberg) is anti-vaccine-safety or pro-vaccine injury (to use an equivalent version of their false "anti-vaccine" label). Therefore, you give undue weight to one side of the argument as if it's neutral, then claim that any sources on the other side must meet your (conflicted editor's & their surrogates) own definition of being "not part of the anti-vaccine movement." The Salzberg crowd falsely associates anyone who examines vaccine safety issues as "anti-vaccine." Therefore, they are "associated," not in true fact but by the pro-vaccine-injury crowd. Wiki should not allow this charged moniker of "anti-vaccine" to be applied lightly, and should be mindful that it has been widely used in a well orchestrated and financed propaganda campaign. In the end, you apply your bias in setting the bar at an impossible level for a fair bio. Further, even adding opposing cites doesn't solve other serious problems such as: entering the whole discussion clearly violates biographical neutrality, is part of an longstanding, ongoing attempt to vandalize and unfairly color a bio, is contentious and potentially libelous and should be immediately removed, and gives undue weight to a small segment of the reporter's reporting. Indeed, a tremendous amount of material and research would need to be added on many other topics on the bio to put the vaccine issue (which the biased editors wish to insert) into proper perspective. Wiki is not a soapbox and, in this case, special interests are trying to turn it into one. This should not be allowed.

As a comparison: if President Obama is "pro-choice," but certain scientists and policy analysts were to write about him and label him "pro-murder," or "pro-death," would that label and a discussion of it be allowed on his bio? Not the proper place. And not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.248.59 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing a conspiracy by editors or by the reliable sources is unlikely to be helpful to convincing others of your case. The only new source you are citing is the OC Register retraction, which would only be reliable as a source that the OC register retracted one article, years after the original was published. It would probably not be a suitable source for this article, and would not be a reliable source that says anything positive about Attkisson's vaccine reporting. Certainly if it is not anti-vaccine or within the mainstream of medicine, you can find a WP:RS that says so. We have several sources that says it is anti-vaccine. Yobol (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding mention of the international independent award Attkisson received in part for vaccine reporting-- which you removed from the bio? Further, you haven't cited any sources regarding "anti-vaccine" except for the pro-vaccine-injury movement which includes Salzberg, the discredited Offit, and others cited above. They are the equivalent (on the other side) to the sources you reject because you apparently have a bias for your own reasons, and don't wish to cite anybody except on one side of the issue. You also fail to address your violation of Wiki policies on neutrality, undue weight and the special care that should be given to contentious material on bios. You ignore anyone who offers opposing viewpoints and declare viewpoints invalid. Let others be the judge of whether the OC Register cite is relevant. Why do you keep deleting it from the bio and even the talk page? That sort of censorship is very revealing, malicious and damaging. Apparently, a fair bio is not what is desired here: a skewed, colored, inaccurate piece of propoganda is what is apparently sought by the editors who have repeatedly revealed their biases with their inappropriate edits.

If you have an independent reliable source noting that Attkisson won an independent award for her reports on vaccines, please bring them forth so that we can add it to the article. That is precisely the type of source I have been asking for. Yobol (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the editor is talking about what's being blogged about here--Attkisson received an award at the Conservative Political Action Conference from "Accuracy In Media", which "left-leaning" Media Matters for America describes as “a right-wing group with a long history of promoting anti-gay views and conspiracy theories." I could only find blogs, press releases and other non-WP:RS covering this, no straight news coverage that we could use to add this to the article. Zad68 03:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Zad, nice of you to try to help out The Red Pen of Doom and Yobol in their illogical arguments to keep violations of Wikipedia policy on the page. However, you (accidentally?) confirmed the validity of the argument on the other side. You said there was 'no straight news coverage' to add to the article, only "blogs, press releases and other non WP:RS." Blogs (i.e. unreliable sources by your own argument) are what's at issue in the cites that should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orange County Register Correction

Let's have a discussion: please read the following correction issued by the Orange County Register regarding false statements made in the past about Attkisson and vaccine coverage (as in the case here where it is claimed the Salzberg cite is defamatory, false and slanderous to Attkisson) and discuss whether it is relevant to the discussion at hand:

An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled “Dr. Paul Offit Responds” contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit’s statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report “How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?” July 25, 2008. Unsubstantiated statements include: Offit’s claim that Attkisson “lied”; and Offit’s claim that CBS News sent a “mean spirited and vituperative” email “over the signature of Sharyl Attkisson” stating “You’re clearly hiding something.” In fact, the OC Register has no evidence to support those claims. Further, Offit told the OC Register that he provided CBS News “the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck.” However, documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck, including a $1.5 million Hilleman chair he sits in that is co-sponsored by Merck. According to the CBS News’ documentation recently reviewed by the OC Register, the network requested (but Offit did not disclose) the entire profile of his professional financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including: The amount of compensation he’d received from which companies in speaking fees; and pharmaceutical consulting relationships and fees. The CBS News documentation indicates Offit also did not disclose his share of past and future royalties for the Merck vaccine he co-invented. To the extent that unsubstantiated and/or false claims appeared in the OC Register and have been repeated by other organizations and individuals, the OC Register wishes to express this clarification for their reference and for the record. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/correction-296910-dated-entitled.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.247.54 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The OC Register publishes a "correction" 3 years after the original report, citing only the fact that CBS News did not provide the OC Register with confirmation about accusations made against a CBS News employee? Putting aside the fact that one would actually not expect CBS News to release information indicting their own investigative journalists, this would only be relevant in this article had we specifically discussed Offit's supposedly unsubstantiated arguments, which we do not. Yobol (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also ask the IP, who is hopping across multiple IPs so I will not warn them on their talk page as they may not see it, that they need to read our policy on not making legal threats, which using words such as "slanderous" and "defamatory". I would suggest the IP redact any such commentary. Yobol (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

two cites in question appear to violate almost every BLP policy we have

Granted I am new to this talk, but the two cites in question appear to violate almost every BLP policy we have. I cannot see the value or justification for its inclusion, and have not seen any arguments here that override BLP policy which speaks clearly on reliable and unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.61.228 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Give this talk page a read, reasons for why the cites do not violate BLP are given. Zad68 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

long rant quoting BLP policies and general issues collapsed for readability

Simply repeatedly stating that the cites don't violate policy doesn't mean they don't violate policy. Wiki policy couldn't be clearer on these points: the cites violate policy. Wikipedia policy states: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source.” “Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects…” Neither cite in question meets Wikipedia’s definition of a “reliable source.” Wikipedia policy on “reliable sources” states: “Never use self-published sources…as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.‘Self-published blogs’ in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” Cite #21 is an opinion group blog of self-published commentaries, so is unreliable on its face. Cite #22 (published on Forbes.com) was written by an outside blogger whose work "was not subject to the newspaper’s full editorial control," and in fact was not even reviewed by any editorial authority prior to publication, as required under Wikipedia policy to be considered a reliable source. (If the editor wishes to claim otherwise, the burden under Wikipedia policy is on him to prove the cite meets the Wikipedia policy on editorial control, not "suppose" or "assume" or "claim" or "wish" that it does.) Further, the Wikipedia article violated policy because it endorses a particular point of view by excluding opposing views, and quotes from a participant engaged in a heated dispute. The cites also violate Wikipedia policy on disproportionate space and undue weight which state: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints… Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” “An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.” “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” The cites present unreliably-sourced, negative viewpoints on the subject’s vaccine-related reporting. Further, even if the negative viewpoints were balanced with positive viewpoints, the entire subject is given disproportionate space because it represents only a small proportion of the reporter’s body of work. To be proportionate, both positive and negative cites from reliable sources would have to be included (when they exist) on not only vaccine reporting, but also the many other topics in the reporter’s 30-year body of work in proportion to their size and significance. However, the purpose of a BLP page is not to critique of the person’s life’s work, so in fact none of it at all belongs on the page. Additionally, the cites violate Wikipedia policy on neutrality which states: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint… Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. Even if the sources were reliable, which they are not, the article still lacks “a fair representation of all significant viewpoints published” and lacks “proportionate representation of all positions.” In fact, it is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Administrator/editor to determine the “prominence” of viewpoints on this subject and/or make a fair determination of how widely-held each viewpoint is. Wikipedia further states that, when claiming a viewpoint should be represented because it is the “majority” viewpoint (in this case that the reporter is “anti-vaccine): “If a viewpoint is in the majority then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.” However, there are no commonly accepted reference texts supporting the position stated in the unreliable cites. The Wikipedia Administrators/Editors’ repeated reinsertion of the disputed material also violates other Wikipedia policies such as: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to … neutrality… Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to Neutral point of view Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid…the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment…The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects at all times. Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; … that relies on self-published sources… Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. "On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs … being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people..." No matter how many policies Yobol, the Red Pen of Doom and their cohorts choose to maliciously and libelously violate, they have shown they will simply do as they do throughout Wikipedia and violate policies as they please to accomplish their special interest agendas. As long as ordinary people become aware as to what's happening (and more people seem to be keenly awar), that's important. For example, "secondary sources" are required by these editors no matter how reliable the first source, when it's something the editors don't wish to publish. However, first sources are accepted even if they violate policy as "unreliable," if the agenda authors believe it advances their special interest. Yobol has contradicted himself repeatedly in his editing of this page and others on this point. Wiki and its agenda editors look silly and sully the reputation of those who may be trying to do honest editing. Author Philip Roth was told by Wiki editors that he was not an expert on his own work, and that he was mistaken about who he believed inspired his book. The Wiki editors claimed to know better what was in his own mind than did he. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html Not only should the unreliable sources be removed, the conflicted editors and their partners should be banned from editing this page with their agenda. There is other inaccurate info on the page they keep changing back as well, even though the disputed materials aren't footnoted at all in some cases. For example, the reporter's on camera career did not begin at CNN in 1990. Somebody just made that up and entered it and for some reason the editors keep the entirely unsourced information. Also, the reporter did not anchor Healthweek and Up to the Minute simultaneously. The editors even reverted the page to keep a grammatical error that had been fixed. Very strange editing indeed. http://www.naturalnews.com/037161_Paul_Offit_vaccines_conflicts_of_interest.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Reliable Cites Should Be Added to Comply with Fairness/Balance/Undue Weight/Neutrality and Unreliable Cites Should Be Removed Unlike the unreliable sourcing added by the Wikipedia agenda editors, there is reliable sourcing on the subject's vaccine safety reporting (which is blatantly excluded from the biography.) For example, the subject's vaccine reporting is included as a recommended resource in the prestigious, independent Investigative Reporters and Editors. http://www.ire.org/resource-center/stories/21204/ http://www.ire.org/resource-center/stories/?q=bio%20war The New England Journal of Medicine has cited the subject's reporting on vaccine and autism as an article source. The author: a neuroscientist Dr. Jon Poling whose daughter, the government agreed, had become autistic as a result of vaccinations that played a role in triggering an undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc086269 The Wikipedia editors wish to suppress such information and will likely attempt to argue away material from this published peer reviewed medical journal, even as they recklessly publish unedited blogs that violate Wikipedia policy. For balance: many online writers and authorities positively discuss, cite or validate the subject's vaccine coverage http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-to-study-vaccines-and_b_837360.html Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of National Institutes of Health, US News and World Report contributor, member of the Institute of Medicine, head of the school of public health and school of medicine at Ohio State, internist, cardiologist, and published on the topic of vaccines: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4090144-500803.html Also the following sources are among thousands that cite the subject's vaccine safety and medical reporting: http://www.law.uh.edu/Healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC)%20Vaccine.pdf http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=739445 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/juraba50&div=18&id=&page= http://books.google.com/books? id=BwyXIWV6_NwC&pg=PA2003&lpg=PA2003&dq=attkisson,+HRSA&source=bl&ots=VRSuRm7IGS&sig=uX9nmH6IhhncCeTX4HY2oJu1sAw&sa=X&ei=RgUzULGxEsT56QHf04GoCw&ved=0CBoQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=attkisson%2C%20HRSA&f=false http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2010/09/19/10560 http://www.mvrd.org/NewsArchives.cfm?from=1/1/2003&to=6/30/2003 Peter H. Meyers, George Washington University - Law School2011 Administrative Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 4, p. 785, 2011 GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-20 GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-20 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2018430&http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6168171661536807019&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en Gayle DeLong, Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College, New York, New York, USA http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20in%20Vaccine%20Safety%20Research,%20Gayle%20DeLong.pdf http://www.ethiopianreview.com/health/208778 Editorial The Federal Circuit Bar Journal https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=20+Fed.+Cir.+B.J.+633&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=3aa8004d26bfb2e20dc31b301accfd41 https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/09-23-2011_Letter_Jerry-Brown.pdf Letter Stephanie Cave, M.D. who testified as an expert before the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives http://www.healing-arts.org/children/mercury_in_vaccines_autism_research/thimerosalinvaccinationslink.htm Russell L. Blaylock, retired neurosurgeon and author. He is a former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and is currently a visiting professor. http://the2012scenario.com/accountability/big-pharma-and-pandemics/swine-flu-one-of-the-most-massive-cover-ups-in-american-history/ http://www.law.uh.edu/Healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC)%20Vaccine.pdf http://www.measlesintiative.org/135-new-worries-about-gardasil-safety.html http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/A%20Critique%20Of%20The%20Promotional%20Campaign%20For%20Gardasil,%20Judy%20Wilyman.pdf http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1900 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BwyXIWV6_NwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=attkisson,+vaccines&ots=VRSuSkbADV&sig=B0fzCgHTdvjozp2_yMJyFK2IeJk#v=onepage&q=attkisson%2C%20vaccines&f=false http://napervillebbt.com/blog/the-dangerous-procedure-doctors-swear-by-but-arent-liable-for.htm http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx If the editors wish to consider unedited blogs "reliable" cites to suit their own agenda, then they nonetheless must still include unedited blogs on the other side of the issue regarding the subject's reporting which include but are not limited to: http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2010/04/10/10366 http://1796kotok.com/pdfs/manWakefield.pdf http://www.drfeder.com/index.php?page=articles&action=viewArticle&articleID=297 http://afrafrontpagenews.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-dangerous-experts-you-should-never.html http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/doctors_denying_vaccine_risks_0503110734.html http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/kristen-fyfe/2008/07/09/evening-news-uniquely-reports-serious-concerns-about-gardasil http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/silent-mnookin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Current Violations in Wiki Policy on Undue Weight/Balance/Fairness/Neutrality Must Be Corrected by Adding Reliable Cites on Other Topics Since the reporting that Yobol, the Red Pen of Doom and their partners wish to criticize by using unreliable sources represents a small slice of the subject's 30 year body of work, context must be added that includes reliable sourcing on her thousands of other stories including, but not limited to: Republican Freshmen Hobhob with Lobbyists Columbia Journalism Review http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/a_blurry_snapshot_of_influence_peddling.php?page=all Swine Flu Overexaggerated (many, many cites can be found) Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia Tale: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html "...Incredible as it seems, the professionals around Mrs. Clinton — though surely knowing her story was false — thought she could tough it out. They ignored the likelihood that a television network would broadcast the inevitable press pool video of a first lady’s foreign trip — as the CBS Evening News did on Monday night — and that this smoking gun would then become an unstoppable assault weapon once harnessed to the Web. The Drudge Report’s link to the YouTube iteration of the CBS News piece transformed it into a cultural phenomenon reaching far beyond a third-place network news program’s nightly audience. It had more YouTube views than the inflammatory Wright sermons, more than even the promotional video of Britney Spears making her latest “comeback” on a TV sitcom. It was as this digital avalanche crashed down that Mrs. Clinton, backed into a corner, started offering the alibi of “sleep deprivation” and then tried to reignite the racial fires around Mr. Wright. Green Energy Tax Dollar Scandals: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/01/18/feds-should-stop-betting-tax-funds-on-solyndras http://www.science20.com/cool-links/11_more_solyndras_department_energy_venture_capitalism_under_fire-86118 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/11/scandal-no-one-is-talking-about/ http://sfluxe.com/2012/01/13/cbs-exposes-the-new-solyndras-will-abc-and-cbs-follow-suit-news-busters/ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293634/dr-science-vs-market-nash-keune Feed the Children Scandal http://newsok.com/feed-the-childrens-actions-in-haiti-criticized/article/3440993 http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12009756 http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12009756 http://www.haiti-news-network.com/messages.php/20795 http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100220_11_A11_Avolun717839 http://www.newarkpostonline.com/articles/2010/02/20/news/doc4b800a63beb2d964815661.txt http://www.ksbitv.com/news/84806482.html http://americabreakingnews.com/2010/02/feed-the-children-charity-under-fire-cbs-news/ Aid to Haiti Questions http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/22/Haiti-Stop-sending-us-food-healthcare/UPI-10671271975845/ http://repeatingislands.com/2010/04/22/haiti-wants-food-aid-to-stop/ http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/why-dont-they-spend-the-money http://www.cepr.net/index.php/relief-and-reconstruction-watch/ http://www.haitixchange.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/4940/ Pharmaceutical conflicts of interest Columbia Journalism Review: our most prestigious journal in journalism tp://cjr.org/issues/2005/4/lieberman.asp "Virtually all the news stories about the poll failed to identify the National Sleep Foundation's ties to the drug industry. According to Gelula himself, nearly $1 million of his $3.6 million budget comes from makers of sleeping pills, including Sepracor, which gave the foundation a $300,000 grant to produce a series of "Sleep Medicine Alerts" - brochures designed to educate doctors about insomnia. Sepracor, along with other companies that make competing products, is also a $250,000 platinum sponsor of National Sleep Awareness Week. The foundation's own Web site reveals that the group is funded by drug companies, physicians, patients, medical centers, and makers of sleep aids, most of which have an interest in new drugs and treatments. But with the exception of CBS Evening News, the press did not disclose the financial link between the foundation and the companies that would benefit from the poll's results. "The media are victims of the same problem as doctors and patients," says Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School. "Too often they get industry-sponsored sources of information that look like they are from unbiased, scientifically driven public-interest groups when in fact they are thickly veiled marketing activities."" Congressional corruption and waste: One hour on C-SPAN http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/284745-1 Gunwalker reporting cited or complimented: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/13/opinion/navarrette-fast-furious/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/oct/5/fast-furious-cbs-sharyl-attkisson-brian-terry/ http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-fast-and-furious-holder-obama-contempt-cbs-press-20111009,0,2279643.story?track=rss http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secret-recordings-raise-questions-in-atf-scandal/2011/09/19/gIQAalhefK_video.html http://oversight.house.gov/release/issa-statement-on-cbs-winning-edward-r-murrow-award-for-investigative-reporting-on-operation-fast-and-furious/ http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/07/new-documents-tie-fast-and-furious-to-gun-control-agenda/ http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/gunwalker_goes_primetime.html http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/gop-lawmakers-coverup-attempted-in-death-of-border-patrol-agent/1 One hour given on C-SPAN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkx2cmzEjRk USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/gop-lawmakers-coverup-attempted-in-death-of-border-patrol-agent/1#.UDPW9tldBPk http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-04-arizona-gun-runner_N.htm New York Post http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/furious_mess_has_justice_in_full_WYXAPQoFlBaBVer5Q47oiO Press Democrat http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110411/WIRE/110409470/1042?Title=NAVARRETTE-Too-fast-too-furious-too-reckless London Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363293/U-S-Justice-Department-ordered-ATF-allow-guns-cross-border-Mexico-used-kill-American-agents.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Face the Nation: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3460_162-20121072.html Canadian Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hgYW5V7O7r2tpuIyCamKp-pNs10Q?docId=6131962 Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-news-silencing-fast-and-furious-reporter-due-white-house-press Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/what-is-fast-and-furious/2012/06/21/gJQAHW7nsV_video.html lauded by member of Congress: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/issa-commends-cbs-for-scooping-him-125974.html Toyota NHTSA Conflicts of Interest New York Times http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/updates-on-toyota-hearings-in-congress/ TV Newser TV Newser:Secy. Ray LaHood Didn't Watch CBS Report, But Wishes He Had By Chris Ariens on Feb 24, 2010 03:31 PM ABC News may have lead the way on Toyota coverage, but CBS News got a shout out during today's testimony on Capitol Hill. During Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood's testimony, Rep. Dennis Kucinich asked, "CBS had an exclusive where they were able to gained some internal documents that showed that Toyota redesigned software in 2005 in response to complaints that cars were accelerating unexpectedly. Are you familiar with those documents?" LaHood: No sir. I am not. Kucinich: Are you interested in that kind of a report? LaHood: Yes sir. Barron’s Financial http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2010/02/25/cbs-toyota-negotiated-to-limit-investigations/ Congressional hearing Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:18 AM Subject: Another hearing room mention of Sharyl's piece Yet another mention of Sharyl's NHTSA piece at a congressional hearing March 2, 2010. At 11:12, Senator Dorgan cited the CBS News Attkisson reporting while questioning Secretary LaHood, saying "CBS did an investigation and "CBS and others have raised questions…." Attkisson Copenhagen Congressional travel Politico http://www.politico.com/playbook/0110/playbook923.html Daily Caller http://dctrawler.dailycaller.com/2010/01/26/copenhagen-didnt-accomplish-anything-but-at-least-it-was-hideously-expensive/ Charleston Daily Mail: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/8200 Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/26/update-how-much-did-obama%E2%80%99s-copenhagen-failure-cost-you/ USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/hotelcheckin/post/2010/01/congress-copenhagen-climate-summit/1 AARP loses membership Associated Press: AARP loses members over health care stance (AP) – 1 hour ago WASHINGTON — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue. AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Barack Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits. "We take stands on issues that are contentious, it's part of what we do," Nannis said. "And because we have so many members we'll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership." The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period. He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership. The membership loss figure was first reported Monday by CBS News. Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Stimlus Waste New York Times ________________________________________ August 12, 2009 Inspector General Questions Value of Some Airport Stimulus Projects By MICHAEL COOPER A $14.7 million stimulus project to replace an airport on a remote island in Alaska was one of several airport stimulus projects that were questioned in an advisory issued last weekby the inspector general of the Transportation Department. The airport averages only 42 flights a month. The advisory found that the Federal Aviation Administration had awarded $38.5 million to low-priority airport projects of questionable economic merit, and that it had awarded $15 million more to four airports whose operators had been cited in the past for trouble managing federal grants. The aviation agency selected the projects as part of a $1.1 billion stimulus program for improving airports around the nation. Two of the airports the inspector general cited were in Alaska. The $14.7 million project calls for replacing the airport in Ouzinkie, a village of around 170 people, mostly of Russian Aleut ancestry, located on an island about 12 miles north of Kodiak. The second calls for spending $13.9 million to replace the airport in Akiachak, a remote Yup’ik Eskimo village in western Alaska with a population of around 660. The advisory said they were among several low-priority airport projects that were selected in part because the F.A.A. wanted to “ensure widespread geographic distribution of funds,” even though that was not a requirement of the stimulus law, the advisory found. The agency has a system to assign priority rankings to airport projects. Usually projects must score at least 41 out of 100 to qualify for airport improvement funds. But the administration set a higher goal for its stimulus money, prioritizing projects that scored 62 or higher. The two Alaskan airport projects each scored only 40, the inspector general found. The Department of Transportation defended the choice of projects, saying that the Alaskan airports qualified for the money under safety provisions of the law and that both villages would be extremely isolated without safe air travel. “These projects provide airstrips that meet minimum safety standards for the citizens of these Alaskan towns,” Deputy Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari wrote in a response to the department’s inspector general, Calvin L. Scovel III. The inspector general’s report came a month after ProPublica and CBS Newsreported that more than $100 million of the airport improvement money was being spent on airports with fewer than one flight an hour. The inspector general — who also questioned awards to four airports in Delaware, Missouri, Ohio and Washington that did not provide commercial passenger service and had limited flight operations — recommended that the aviation administration should either show that the projects had economic merit or consider withdrawing the grants. The inspector general plans to conduct a full audit of the program. LA TIMES LOS ANGELES TIMES—4/9/08 GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT HAS A WHOLE NEW MEANING IN THE FREE-FOR-ALL YOUTUBE ERA. BY DAVID SARNO A shot of a dark bedroom. Soothing music. A little girl and boy slumber easily. It's 3 a.m. when, yes . . . . . . the phone rings. Think you know who's going to be answering that call? Don't be so sure. "Ghostbusters," says Annie Potts. That's one of the many alternate endings to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's original late-night phone call commercial that you can find on YouTube. Other interpretations have the call being answered by Bill Clinton (he's expecting a call from the pizza delivery guy), "Sesame Street's" Martian Yip Yip puppets and Alfred, Batman's butler. You can see the other candidates' red-phone mash-ups online too. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign did its own riff on the red-phone ad ("In a dangerous world, it's judgment that matters"). And last week, Sen. John McCain gave the genre a go, same ringing phone, but "this time, it's an economic crisis." Instead of explaining what your sleeping children have to do with the economy, the McCain ad semi-dementedly concludes: "It's 3 a.m.: Time for a president who's ready." It's the hottest election in recent memory, and the first of the YouTube era, so no wonder political video is whizzing around faster than you can tape your cat mouthing "superdelegate." Bedroom producers, the campaigns themselves and everyone in between is using online video to make a point, a profit, both, or neither. Though videos like Jack Nicholson's popular pro-Hillary video, "Jack and Hill," made with help from Rob Reiner, can score big on YouTube, you don't need to be a celeb or a "Saturday Night Live" writer to get noticed. Ben Relles put himself on the map when he and two partners brought the world "Obama Girl," the candidate's sultry, singing follower who rings in millions of page views every time she bobs onto the computer screen. (Her first video, "I've Got a Crush on Obama," was nominated Tuesday for a Webby Award.) Relles' fledgling BarelyPolitical.com was bought by the Web TV company Next New Networks last October and now has four full-time employees. Steve Grove, YouTube's head of news and politics, said videos in that category had seen a "lurch forward" in popularity in the last year, and the last month has been no exception. A March 24 CBS News segment showing that Clinton had misremembered the details of her 1996 trip to Bosnia became YouTube's most-viewed video that week, no small feat considering the site gets hundreds of thousands of new uploads every day. The week before that, those Fox News videos of Obama's fiery longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, accounted for five of the top 12 political videos on the site, and the Obama speech that controversy engendered has been watched on YouTube more than 4 million times, the most ever for a video from a presidential campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello IP editor

Since you seem to be using multiple IPs, I will address you here:

I am the wikipedia administrator who protected this page. This was necessary as you don't seem to be following our editing guidelines, but it looks like you have an agenda here.

It seems that you or someone close to you might be the subject of this article and are displeased with some of the contents. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Remember that is for factual accuracy issues.

Reading through the chaff above, it seems you are displeased of the quality of the sources used to support some negative information. Your arguments here have been pretty much ineffective and you have not achieved consensus. One avenue you could pursue that might be more effective is to get some experts on reliable sources to look at the issue. You can find them on the reliable sources noticeboard.

Just a word of advice. Try to make your point constructively and concisely. On a wiki, posting "walls" of text like that above, is counterproductive and will almost always fall into WP:TLDR.

Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Todd, funny you should mention agenda. My only agenda is accuracy. Since accuracy is out of the question on Wikipedia, at least in my case, I am at least interested in exposing the agenda editors who attempt to discredit me and violate your policies in doing so. Believe me, I understand that nothing I do can stop these wild policy violations perpetrated by Yobol, the Red Pen of Doom and others. Even me providing all the factual info (which they refuse to consider) is considered a "rant" and deleted. This is pretty funny and ironic. Factual cites and information are "rants," but unreliable libelous sources that violate multiple Wiki policies are to remain on the bio. The "rant" was long because it's a small factual sample of the positive body of my work. Which proves the point that the vaccine cite Yobol and the Red Pen of Doom are so frantic to include is unduly weighted, among other things. I could care less about me following Wiki policies in my attempt to make my page factual, since you folks don't seem to follow them. The main thing I'm focused on now is collecting the stories-- mine is truly minor compared to most-- of the ridiculousness going on in the Wiki "community." Philip Roth. The PR scandal. There's so much to learn about. All I speak to seem to agree it will be a terrific story to write. For what it's worth, the third-party Forbes blogger unreliable source corrected his blog that's cited on Wikipedia. It no longer calls my reporting "anti-science." Makes the Wiki sentence that now misquotes the cite even more ridiculous. But I'm sure nobody in Wikiland really cares. Truth and accuracy and fairness are difficult to come by.