Talk:Independent Institute

Addition of Non-Neutral Point of View Material

This article already relies "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral". It doesn't need any more non-verifiable propaganda taken from the organization's website.

There is a lack of verifiable material available about it because peer-reviewed academic literature mostly ignores the subject. Carlstak (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not requite peer reviewed academic literature as sources. WP:RS is broader than that. What will be helpful is non-primary source (non-II) material which discusses the various views and positions of II. I urge editors to bring up particular proposed changes here in order to get consensus for the changes before the edit war gets out of hand. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiments, Srich, but it's misleading to respond to a comment I made over a year ago as if I made it in regards to these recent edits. Carlstak (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to add a new Policy Positions section similar to the sections other think tanks like Cato Institute have. The vast majority of it is backed up with third party sources. For some reason Carlstak seems to think that the only policy position that deserves its own section is Climate Change even though II has clearly done extensive work on a wide range of other topics. If you look at the edit logs, Carlstak has a long record of steering this page towards negativity with irrelevant and dubiously sourced claims about tobacco companies, oil companies, and the Microsoft case, while preventing material about II's other work (which has much more extensive coverage and sourcing) from being posted. Demonstrating his bias, he called II founder David Theroux a "pig" elsewhere on this talk page. By the way, Carlstak has had no qualms about citing sources on II's website if he thinks the source supports a defamatory point, so his argument that II sources are invalid rings a bit hollow. His presence as an editor has not been helpful in molding this into a quality encyclopedic page. Can we come to a consensus to have him banned from making edits here? Vidmastb (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been relatively stable for over a year as its contributing editors had reached an apparent consensus, then on January 22, 2016 (diff here), user Vidmastb added a lot of material. Some of this text had been removed after previous discussion, and its reinsertion now, with expanded material, creates an imbalance that upsets the required neutral point of view. This new material also adds more information sourced from the Independent Institute to an article already relying excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, and thus exacerbates that problem. Surely Vidmast was aware that it might be contentious, especially given the prior discussions here on the talk page, and should have discussed his desired changes on the talk page first. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the addition of the material not sourced to the Institute if it were submitted for discussion, but I believe that it should be counterbalanced with material that treats the same topics more critically. Carlstak (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The text I added was entirely new and had not previously been posted and "removed after previous discussion". This page has been stable for the past year because apparently no one except me has been willing to write new text to fill it out in a more comprehensive way. The fact that a page is sparse and incomplete is no excuse for it continuing to stay incomplete. Pages for other think tanks like Cato Institute, Hoover Institution, The Heritage Foundation are much more detailed. The new material is an attempt to add neutral details to the page to provide a more complete picture of II and its activities of the sort that people expect to see on any organization's Wikipedia page. If other editors believe the new material is not worded neutrally, I welcome discussions of alternative wording. Notice the bias of Carlstak who seems to think that neutrality isn't good enough and that it's necessary to have critical text as well. Carlstak, I agree with the importance of using third party sources, but don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to object to using independent.org sources when you yourself have used independent.org sources when you think they can be used to cast II in a negative light, such as your edits on 18:15, 9 January 2015‎, and 12:02, 30 October 2014‎? Vidmastb (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Vidmastb. Your edits from a single-purpose account here and on the article itself so strongly resemble those of blocked user Jurtal (a sockpuppet) in language, style, and substance that it led me astray. That, and the fact that your Vidmastb account was opened not long after Jurtal made his last edit to this article before he was blocked. No, I don't think it's hypocritical to use independent.org sources to illuminate a view contrary to yours, which seems to be synonymous with everything that is Independent Institute, since for whatever reason, there aren't that many secondary sources to rely on for a contrarian point of view. In any case, if you are associated with II, you should come clean and stop playing games. Carlstak (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are a lack of secondary resources that provide contrarian points of view, wouldn't that mean such contrarian views are not notable or relevant? Why then do you insist so fervently that such views should be included? Vidmastb (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it appears that either David J. Theroux, accounts representing him, or various sockpuppets, as per the Jurtal/Shadowdog investigations, have been editing this article for quite a while now, since 2006, to the point that it read like a promotional pamphlet for the institute. It looks to be headed that way again with your recent additions. Carlstak (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what other editors may have done in the past (which Carlstak seems irrationally obsessed with and has no bearing on this new material) the important thing now is that the page be expanded to provide a more comprehensive overview of the organization, just like the Wikipedia pages of every other think tank. Carlstak has exhausted every negative secondary source he can find about II and hasn't found much "contrary" material to post, so he argues that no positive or even neutral additional material should be added to the page, no matter how well it is backed up with secondary sources. If that is not a demonstration of bias, I don't know what is. Vidmastb (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It has bearing, Vidmastb, because your edits originate from a single-purpose account and appear very similar to those of the blocked sockpuppets and their puppet master, and you seem to be associated with the subject of the article, which you don't deny. You are the one who appears to be "irrationally obsessed" with resurrecting past disputes that were resolved over a year ago. You are concerned with slanting the content of this article, not with building an encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The disputes of a year ago that you say were resolved were on completely different issues: the wording of the climate change section, whether a section about tobacco belonged, and whether a mention of a $5,000 Exxon donation belonged on the page. The current dispute is on whether it makes sense to expand the page to provide a comprehensive, yet neutral overview of II's positions, history, and activities, just as every other think tank's Wikipedia page does. If other editors believe the new material is not neutral enough, I welcome their revisions to help reword and reorganize it. We have still not heard an argument from you as to why the page should be so short and incomplete, other than you saying that you can't find enough unfavorable coverage from secondary sources to contradict the new material, a novel requirement that has never existed for any other Wikipedia page. Vidmastb (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And we still haven't heard from you an affirmation or a denial that you are associated with the Independence Institute. Wikipedia's WP:CONFLICT policy says editors who are employed by or associated with an organization should state their connection if they add content to an article about that organization:

"COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public's confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked. Editors with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, are advised not to edit affected articles. They may suggest changes on the talk page and must disclose their COI." Carlstak (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is not the problem with the proposed additional info. WP:SUMMARY STYLE is the guidance we should follow. Thus if someone is hired, fired, gives birth, is murdered, etc, the info is not noteworthy unless there is a connection between the particular event and the Institute itself. Also, we have to follow the very restrictive BLP guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)