Talk:NPR/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Totenberg comments

Under the heading "Controversies" and subheading "Nina Totenberg comments" only the bare comments about Senator Helms and his family are given. While those comments might seem self-evidently controversial, it seems to me that information confirming that they caused controversy needs to be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Government funding of NPR?

The article currently (2010-10-22) says this on funding:

"In 2009 NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the CPB. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come directly from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants." [emphasis added]

I assume that this is likely both quite verifiable and also true.

However, this may be a case of saying more by what it doesn't say than by what it says. It does not appear to answer the question of what percentage of the "40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming" comes from the government. That would, or so it seems to me, to be highly relevant in looking at the larger question of what funding of NPR comes from the government. If, as the article asserts,

• 1970s and 1980s more of the $$$ went directly from CPR --> NPR, and
• today a much larger percentage goes from CPR --> local NPR affiliates --> NPR,

it would seem to be quite relevant to a real understanding of how much of NPR is, at the end of the day, government funded. What do others think about the relevance of this question to properly addressing the question of government funding in a Wikipedia article on NPR? N2e (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to answer the question of what percentage of the "40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming" comes from the government.

That question is explicitly answered in sentence four. aprock (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank for clarifying that confusion Aprock. I should have been more clear. I agree that the article asserts that local affilliate stations pay 40% of NPR's revenue; that is clear from the source. My question, and the one I believe is relevant to the Wikipedia article on NPR funding is, what percentage of the local affiliate station income comes from the government? If, for example, the local affiliates get, say, some twenty percent of their income from the government, then it would be the case that NPR's total government funding would not be only the 1.5% asserted in the article, but also would include an additional 40% of that government-provided 20% to the local NPR affiliates. Summing up then, this would be an additional 8% (0.40 x 0.20) of NPR's total funding from the government. The 20% figure is just an example; we would of course need to find the actual data.

I am merely offering that I believe that the local affiliate conduit for government funding of NPR is an important part of the story, and one not currently covered in the Wikipedia article. (because the article does not tell us what part of local affiliate funding is government-derived.) That is what I meant to ask about. Do other editors agree that this is a part of the complete story on NPR government funding? Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the fourth sentence: In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants. aprock (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "File:Youcut npr funding.gif"

In regards to this reversion, I'd like to call into question why you removed it.

The reason was that "the image was of dubious copyright". However, I beg to differ. The image is properly licensed, and, as of this post, is on the Congressional YouCut site, which was launched by Congressman Eric Cantor on his ".gov" site. As this is on an official federal government site posted by a federal government official for purposes of cutting federal spending, it is reasonable to say it is under the licensing of federal works.

What is there to dispute? What is dubious about it? Why was this image removed? Was it biased? I thought I acted decently with the phrasing "Chart illustrating some federal sources of funds for National Public Radio.", with source. Why was it deleted?

--99.157.108.248 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For copyright information please see WP:C. With respect to bias, without any sort of caption, one might infer that the chart represent the entire budget. aprock (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations for bias

Both the liberal and conservative bias sections are very short on citations. In fact the only citation in the liberal bias section is from an article disputing theres any liberal bias

174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hostile Environment for Center-Left Staff at NPR?

A section should be created in the article. What about the on-air intimidation of Mara Liasson?

98.245.148.9 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What are you proposing to add to the article and what are the references? Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal commentary controversy

I added material about the controversy over Mumia Abu-Jamal's planned commentaries and Loonymonkey removed it based on that the reference doesn't describe it as a controversy. In fact, the source does describe it as a controversy:

NPR recorded at least nine of Jamal's readings. Before they were scheduled to start airing in May 1994, Jamal said the Fraternal Order of Police began issuing public denunciations of NPR's decision to broadcast the readings, the document said. Jamal also said some members of Congress contacted NPR asking it not to play the commentary, which included his views on the death penalty, police brutality and racism. NPR executives canceled the broadcast and Jamal charged that the action violated his First Amendment rights.

There are dozens and dozens of other sources that also describe it as a controversy. Drrll (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, a single article from 15 years ago doe not in any way establish that this is a notable controversy in the history of NPR. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there are scores of news sources covering this, from 1994 to 2007, ranging from The Associated Press to The Washington Post to The New York Times to The Philadelphia Inquirer (the primary paper for things related to Abu-Jamal), not to mention the ABA Journal and American Journalism Review. How many sources do you want? The Washington Post seems to be good source for this as the source of record for things occurring in the DC area (the particular WaPo source used is written 3 years after the original event). Drrll (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like it's far more relevant to Abu-Jamal than it is to NPR (particularly since it never even aired on NPR). It's probably notable enough for his BLP article (if it's not already there), but not at all notable to this one. It just doesn't rise to the level of importance to even be worth mentioning in an encyclopedic overview of the organization. Wikipedia is not news and it especially is not news from 15 years ago. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is more relevant to Abu-Jamal, yes, but it is certainly relevant to NPR and is deserving of two or three sentences. We're not talking about some theoretical item here. NPR made the decision to air his commentaries, recorded 9 of them, promoted them for a period of one month before their scheduled airing (including playing clips of the spots on the air), then bailed out on a Sunday, a single day before their first airing. After the decision to bail came a threat on the Senate floor by the Republican leader to cut funding for NPR for having proceeded so far with the idea as well as a lawsuit against NPR in the federal courts. Clearly this item is more than just some passing news event, having been reported on again and again over a 13-year period as recently as 4 years ago. And it's not just reported in stories related to Abu-Jamal--The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published a general story about NPR 6 years after the event that mentioned their Abu-Jamal commentaries. Drrll (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is more relevant to Abu-Jamal: In that case, it may be prudent to follow the lead of that article, and include less coverage than that article does. aprock (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Aprock, the Abu-Jamal article has three sentences on the issue. Would you support two sentences in the NPR article? Drrll (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If it only warrants a couple of sentences in that article (and it's primarily about him) why would we even consider adding it here? You make the case above that you personally find the information very interesting, but that's not the standard we use. For it to be a notable controversy, it would have to be something frequently associated with NPR by third-party sources (which, obviously, is not the case) and related directly to NPR's notability. And you claim that this is something that is frequently mentioned in general stories about NPR, yet even using Lexis-Nexis the only example you can come up with is an article in the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette" from ten years ago? No, this is clearly not notable to this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It warrants a couple of sentences because numerous news sources mention it over a long period of time and WP bases it content upon what reliable sources say. I don't recall seeing policy or guidelines that say that to mention something it has "to be something frequently associated with" the article subject (which actually it is) or "related directly to" the subject's "notability." BTW, WP "notability" guidelines specifically mention that "these notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." Drrll (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with including that sort of content here. The only concern is WP:UNDUE, though I think if the coverage was limited to a single sentence, with the appropriate wiki-links, that would not be a problem. aprock (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Single sentence proposal

In 1994, NPR arranged to air commentaries by convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal on All Things Considered, but cancelled them after the Fraternal Order of Police and members of the U. S. Congress objected to the airing.

Drrll (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this sentence captures the significance of the incident. If I understand the sources correctly, it was the cancellation that was notable, not the arrangement to air the commentaries. I would think that some reference to the Ombudsman view would be relevant as well. Tough to cram into a single sentence though. aprock (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many more sources that describe the event after the fact of the cancellation than before it. I did find about 5 sources that describe the controversy before NPR cancelled, but there are many that describe what led up to the cancellation--complaints from the Fraternal Order of Police and members of Congress about the arrangement to air the commentaries. Do you have a suggestion for changing the wording? I couldn't find anything about the NPR Ombudsman's view of this. Did you find something? Drrll (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The most thorough treatment I found of the event was here: [1], which is a copy of chapter 6 of Amy Goodman's The Exception to the Rulers. Reviewing the chapter I was thinking of the communications director, not the ombudsman, and that was for a related incident, not this one. The most lasting effect of the example it set for future censorship. aprock (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That source does describe the event in a lot of detail. Is there something in it that you want to use in the sentence describing the Mumia commentary controversy? Please provide your proposal for wording the sentence. Drrll (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

aprock, do you support the current formulation, or would you like to modify it some? Drrll (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's the best sentence possible, but I have no objections. aprock (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Schiller

The sting operation certainly deserves coverage for the short-term - it's an incident of particular interest. However, the contributions so far have been a bit flabby and long-winded, considering it's a departing fundraiser calling the Tea Party racist, and defending Juan Williams' sacking - neither of which are particularly notable. Marty jar (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DRRL - quite right with the corrections - apologies for the errors. Marty jar (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this section even necessary? It maybe appropriate under a Ron Schiller article (if he warrants one). It's more a Ron Schiller controversy (he was speaking for himself) than an NPR one. Zzsignup (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the Ronald Schiller article is currently being nominated for deletion. He may have spoken for himself, but the controversy has caused the CEO to resign and is intensifying the debate to remove their public funding. Truthsort (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes but there doesn't need to be paragraphs after paragraphs describing the minutia of the meeting. It's giving undue weight. I disagree also that it's 'intensifying the debate' over public funding (which if you read the article, is minimal and indirect). Note that there are now six+ paragraphs on NPR 'controversies', but only two on it's history. Zzsignup (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you expand the 'History' section? There should be plenty of sources on that, including various books. BTW, for the Fox News Channel, not only does it have a lengthy controversies section itself, it has an entire article devoted to that topic, "Fox News Channel Controversies." Drrll (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I have neither the time nor the interest. The correction to the imbalance is not to merely add paragraphs to the history section (which I pointed out only for contrast - many other sections lack scope) to 'fluff' it out, but to properly balance the 'controversies' within the article. If NPR does not warrant enough significance for an proper article, then those 'controversies' should also be edited to proper reflect the significance. Let's be honest, many of the controversies were inserted not by those interested in a proper article on NPR, but by those with a biased view against it. As it is the article is pretty useless. Zzsignup (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Change "fundamental[ly] Christian" back to "fundamental Christian"

In NPR#Ronald_Schiller, there is a quote from Ronald Schiller that includes a phrase that reads "fundamental[ly] Christian". I am doubtful about that "[ly]" that an editor added at 23:31, 8 March 2011; I see no reason to think that Schiller meant anything other than what he said, namely "fundamental Christian". I therefore will remove the "[ly]". Wideangle (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert your edit because the reference disagrees with you. Also, this is probably something that should have consensus before a unilateral edit. The referenced article clearly uses the [ly]. To change that in a quote is to misrepresent the source. Even if you think Schiller misspoke, or is misquoted by the reference, it is not for us to decide what he "really" meant. This is a sourced quote, and needs to be verbatim from the source. I'm sure he probably did mean fundamental or fundamentalist Christian. But that's not what's represented in either what he said or what the source says. We can't arbitrarily decide we know better. I don't mean any offense, just explaining why the edit was undone.Jbower47 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This source gives the correct statement made by Schiller: "fundamental". This breaking source, where the edited video was first published, also gives the correct statement made by Schiller: "fundamental". Several sources already cited in this Wikipedia article also contain the edited video, a longer version of the video, or both -- and review of each of those videos show Schiller saying "fundamental Christian". As noted above, we should not try to interpret what he meant to say, so let's just stick with his actual quote. (...and try as I might, I can't find him saying "open bracket LY close bracket" anywhere during his 2 hour discussion with the two gentlemen.) I've corrected the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, that's what we needed. As noted, I think we all assumed that's what he said, but it didn't match the previous source, as was portrayed as verbatim. I'm comfortable with the new source.Jbower47 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New Schiller edits reverted

Xenophrenic, You added a good chunk of text to the Schiller section that is currently being discussed on the Talk page (see previous sections here). Please discuss it here before making unilateral edits of this magnitude. I have reverted your edit for the moment, until it can be discussed. I reverted the additional edit reagrding Betsy Liley because it was intermediate, and had to change before I could revert the previous large edit. The text you added on the second edit, if you want to reinsert it (with a reference, please, if it isn't stated in the references already given) is here: "and his associate, the senior director of institutional giving at NPR, Betsy Liley." I was going to go ahead and reinsert it myself, but didn't have a reference handy, and couldn't find anything that mentioned her in a real quick google search. If you have more time, please locate one and pop it back in. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jbower47 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jbower47. I've looked at the discussions pertaining to Schiller in the previous sections. I see two of them. One questions whether the Schiller incident should even be included in this article, and the other argues over whether he said "fundamental" or "fundamental[ly]". I'll make some edits that are not yet being discussed. I will also try to confine my multilateral edits to a minimum magnitude of a mere two paragraphs. If you would like to start a discussion on any of the edits I make, please do so - I will certainly join it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The point being that you should make a discussion prior to large substantive edits to seek consensus, not after the fact. This is a potentially contentious article, and needs to seek consensus wherever possible. This is served to a much greater degree by discussing changes prior to making them rather than making them, and then waiting to see if someone starts a discussion.Jbower47 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I should ever make a "large substantive edit", I'll be sure to give your words due consideration; even if it flies in the face of WP:BOLD editing guidelines. However, getting back to my edit, my changes were contained in only two paragraphs of content, and did not constitute a substantial edit. Furthermore, the edit was fully supported by citation to reliable sources, many of which were already present in the article but had been previously misquoted or misconveyed. Your revert of the edit, accompanied by the vague suggestion that I refer to other ongoing discussions above, didn't give me much with which to work. In the future, if you feel the need to do a blind revert of someone's edits, please make the effort to indicate specific reasons for your revert so that they may be discussed and addressed. It may seem an inconvenience, but you'll find it smooths the way for collaborative effort.

On a related note, please be aware that identical content development is also being conducted in at least two other articles (James O'Keefe and Ronald Schiller), so sourcing, discussion and consensus is probably already happening somewhere, even if it is not immdiately evident on this particular discussion page. After the dust settles, I expect a significant part of the retainable content will find a home in a single article, and the other copies replaced with links to that location. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons to Juan Williams firing

Marty jar removed a paragraph in the Juan Williams section comparing the Williams firing with the lack of action over Nina Totenberg's and Andrei Codescu's controversial comments. Their comments were arguably more incendiary than Williams' comments, received coverage in reliable sources around the time they originally occurred and thereafter (especially the Totenberg comments). Most importantly, reliable sources have made the comparison, including ones referenced in the paragraph removed. Drrll (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Mr. Williams there was more than just one incident. The first ones were dealt with by talking to him in private. With Ms Totenberg and Mr. C, just like with Mr. Williams' first private conversations, they were not made public. In all the cases, NPR distanced itself from the positions of its commentator.

--Javaweb (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

There has been more than just one incident with regard to Totenberg. I'd like to know what else Williams said that got him in trouble with NPR (the Stokely Carmichael remark about Michelle Obama?). NPR did apologize for Codescu's remarks. They never did take any action or say anything about Totenberg's remarks about Jesse Helms getting AIDS. Drrll (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've reverted your edits Drrll. This is still being discussed here, it's obvious there is not consensus yet. Let's come to agreement here, to avoid back and forth edits and reverts. In terms of the content of the text, to me it seems of questionable relevance. The reference cited (the Fox News bit) has a title that indicates it's pretty deep in the POV side of things. If someone included an MSNBC report titled "Why NPR is totally Awesome" as the sole source for something pushing the other side's POV, we'd definitely question the neutrality , so it has to apply on this side too. I am actively assuming good faith, so let's please work to keep this from entering the realm of POV pushing from either side. To be honest, I found the proposed text to have at least the appearance of POV, was not particularly notable in the scope of the overall article, and relies on a questionable reference. I'm not saying it's not worth discussing, but in present form, without consensus, I don't think it's ready to be added yet.Jbower47 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The foxnews.com reference does have a rather POV title (unlike the Fox News broadcast reference). I was using it just to source the two different quotes. I could find other sources that also give the quotes. What in the proposed text do you believe has the appearance of POV? There were several news reports that made the same or similar comparisons to NPR's handling of Totenberg and Codrescu. Drrll (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy for others to weigh in here too, but just looking at that section, the Williams bit already is far larger than the others, and is bigger than some other more general topics. It seems to have a disproportionate size compared to the general scope of the article. That's not exactly unheard of for more current events, but adding on to it in that sense seems unnecessary, even if it were information that was not already in the article. However, the information IS already in the article...both the Totenberg and (can't spell his name from memory) sections both indicate what actions were taken against them. It seems overkill to restate that again in the Williams subsection, which is already pretty large. By purposefully pointing out the comparison, it at least gives the appearance that we're implying there was impropriety on the behalf of NPR in how it handled the situation. While we may feel that personally, I think we need to err on the side of caution and stick to stating the facts in their appropriate sections rather than drawing implications from them, and let readers do that for themselves. It's quite easy for me to read that article and see who was handled how, and I can make my own inferences. In general I don't think Fox News is automatically not a credible source. However, in this case, given the animosity between Fox and NPR, I think I would call into question using them as a source, regardless of the title. But, regardless, I think it's a moot point because the addition doesn't really seem to add anything that isn't already there, and it appears to make an implication. Just my humble 2 cents, hopefully some other folks can weigh in on this.Jbower47 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Williams section is a bit too long and could be trimmed down. I believe it's important to keep in the comparison and that's what reliable sources do. I agree that it's redundant when the the Totenberg & Condescu sections are present. I added it after they were removed. They are currently gone, so I think that the short comparison paragraph should go back in to the Williams section. The paragraph does not say that NPR did anything wrong--it lets the reader make up his own mind based upon what all three said. As far as using the Fox News broadcast reference, the statement comes in a straight news report by a straight news reporter (Mike Emanuel) in a straight news program. Do you think that given NPR's and Fox News' animosity that any NPR news report about Fox News should be disqualified in the Fox News articles? I'm pretty sure that there are other sources besides Fox News that make the comparison, at least to Totenberg, by the way. Maybe we need a new daughter article to the NPR article, "NPR controversies" as Fox News has a "Fox News controversies" article. Then we could definitely trim down the 'Controversies' subsections here. Drrll (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of additional references outside of Fox News that make the same comparison: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11944589 and http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ambush-journalist-confronts-npr-ceo-32410 Drrll (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR's Controversies

It is important to include the order of controversies in the history of NPR and their outcomes. This allows people to see and track the corporations consistency in their handling and outcome of troublesome events. Censoring them under the banner of "insignificant history" is still definitely censorship. It's also not like they are taking up much needed real estate on the page, so I really see no reason why they absolutely must go.

I feel I have stated my case that controversies and the related fallout are a part of NPR's history and that is part of what Wikipedia is for. Removal of it is censorship as it cannot be properly justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of "censorship" are not particularly civil, and you are hardly going to convince me or anyone else by making them. But keep firing away.

Not everything that happens in NPR history belongs here. Not every ten minute controversy involving one of their hundreds of employees belongs here. Anything that affects the organization as a whole or is particularly significant event in their history does belong here. It's pretty clear the Juan Williams event meets that criteria. The others do not and it's up to you to establish that they do if you want them included. Where are the sources that establish that it was significant beyond those individuals? You haven't established that and insulting me isn't going to establish that. But keep trying. I've heard worse. Gamaliel (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming clear by your childish language and attitude to change that its not about the controversies in this article, but a power struggle. I think that your initial removal of the controversies was driven more by your expressed political leanings and less by the need to keep only relevant (or what you personally perceive as relevant) information in the article. I am reverting it back and then looking for a way to report this fiasco to an unbiased admin to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.148.126 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

instead of devolving into back and forth ad hominem, can you please clarify what you want added or removed? You're speaking in generalities. The controversies section is already fairly big compared to the rest of the article, and speaks to outcomes in each case. It is certainly more than proportionate to the scope of the article. The controversies are still there, while they could probably do to be whittled down a bit (at least the Williams one, which while current, is probably larger than it needs to be).Jbower47 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know anything about my political leanings, you're just trying to knock down a straw man instead of discussing the merits of the edits. And it's pretty ridiculous to complain about my pretty mild language like a blushing schoolmarm when you've been tossing out the labels and accusations since your first edit here. You can report this to whomever you want, I stand by my edits. When you want to discuss them instead of throwing out Fox News cliches, feel free. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• [Comments on or about editors moved to user's talk page(s); inappropriate for this article discussion page.] -Xenophrenic (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. The first addition to the Library of Congress was the personal library of Thomas Jefferson, which included books on everything including the Koran and some cookbooks. It was argued that some of these books were of no use or significance to Congress, and they shouldn't be included. Eventually they were accepted when one congressmen was quoted as saying "I do not know that it contains any branch of science which Congress would wish to exclude from their collection; there is, in fact, no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer." If members of Congress recognize the value of a cookbook then surely the history of NPR, whether petty or significant, is noteworthy in some form. Especially since NPR's handling of certain events are very relevant in this current time frame, I believe that it is important to leave in (at the very least temporarily) for anyone wishing to research this aspect. Like a student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.230.213 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gamaliel (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that Codrescu and Totenberg comments should stay. Then I put my NPOV hat on and spent a few hours on research. I found numerous references; most of them involved the Juan Williams incident. While I believe NPR has a liberal atmosphere it is no different than most other main-steam media. Therefore my conclusion is that an event that took place over fifteen years ago is minor in the big picture and they should not be part of the article. The same is true with Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Juan Williams comments could use some trimming.Grahamboat (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor 98.232.166.138 has reverted 4 times on 16 March 2011. (S)he has some valid points but this issue needs to be resolve on the talk page. Any suggestions?Grahamboat (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean 98.232.166.138 / 24.20.230.213 / 128.193.148.126, don't you? I haven't seen the valid points from any of his IPs yet. Have we determined that the content being considered meets WP:WEIGHT requirements in an article about a 40+ year old organization of hundreds of people? All I've seen as an inclusion argument is "we should mention these troublesome events, and not to do so would be censorship", with no actual justification or reasoning. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Placement of Vivian Schiller text

This text was added to the Juan Williams commentary:

A statement released Wednesday by NPR's board of directors said the resignation by Vivian Schiller, who also faced criticism last fall for the dismissal of commentator Juan Williams, "was accepted." But NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik tells Morning Edition host Renee Montagne that the CEO was forced out.

This seems out of time order, and awkward because it says "also faced criticism for..Juan Williams", when it's already in the Juan Williams section. I removed it from the Juan Williams section, with the intent of posting it under the Ronald Schiller section (i.e. the proper time order, and less awkward reference. However, there is already text to this account in that section (Schiller). Can I get some recommendations on how to reconcile the two overlapping texts? ( I have reverted my removal until we get discussion. Sorry about jumping the gun, thought it would just be a simple move).Jbower47 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in reading through the link given for the section under Williams, I think the text somewhat misrepresents the source. Folkinflik didn't say she was being forced out, he said that sources were telling him she was. This is a tangible difference. Regardless, I think some aspects of this are good additions, just in the wrong place and duplicative of the text in the Schiller subsection. My recommendation is that this text be removed from the Juan Williams section and added to/combined with the existing text in the Schiller section, which would then read as:

"Within hours, NPR said it was appalled by the comments of their departing executive. The day after the video was released NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (who is not related to Ronald) resigned, after rejecting claims of NPR bias. Vivian Schiller also faced criticism last fall for the dismissal of commentator Juan Williams. Ronald Schiller announced a week before the video was released that he would be leaving NPR for another job, however once the video was made public Ronald made his resignation effective immediately. NPR later distanced itself from the comments of its departing executive."

Anyone have any comments on this?Jbower47 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, sans the last sentence. "Within hours, NPR said it was appalled by the comments of their departing executive" is precisely what they did with an ironclad source where "later distanced themselves" is vague and redundant. Thanks for starting the discussion in this talk section. --Javaweb (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Yeah, I thought that bit (which was frm the moved text, not my combination) may be redundant and a bit vague, since there are two departing executives, and they were appalled by his comments, not hers. Without that sentence (which kinda duplicates the first one in the paragraph, is everyone ok with the edit?Jbower47 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there's been no further conversation on this, I am going to make these edits as suggested and agreed on.Jbower47 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting the Vivian Schiller text under the Ron Schiller heading seems confusing. I suggest a new sub-heading “Vivian Schiller” Controversies. It is also important to note that there was board pressure for her resignation not only from the Folkinflik reference but by Dave Edwards, chairman of NPR's board.Grahamboat (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a notable controversy in and of itself. It's direct fallout from the Williams and Schiller incidents, not a separate and distinct thing. It could potnentially fall under either, but probably is best suited under the Schiller section because that was the last straw for Vivian, and fits better in terms of timeline. It's better to fit it there because it happened after the Schiller controversy. To have it as its own implies it's separate, and to have it under the Williams section would be confusing as we'd be referring to the Schiller section, before the reader has gotten to it. Also, I think it's giving undue weight to V. Schiller's part in the matter, especially given the length of the section as it is, and the relative notability. I'd propose it be merged back with the Schiller comments, and shortened. There is too much detail for such a small piece of the article.Jbower47 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is notable controversy considering the board concluded she could no longer effectively lead the organization and it would be best for her to depart. There were probably other issues involved that were not publically disclosed. That makes it a distinct and separate issue. IMHO this controversy is as important as Juan and Ron controversies and therefore the Vivian Schiller section should remain in the main article.Grahamboat (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't take NPR's word

We should not take NPR word on the reason for firing Juan Williams. The facts and his comment on Fox News are evidence of NPR islying. We should also mention the massive email protest. Lastly George Soros involvment in funding should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Daughter article needed?

The combined sections for 'Allegations of ideological bias' and 'Controversies' comprise a significant portion of the NPR article. In addition, there is the reliably-sourced frequent controversy about public funding of NPR. If we split off that material to a "NPR controversies" it could substantially reduce the size of that material in the NPR article, changing it to a short summary of the daughter article. There is currently a "Fox News Channel controversies" article that is a daughter article for the "Fox News Channel." If there's adequate notability for a "Fox News Channel controversies" article about a 15-year-old news organization, there's adequate notability for a "NPR controversies" article about a 40-year-old news organization. Drrll (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect that the problem here is that much of the content in those sections is WP:UNDUE, and the proper way to handle it would be to scale back the undue content, and expand the content of the reset of the article. Looking at other major broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC, CBC, BBC, and FOX, there is definitely a mismatch in style, scope and coverage. Likewise, of those articles only the BBC has a controversy sub-article. The FOX article does have a link to the Fox News Controversies article, but that article deals almost entirely with Fox News, not FOX. That said, I do think there are quite a few views on the biases and controversies related to NPR that are not covered in the article. But most of those have to do with the conservative nature of the reporting there. To establish a sub article about the controversies, it would be most useful to have a strong secondary source which goes through the history of NPR, and the various controversies over time. Otherwise the sub article would become a pick-um of what the editor du jour wanted to include. aprock (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Every day, there are controversies manufactured by MSNBC, Fox, Comedy Central, and talk show hosts whose whole livelihood depends on stirring up the blood of listeners and entertaining them in the guise (and sometimes actually) providing news. Additionally, there are thousands of web sites with political agendas and looking for a way to stand out in a crowded marketplace doing the same thing. It is likely that the agenda of the section will be set by those influences. In good faith, editors will take out-of-context material and use the existence of a Wikipedia sub-article to lower the threshold of what is acceptable in Wikipedia. --Javaweb (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I concur. The controversy section is certainly valid, but contains far more information than is due. Some of the sections are nice and concise, but the Williams and Schiller sections are out of control. Not badly written, just too much detail for the relative scale. I'd suggest spinning them off or scaling them down. See my suggestion in the next section.Jbower47 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the “Controversies” section should remain in the main article but the space devoted to them should be scaled back. Eliminate Mumia Abu-Jamal and trim Juan Williams & Ronald Schiller.Grahamboat (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I created a NPR controversies Page, since 3 of the 4 respondents here seemed in favor of it. It's just a rough draft, literally just a cut and paste. Take a look and see if this meets our needs. I did not remove anything from this article yet, just copied directly. If this looks good, let's consider getting the allegations of bias/controversies sections shortened to a couple sentences, with links to the daughter page. Thoughts?Jbower47 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, however I believe an abridged version of Juan Williams and Ron Schiller should be in the main article for the time being.Grahamboat (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Want to take a crack at a proposal for the two affected sections while other people are weighing in?204.65.34.139 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to include the Vivian Schiller section in things that should stay.Grahamboat (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks good Jbower47. I was going to suggest the same idea--copy and paste current content over to the new article and then summarize that content in this main article. BTW, please look over my latest posts in the 'Comparisons to Juan Williams firing' section above. Obviously it would go in the new article rather than the main one. Drrll (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to have abridged summaries of Juan Williams, Ron Schiller, and Vivian Schiller before moving the bulk of the controversies over to the daughter article. Grahamboat (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to check back on this is a while....the point of the daughter was to abbreviate what was here...it's redundant to have a large section for controversies here and then repeat it there. This needs to be chopped down a great deal. The Bias section is chopped down, but seems a little incohesive? Like, for that length, it should probably state general themes and refer to the article. It's nto bad, just seems mmore like a collection of things rather than a flowing piece. Something like "Various organizations and individuals have made allegations of of both liberal and conservative bias against NPR. Additionally, some organizations and individuals have alleged that NPR is biased on certain topics, like Israel and Palestine." but, you know, better written. It's the same content as what's there, just flows together better. Jbower47 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the "bias" section. It's certainly not cohesive, it's just my first attempt. I'll be doing the same thing to the controversy section unless someone does it first. My plan is to only have one section, perhaps titled "controversy and bias"? tedder (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tedder, don't get me wrong, it's a great start. I think we can wordsmith it just a little and have it be right where we need it.

Also, "being bold" I have summarized the controversies section as discussed above. The exact same text exists on the daughter page, so it was redundant to have it twice. I tried to keep it succinct and NPOV. I rolled the Vivian Schiller item into the R. Schiller topic for the sake of brevity, but you'll note she has a separate section on the daughter page. I still feel hers really is a "sub-controversey" as it's a reaction to a controversey, not a controversy in and of itself. However, there doesn't seem to be consensus on that so I left it alone on the daughter page. It didn't seem like it needed a separate section in the summation though, since it's a sentence. I hope this move doesn't light too many fires...please look at the daughter page (and consider the usual relationship between main and daughter...with a short summary in the main and an extended take in the daughter) first. You'll see no text was lost. If someone can sum things up more succintly, please do so...this was about as brief as I could be without losing the main elements.Jbower47 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Jbower, it needs wordsmithing. I'm not offended at all. Thanks for the controversy text. Perhaps controversy should be the main section and "alleged bias" can be the subsection? tedder (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we are making concurrent edits:) I'm done for now...looks good enough for now, I'd like to see how other react before I spend too much time sprucing it up. To everyone, I'd appreciate it if you took these edits as being in Good Faith, and discussed revisions here rather than reverting wholesale. Again, none of the content is lost, it all still exists on the daughter article.Thanks! Jbower47 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done for now. I agree, wording issues should be fixed, not reverted wholesale. tedder (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry , couldn't resist...made a few minor word changes to the bias section, just to link the sentences together. Also, made it clear that the two examples are examples rather than the whole sum and substance of the bias allegations. But it's essentially the same text, just transmogrified:)Jbower47 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Role of NPR in the current media environment

There is a crisis in journalism today. The internet is killing the economic viability of the news-gathering business and much of the media coverage is entertainment and re-reporting what was actually discovered by the rare organization that has bureaus manned around the world. Most of the news media have cut their staff and instead publish or re-package the work of others. The article should mention something about the reputation of NPR in the rest of the media, among other journalists. For example, Juan Williams, on the Sean Hannity show, repeatedly mentioning his respect for the reporters on NPR, saying there are no better reporters anywhere. NPR is one of the rare organizations that actually does broad-and-deep reporting and has hours to present the news in detail and context. Network news is 22 minutes+commercials. Most newspapers look like an emaciated fashion model compared to what the pages of coverage they offered before. --Javaweb (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

While I would tend to agree about the general quality of NPR's coverage, I'm not sure how you'd suggests implementing this in the article, or whether it even should be. We are talking about an inherently subjective thing...even if one were to create a "reputation" section, it would of course be fair game for negative as well as positive evaluations. There is already some comment in Defender's rebuttals that seems to fit what you're getting at. IN either case, I think we have to err on the side of caution in keeping this as NPOV as possible. My suggestion, in combination with the daughter article suggestion is to have a few brief sentences in a "reputation and controversies" or similar section, that says something like "(see section link) Many organizations and journalists perceive NPR as having a reputation for providing in depth coverage of news stories (Source source source). However, allegations of bias exist and NPR has found itself at the center of several controversies throughout its history (source source source)." That would go a long way toward cleaning up this contentious and overly large section and would be in line with other media organizations.Jbower47 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about an Awards Section?

• NPR WINS TWO PEABODY AWARDS
• NPR was among those given a 10th Anniversary 9/11 Tribute Award
• NPR News Wins duPont-Columbia Silver Baton Award For Excellence in Journalism
• Etc

Grahamboat (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Political contributions

This new section has been added. Why is this relevant?

First of all, companies always make political donations to whoever candidates can help ensure their survival, regardless of party or ideology. The fact that candidates of a particular ideology tend not to favor NPR means that a legal political contribution is wasted in that direction. So what? That's how it works. If Democrats developed a bias against NPR while Libertarians, Greens, and Republicans became staunch supporters, the money would flow there. I fail to see how this is relevant.

Secondly, the section reports on a minority (5 of 17) board members. Again, so what? What about the other 12? Is such an incomplete picture really useful here? And why do just the past 8 years matter? If the past 8 years have been dominated by interests hostile to NPR, wouldn't it make sense for NPR board members to direct contributions to enhance their survival? Again, so what?

What's the point of this section? It's essentially a tautology. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR is not just any old company. It is a journalistic organization that is supposed to be neutral with regard to partisan politics. Plus the fact that NPR receives a good bit of indirect taxpayer funding makes the donations even more problematic. Drrll (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, legal contributions aren't problematic at all. Nothing is being done under the table here. I used to work for different large defense contractors over my career. 100% of our revenue came from indirect taxpayer funding, not just a portion as with NPR. And yes, each major defense contractor has a large PAC program heavily promoted to employees, which donates to candidates that would further the company's interests. I fail to see how this is "problematic". The mechanisms, reporting, transparency, contribution limits, etc. are all clearly defined by law. That's how our political system works. Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, NPR etc. didn't create the system. They are simply doing what they are legally permitted to do. Any perception of faults in our laws that were designed to allow such contributions don't equate to faults in a company.

And where is it required that the organization is supposed to be neutral with regard to partisan politics? They contribute to ensure their existence, regardless of ideology. Don't confuse the company with the product. The reporting is supposed to be neutral, and the article already contains details about that. There is nothing I know of requiring the corporate entity to be neutral in its survival activities.

And I certainly don't see why the article should bother pointing out or implying that a minority of directors appear sympathetic to liberal candidates by virtue of their contributions. What's the complete picture? Half-truths add no value.

Again, I fail to see why this section is relevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is not relevant, and I believe it only serves to advance the false premise that donations made by the janitor, receptionist, fundraisers or board members during a cherry-picked sample timeframe somehow affect the journalistic integrity of NPR. After reading Drrll's comment above, it is clear that at least some folks are falling for it; they are apparently unaware that (From the same data source):

NPR's ethics policy states that "NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist's impartiality." And also, "A firewall will be maintained between NPR journalists and funders."

It is just a meme tossed into the echo-chamber by conservatives during the recent "defund public broadcasting" discussions in the hopes that people that don't know any better will believe it reflects poorly on NPR. We shouldn't make Wikipedia part of that echo chamber. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The notable thing is what appears on NPR's air cannot be influenced even if a $5 million dollar contribution is at stake. The 2-hour Video from NPR's biggest critic, Mr O'Keefe, verifies this. Six times Ronald Schiller told the "potential donors" that there was an impenetrable firewall between donors and the news department and their donations could not affect coverage of the news:

There is such a big firewall between funding and reporting: Reporters will not be swayed in any way, shape or form

In a sin of omission, the edited version does not mention NPR's incorruptability once.

Please look at the references which has the raw video clips, elided by Mr.O'Keefe in his edited version. --Javaweb (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

That's an interesting point, but the "Political contributions" section under discussion here doesn't concern donations to NPR, but rather political contributions from NPR directors. The fact that such a firewall exists between funding and reporting may strengthen my point a bit that political contributions from a minority of NPR's directors having no relevance to the article. I would agree that a complete picture may have encyclopedic value to include, but as it is now, it's an incomplete picture, no better than a half-truth. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is clearly undue. Probably the best parallel would be with FOX which does not in any way go into the political donations of any of it's personnel. Neither does the related article Fox News Channel controversies mention personal contributions. I'll be deleting the section presently. aprock (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If I am an executive in an organization and one party wants to hurt it and another wants to help it, which party would you expect me to contribute to? Republicans don't supported NPR funding. Democrats do. Executives generally individually execute their constitutional rights and individually contribute towards candidates that support their organization; nothing notable or hard to understand and therefore not worth including. --Javaweb (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Good discussion, and nice to see a consensus reached as a result of my initial question. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR board members may not be involved in specific day-to-day news decisions, but they are definitely involved in overall management of the editorial process and the editorial personnel involved in news coverage, so yes they have influence over NPR's news coverage. They shouldn't be making partisan donations, even if those donations are legal. Fox News Channel controversies definitely would include examples of individuals with influence over their news product donating if examples existed. It does cover News Corporation's donation to the Republican Governors Assocation and News Corp's role as overseers of a news organization is not as significant as the NPR board's role as overseers of a news organization. The idea that this information is just some conservative meme is ridiculous. US News is not a conservative organization. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is not a conservative organization. The Center for Responsive Politics is not a conservative organization. Those are the sources, not conservative sources. Drrll (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're being silly here. Rupert Murdoch is well known for his political contributions. But those contributions are from Rupert Murdoch, not Fox. The same holds for the contributions here. If any of these people are notable, then their own page is the appropriate place for this sort of material. aprock (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

News Corporation made the donation, not Rubert Murdoch, although it is silly to say that he had no role in the company's donation. I believe that just like Fox News Channel controversies is an appropriate place for the News Corp donation, an article about NPR is an appropriate place for the NPR board donations. Drrll (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At the beginning of this thread I asked "Why is this relevant"? I still don't have an answer.

This is a non-issue. A minority of NPR board members making personal political contributions isn't in any way the same level as the entire corporation making contributions. You're claiming that corporate oversight of a news organization is not as significant as oversight from a minority of board members? You honestly believe that?

NPR knows full well that political contributions are public information (see above) and yet they have no restriction on such activities for their board members. They restrict the reporting side from any political involvement. And that's as it should be. That a minority of the board members decide to make some contribution is surprising only in the sense that so few of them did so.

Note also that the contributions were not 100% Democrat/Liberal (unlike the Fox contribution), and there is a $5000 limit for corporate donations to candidates, suggesting that the money was pretty well dispersed even for the bit that went to Republicans (like those mentioned in this article). This pales in comparison to Fox donating a lump sum of millions to one republican organization.

I agree this is undue weight. It's also a half-truth. As an illustration of how this is a half-truth, consider that:

• The section fails to mention that some of those board members belong to the NPR Foundation, which is the fundraising arm. Remember the firewall? Those board members have zero oversight regarding news coverage. No controversy here. And I have yet to be convinced that those other board members who are not part of the NPR Foundation (an even smaller minority) have influence over the reporting. That isn't their job, and it's a far cry from having an corporate policy and culture of supporting conservative causes, like Fox/News Corp did.
• Media Research Center reports that since the actual board of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting was mostly appointed by President Bush, their cumulative giving since 2003 totals over $100,000, nearly three-quarters of which has gone to Republicans.[2] But again, so what? No controversy here.

Without a complete picture of what all the board members do (and what board they're on, it isn't clear), or without a source that reveals a corporate policy on supporting democrat/liberal causes (like News Corp as a corporation supporting the Republican Governor's Association) the factoid is valueless. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"they are definitely involved in overall management of the editorial process and the editorial personnel involved in news coverage, so yes they have influence over NPR's news coverage."

No.[3][4] Try again?

"Those are the sources, not conservative sources."

No, and neither is NPR. Nor are they liberal. But then, none of those three introduced the content into our Wikipedia article. Also, none of those three have conveyed the conservative meme that "NPR is biased". If you think a section on donations is warranted, then dig up the reliable sources to produce an encyclopedic section covering donations -- not just a cherry-picked, recent sample from a subset of individuals that conveys no information to the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the main NPR board is involved in the overall management of news: "The board sets the policies and overall direction for NPR management" (from the 2nd source you provided). That management within NPR is primarily news management, as opposed to entertainment program management.

The US News source does discuss the NPR is biased allegation and although, as a neutral source they don't say yes, NPR is biased, they do provide some evidence of that within the board: "Conservatives have long complained that the public broadcaster has a liberal bias, a charge NPR's defenders have denied. In at least one regard, however, NPR's board and fundraisers have, as a whole, shown a marked lean to the left in recent years: political contributions." The presentation of the data by US News is not cherry-picked--they analyze all of the donations by all board members from 2004 on using the Center for Responsive Politics data (I doubt there is some nefarious reason for starting at 2004).

Do you believe the donation by Fox News' parent company to the RGA belongs in the Fox News Channel controversies article? Drrll (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic, it is relevant, as reliable sources make it relevant (US News & The Chronicle of Philanthropy). Yes, I do believe that the parent company of Fox News does not have as much influence over the news product of Fox News than NPR board members have over the news product of NPR. I haven't seen evidence that News Corp involves itself in Fox News coverage. Yet there is evidence that NPR board members have a role in the overall direction of NPR's coverage (from the reference Xeno provided: "The board sets the policies and overall direction for NPR management") There is nothing in the description of the board, such as a mention of a firewall between the board and coverage, that says that the NPR board has no influence in NPR's journalism. It is surprising that NPR doesn't restrict board members' political involvement since they do have an overseer role in reporting. NPR board member's donations are not 100% Democrat/liberal, yes, but it isn't far from 100% at around 90%. This article states that prior to the big donation to the RGA, News Corp actually favored Democrats to Republicans in political donations, by 54 to 46 percent. If the CPB board has a role in news coverage, they shouldn't be donating either. I believe that this fact at least belongs in the NPR controversies article as the News Corp donation belongs in the Fox News Channel controversies article. The sources do make it clear that members of the NPR board (not just the NPR Foundation board) made partisan contributions. Drrll (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The political slant of Rupert Murdoch is undisputedly identical to the political slant of Fox News. Are you trying to argue that this is purely coincidental? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that when Murdoch set out to establish Fox News, he wanted a channel that differed from the slant of the existing competition in the business, especially as far as opinion shows go. I haven't seen any evidence that he meddles in the news coverage by Fox News. Drrll (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the standard is whether he personally meddles in the actual day to day news coverage by Fox News. Have you seen any evidence that the members of the NPR board personally meddle in the day to day news coverage by NPR? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that NPR board members meddle in day-to-day news coverage by NPR. But they do involve themselves in the overall direction of the news coverage and I doubt that Murdoch has, since starting Fox News, involved himself in the overall direction of news coverage (though I could be convinced otherwise by sources). However, I do think that the RGA contribution should be mentioned in the Fox News Channel controversies. Drrll (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So board members have involved themselves in NPR's coverage, a conclusion you come to without evidence beyond a few political contributions by only 29 percent of that board. But Murdoch, a well-known conservative who has steered every publication he's owned rightward and hired Nixon's campaign operative to run his television network and had his corporation donate millions to the GOP, does not steer the direction of Fox News. Gotcha. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the quote from NPR's own description of its board? ("The board sets the policies and overall direction for NPR management"). What reporting actually provides evidence that Murdoch steers his news organizations' news coverage? As I mentioned earlier, up until August 2010, News Corp actually donated more to Democrats than Republicans, the reverse of which can hardly be said for NPR board members. Drrll (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And what about the direction of the other 71 percent of the board? What information do you know of them? This is a fragment you're trying to a whole vase here when for all you know it could be a pitcher instead. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we should convey that the board as a whole made the donations, but, like the sources, we should convey that some board members made the donations. Drrll (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the quote from NPR's own description of its board. I cited it: "The board sets the policies and overall direction for NPR management, monitors NPR's performance, and provides financial oversight." Nowhere in that description does it say, "they do involve themselves in the overall direction of the news coverage" -- that is your personal, unfounded conclusion. Your single U.S. News source claims 4 of the 17 board members gave $106,000 dollars to left-leaning candidates ($82,000 of that from just one individual), during a specific limited timespan. Board members that have no control over the NPR News Division. So what is it, exactly, you are trying to convey to the reader with this information? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"overall direction for NPR management" predominantly refers to the overall direction of the news/editorial management, so naturally that would involve the "overall direction of the news coverage." That source you just provided does not state that the board has "no control over the NPR News Division." I want to convey to the reader what the US News and The Chronicle of Philanthropy sources convey--that donations of the board members who donated politically overwhelmingly leaned left in their giving. Drrll (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeating it indefinitely won't make it true. :) People allowed to make donations have ZERO influence on the news division, and people that work in the news division can't make political donations. Not even your cited source refutes that. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Funding

The content of this section was taken entirely from [| NPR]’s website. While it appears to be factually correct, naturally they put their own spin on the funding. It is the indirect federal funding that gets an obscure treatment. Since CPB is really a Shell corporation (100% federally funded) the 1.5% that goes to NPR is about as directly indirect as you can get. At the same time CPB funds an average of 10% of the member stations revenue in addition to the 5.8% they receive from direct federal, state and local governments. Many of the universities, which contribute another 15% are public and therefore represent taxpayer-provided dollars. The member stations give NPR headquarters 50% of their revenue via dues, programming and distribution charges. I added content about member stations public funding but the process is so convoluted it is difficult to get an accurate picture.Grahamboat (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Nearly every thing you mention here is mentioned in the article. aprock (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking anything. I am pointing out that a significant amount of NPR’s funding is indirectly from governments. That was not very clear before. Grahamboat (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From the sources, about 5-7% of NPRs revenues originate from the federally funded CPB. aprock (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've undone the revert. I've taken that out again. Here is the sentence you want to add:

As NPR is a two-tier setup, indirect government funding can account for as much as 10% when fees paid by their member stations are considered

Here is what is already in the article:

... about 50% of NPR revenues come from ... member stations ... In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from direct government funding, 10% of their revenue from federal funding in the form of CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.

Your sentence says essentially the same thing. Now, maybe you think the copy could be clearer. That's fine. But having the article say the same thing over and over again isn't improving the situation. aprock (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The average reader is not going to do the math that you and I understand. Perhaps it would be better to add:

NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government, but indirect government funding can account for as much as 10% when fees paid by their member stations and contributions from CBP are considered. "adding a ref of course"

Readers clearly see how much public funding is evolved and the article would not be saying the same thing over and over again.Grahamboat (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That does make the taxpayer funding issue more clear. This article argues that actually over 20% of NPR's budget is taxpayer funded. That is not from a reliable source, however, so we need other sources. Drrll (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrasing what is already there to be clearer is fine. Repeating the same content is not a good way of handling this. aprock (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a half sentence which clarifies and summarizes indirect public funding. References will show money funneled through member stations equal 8% i.e. 50% of 10% plus 5.8% and the direct public funding from CPB and other government agencies equal 2.8%. Grahamboat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to rephrase what is there to be clearer, by all means give it a go. Duplicating content is not the solution here. aprock (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I added:

, but indirect government funding can account for as much as 10% when fees paid by their member stations and contributions from CPB are considered.

Which I intent to change to:

, but indirect government funding can account for as much as 10% when fees paid by their member stations and direct contributions from CPB and other government agencies are considered.

Aprock insists that this clause is just duplicating what is already in the article. (S)he offers no specificity other than repeating “duplicated content” over and over.

• where in the article is indirect funding mentioned?
• where in the article is the direct funding from CPB to NPR mentioned?
• where in the article is the total of 10% indirect government funding mentioned?

The paragraph ended with “NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government”, but what about the indirect government funding. Those are facts readers would like to know and there is no reason to hide them. The well sourced clause introduces new information and summarizes details that are obscured in the proceeding text.Grahamboat (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm ok with calling money that has changed hands more than once still "government" funding, direct or otherwise. Let me make sure I understand correctly (which may certainly not be the case:))..are you counting fees, revenues paid through the local stations to NPR as indirect "government" funding? I think that stretches things a bit...especially since we already account for those revenues directly from the stations. If the funding isn't coming from the government, it's no longer government funidng. I think DRRL's comment below draws a more balanced view. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your derivation of the 10%.Jbower47 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I count these government funds as indirect funding to NPR. That is what indirect means and is exactly what, at least part , of H R 1076 is designed to defund.Grahamboat (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning "Indirect" I'm questioning "government". The member stations are not governments. They receive government funding, but once they receive it, it ceases to be government funding. When they then spend it on something else, it's not government funding, it's revenue from member stations. To call it government funding makes an implication. If the government pays me a subsidy to plant corn, and I buy a hamburger with some of my money, it would not be correct to say the government indirectly bought a hamburger. Since the local stations get a mixed pot of funds, to draw a direct pass through of one funidng source to one expenditure is problematic. It is not direct pass-through, in other words. I'm worried that stretching it to be called indirect "government" funding gives the appearance of POV impropriety, even assuming Good Faith in your edits. regardless, i think it's simply more correct to say something like what Drrl has going below...i.e. "although it does receive grants from organizations like the CPB and member stations that receive federal funding". (a bit modified to incorporate both sources.)Jbower47 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That modified version looks good to me, though I think I would change "from organizations like the CPB" to federal agencies like the CPB". Drrll (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not quite true. That is why HR 1076 would restrict local stations from using any funds from CPB to pay NPR for programming etc. Obviously the House considers these funds to be indirect funding to NPR or why the restriction.

Taxpayer dollars go from the federal government to CPB. Some of those dollars go from CPB to local stations. Local stations send some of those tax dollars to NPR to pay for programming, distribution charges, and dues. That is what is meant by an indirect path. Another part of CPB taxpayer dollars goes directly to NPR. This is still considered indirect. Other taxpayer dollars go to the local stations from federal agencies, state and local governments (the 5.8%). Again local stations use part of that money to pay NPR for its services. Again this would be considered indirect taxpayer funding. You may think that it is a stretch counting these funds as indirect taxpayer funding to NPR but if they were cut off, as part of HR 1076 proposes, you would see how important to NPR they are. I am not a proponent of doing this, I just believe readers should know how important taxpayer money is to NPR and how much that money really is.Grahamboat (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DRRL: Organizations was supposed to refer to both the CPB and the stattions..sorry, bad grammar. Re; "agency"...I know the term federal agency has been used often in terms of CPB, but they are a private not-for-profit corporation, even if, like other similar arrangements, they are majority funded by the federal governments (http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/). I understand what you're getting at...can we say it another way without calling them a federal agency, which in the literal meaning of the words, they are not? Does the "federally funded" bit get us there, or is there better text? (EDIT..I am mistaken, I think...this source seems to indicate they are not majority funded by the fed govt. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48836.pdf, though it's a couple years old.)

GRrahamboat: please refer to DRRL's suggestion above, does this work for you, mnus the federal agencies? Also, the sources 17,18, and 19 you added...I'm wondering if there are more obejctive third party sources we could find? I'm not comfortable with just 14 either, but the other three are a right wing opinion piece, a Republican committee report, and a right wing news organization...I think it gives the appearance of impropriety.Jbower47 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I sorry I’m getting lost here. Too many colons; can we shift left again? Which Drrll proposal were you referring to? As to the sources I didn’t realize US News & World Report was right-wing. I used the Republican committee report because it included the neutral Congressional Research Service report “CRS estimates that NPR’s total direct funding consisted of $5.2 million in FY 2010”Grahamboat (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Aprock has accused me of violating 3RR. After researching the history records I found (S)he was right; I was guilty. I thought I was being careful always posting on talk before editing etc, but I allowed my vest to get the better of me. I have decided to impose a voluntary three day suspension on myself as a penalty.Grahamboat (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is this "10%" figure coming from? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked through the cites on that section and the figure isn't mentioned. This appears to be original research and synthesis. Unless notable and reliable third-party sourcing exists for it, it will have to be removed. Also, several of the cites that follow that claim are from non-WP:RS sources. These include: an editorial, a press release by the Republican party and Newsbusters. None of those are reliable sources for anything other than the opinion of their authors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a better solution. The last sentence in the first paragraph is taken out of context and gives a POV slant. I have added the correct statement. Using CPB as a source I have added the total amount of federal funds given to support all public radio broadcasting. Note this is the same format used in the CPB article.Grahamboat (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Grants

I added "although it does receive grants from federally funded organizations" at the end of sentence that says that NPR does not receive direct funding from the federal government. This is an important distinction to make, since NPR does receive some indirect funding from the federal government, and it's a distinction that NPR makes itself in the two NPR sources in the paragraph. While "grants" are mentioned earlier in the paragraph, the first instance primarily describes grants by individuals and non-government organizations. The second instance (CPB grants) refers to grants to member stations, not NPR. Drrll (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a very reasonable way to handle it, and states the relationship directly. There was other text above in the discussion that seemed to want to count CPB as federal funding. I think clarifying the relationship (grants from CPB, who recieves federal funding) is the best way to go, so this works just fine.Jbower47 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is already in the article: 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, which is referenced in the previous sentence as the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. To be clearer, I'll synch the names in both sentences. After this I'm going to take a break from this article to allow other users voice their opinion on the section. This whole debate seems excessively silly to me. I can certainly see making the current copy clearer, but debating about how many times to include the same information just doesn't make sense to me. aprock (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

see (and hopefully improve on) my potential proposed merging of these and other comments in the discussion above...Jbower47 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

aprock, it is not already in the article. The "10% of their revenue from CPB grants" refers to member stations, not NPR itself, which the last sentence in the paragraph addresses. Drrll (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Public radio programs not affiliated with NPR

I don't see the point of this section in an article about NPR, not about public radio programming. I think the mention in the summary of other sources of public radio programming is sufficient to make the point that not all programs on public/community radio stations come via NPR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtha25 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Especially the long list of non-NPR programs is irrelevant for this article. Should be removed.Miradre (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Especially as it looks like advertising. Objections to removal? Miradre (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. I don't see anything that looks remotely like advertising. It might be possible to trim the list some, but the basic idea is that people listening to public radio might not be aware which programs are or are not produced/distributed by NPR. older ≠ wiser 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That is like arguing that the ABC article should list the programs done by its competitors.Miradre (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Public radio stations play programs from a variety of sources. However, people very commonly consider NPR and public radio to be synonymous. When this section was not present, people would routinely add programs from other sources that they thought were NPR because their local public radio station broadcast them. older ≠ wiser 11:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

But NPR and public is radio is not synonymous. That this article should list the programs done by NPR's competitors is ridiculous. If there are mistakes, then they can be removed. As they would be on the ABC article and so on.Miradre (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If your claimed problem really is serious, I suggest that we add note to the listing of NPR programs explaining that not all public radio programs are from NPR.Miradre (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A list of individual programs might not be needed. I think keeping the heading and much of the non-list prose in the section would be enough. Although, on second thought, many of the programs in the list are not part of the big three public radio production/distribution sources (NPR/PRI/APM). It would be nice if there were a category for public radio programming in the U.S. older ≠ wiser 19:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly create a new category template for US public radio programs.Miradre (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Tax money used for subsidizing the wealthy and lobbying

See [5]. Please explain. Criticism stated to the US Congress so it is significant.Miradre (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summay the content is undue. aprock (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How can it be undue when it was stated to the US Congress as a criticism? Miradre (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Their efforts are dwarfed by the National Association of Broadcasters members, representing the for-profit broadcasters, which is traditionally 1st or 2nd among donors to campaigns. You don't see that mentioned in the ABC/NBC/... pages. Those broadcasters have lobbys in Washington as well. Both kinds of efforts dwarf whatever NPR is doing. I've worked for businesses and they have all done lobbying. None of their articles mention lobbying. WP:UNDO --Javaweb (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Possible problems in other articles are irrelevant for this article. One possible wrong does not justify new ones.Miradre (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But the lobbying efforts in the businesses I worked for don't merit mention either. It is ubiquitous. --Javaweb (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Why not? If it is ubiquitous, it is because it works, and thus certainly deserves a mention. The influence of political lobbying certainly should be noticed and brought to public awareness.Miradre (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute : Crowding out commercial programs

See [6]. Please explain.Miradre (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, as in the edit summary. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a US study about the effect of public radio on commercial radio stations. Obviously it is relevant for this article. We should present all views fairly. Even the criticisms.Miradre (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One survey in 1999 is hardly representative. That's what I mean by undue. Mathsci (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a survey but a study. Why was it not representative? Do you have a source for that claim? Miradre (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The study is only tentative, certainly not a definitive statement of fact. It primarily concerned the broadcasting of music (classical and jazz). The abstract reads, "Because broadcasters can capture only part of the value of their product as revenue, there is the potential for a classic problem of underprovision. Whether public support corrects a market failure depends on whether the market would have provided similar services in the absence of public broadcasting. We address these questions by asking whether public and commercial classical stations compete for listening share and revenue as well as whether public stations crowd out commercial stations. We find evidence that public broadcasting crowds out commercial programming in large markets, particularly in classical music and to a lesser extent in jazz." What was in the text does not match this abstract, particularly the heading.

Here is the conclusion of the paper:

conclusion

"This study has examined provision of radio broadcasting services by the market in the U.S., along with the pattern of public radio. Although the market provides most broadcast formats in most markets, some formats – notably classical music and jazz – are provided less frequently by the market. We examine the interaction between commercial and public provision of broadcast services in classical music, jazz, and music, and we find evidence of substitutability of commercial and public programming in jazz, and especially classical music. We document programming similarity between public and commercial classical music stations. Furthermore, public entry appears to displace commercial entry in large markets. Although the bulk of government support for broadcasting goes to public stations in markets without commercial competition, over a third of public funding of stations airing jazz and classical music programming is allocated to public stations in the markets which would be served by similar commercial programming in the absence of public broadcasting. "Arguments in this paper cannot demonstrate whether public funding of radio broadcasting is wasteful. Rather, we focus attention on the degree of similarity of commercial and public programming. Our findings of substitutability in classical music programming (and evidence of displacement in both classical music and jazz) do not demonstrate that public funding that displaces commercial programming in these categories is unjustified. Whether public funding of programming that displaces similar commercial programming is justified depends on the degree of similarity between public and commercial programming. "It is important to note that the results of this study do not necessarily imply that funding of public radio should be reduced. This study has examined the allocation of the current public radio budget across markets. The determination of the correct size of the public radio budget is outside the scope of this study. Even if it were true that some public radio funding should be withdrawn from some large markets, it is entirely possible more funding should be allocated to public radio in other markets. Such a determination requires information, that we currently lack, on the value of public broadcasting to its listeners in those markets. "While this study has documented many empirical regularities, the descriptive estimates we have presented do not allow us to realistically model the impact of public subsidies on available programming. The next step for this research is the development of realistic structural models of commercial and public entry and revenue, allowing simulation of alternative government funding policies."

Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

First, please remove this massive copyright violation. Second, I fail to see only your point. Nothing there contradicts the text I added to the article.Miradre (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation here, Did you only have access to the abstract and did you write the content from there? Mathsci (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see any exemption for the talk page for copyright violations. All material added, including on the talk page, are released to the public under various licenses which is certainly incorrect for copyrighted material. Please correct this immediately. Regarding the content dispute, I fail to see anything incorrect with the material I added to the article.Miradre (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Was this material new to you? Had you in fact ever looked at the body of the article that you cited? This talk page is "noindexed" at present, so is not searchable on the web. But other formats can be found if you feel disquieted in any way. Your title for the brief section, "Tax subsidized stations crowding out commercial only stations" seems to have been concocted by you. The one sentence (followed by an ungrammatical non-sentence) was an inaccurate and misleading summary of the article. The conclusion of the paper is tentative, apparently restricted to broadcast music and full of provisos. How can it be possibly used to write an encyclopedia article? Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is searchable by search engines does not change your copyright violation. Look down, your long copypaste from a copyrighted article is now claimed to be released under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". Please correct immediately before you are reported.Miradre (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Never claimed that the study applied to other things than certain forms of music so your supposed point is unclear. My text does not make any claims not found in the study.Miradre (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your statements about copyvios seem ill-informed and I have no idea why you are making them.

From your other comments so far, I assume that you have never read the paper beyond the abstract. Your header pushed a negative point of view which is not expressed in the article. The text you wrote was not an accurate summary of the article. The paper, on broadcast music, is not definitive so it is WP:UNDUE to have a whole section devoted to it in this article. It is also evidently a primary source. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Last chance. I will report this to the copyright noticeboard if you do not remove the copyright violation.

Again, nothing in my text contradicts either the abstract or the text. Primary sources are not disallowed.Miradre (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just sent an email to Moonriddengirl concerning your post above. The best thing probably is for you to have a quiet chat with her to clear up any misunderstandings of copyvio policy. It applies to text inserted in wikipedia articles.

You have attempted to insert information from one isolated paper into this article as if it were a major confirmed finding. That is not the case and therefore having a whole section on it (even with just one sentence) is WP:UNDUE. The same applied to previously deleted content inserted by you. Mathsci (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reported your copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_August_6.Miradre (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A copy of the entire paper is temporarily available here. Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Update: The second author Joel Waldfogel made a copy of the paper freely available on his website at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania here. Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That just makes the copyright violation much worse.Miradre (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you really think there is a serious problem, why not report it on WP:ANI? Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reported it at the correct place.Miradre (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute your last reply was "You have attempted to insert information from one isolated paper into this article as if it were a major confirmed finding. That is not the case and therefore having a whole section on it (even with just one sentence) is WP:UNDUE." I have not claimed that it is "a major confirmed finding". But it is an important view on this subject from a WP:RS. WP:NPOV states that all significant views should be included. Applies to criticisms also.Miradre (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not up for us to pick what is an is not important. It is based on relative prevalence in the overall scope of verifiable information, specific notability, etc. Additionally, I agree with the other poster, I think you have misrepresented the study, and I don't think it's especially notable in the scope of this article.204.65.34.216 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)