Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

User: 68.116.251.13

This particular anonymous user is placing an extraordinary amount of POV in this article. A quick check of his edit history will confirm this. [1] [2] His edits have included how "great" Levin is, as well as advertising information for how to stream Levin's show online. This same user also seems intent on continuous deletion of the Slate.com external link, because it is something less than an unqualified rave for Levin's book. Please note that 3 of the 4 current external links are to 1) Levin's NRO blog, 2) Levin's legal foundation, 3) a Levin fan site. How's that for balance? Eleemosynary 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and check out the slate.com link, everybody! It's incredibly biased and subjective, and the addition of the link to the article is vandalism, because it reduces the quality of the article. Just because it's anti-Levin doesn't make it "balancing"...find a good article that actually uses facts and reasoning to defame Levin, and I will not remove a link to that article. Also, the info about how to stream Levin's show is very brief, and just serves to give a wiki user the opportunity to enfranchise themselves with more information. It is by no means advertising, because it is a simple explanation. It may seem like advertising to the anti-Levin person who doesn't want anybody to listen to his show...but trust me, it's not advertising, so get over it. An overwhelming majority of internet users believe that you must pay to hear streaming radio audio over the internet, and the simple line in the article was meant to nullify that belief, and therefore make more information available to the user. Also, I have never said how "great" Levin is...that must have been another user. User: 68.116.251.13

Ahem. You may want to check this [3]link. Eleemosynary 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So, with that, get a life and leave the article alone unless you have something constructive to say.

Also, read my comment about the quotes again. Don't you realize the MULTIPLE valid points I have included? User: 68.116.251.13

An unhinged rant is not a defense. Eleemosynary 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay Eleemosynary, now you've started to fight with me, AND a fellow "administrator," not to mention the earlier editors of this article. It's you against the world, honey. why don't you just give up your unfounded liberal crusades of vandalism, and maybe get a job or a boyfriend/girlfriend or something! And in all seriousness, I propose a compromise. Quit adding that like to the slate.com travesty of an article, and quit making those minor edits that you're just being a bitch about; and I will agree to limit the quote list to five, and cease to add anything else to the article (since you believe my additions are POV) as you will also cease to make deletions. How's that? User: 68.116.251.13

Threats, personal attacks, and rants will be ignored Eleemosynary 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, you need to quit working on this article. If you hate Mark Levin so much, why don't you just quit looking at this article? You've recently argued with many people over what should be included in this article, and so far all of them have disagreed with you. You need to stop Levin-bashing and perhaps come up with some constructive ideas. You are the vandalist, and it's obvious that you've vandalized other articles with deletions so that the great majority of users will see your POV instead of the plain and simple truth. People have made great arguments against your vandalism, and you need to stop dismissing all of them as "personal attacks" just because they don't agree with you. This is America, where free speech and majority rule. So quit the politically-motivated censorship, please. User: 68.116.251.13 (repeated below, in response to other Eleemosynary arguments against other editors)

See my above comment. Pass it on to your sockpuppets. Eleemosynary 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This unregisterested user is not correctly summarizing the edit history of this article. Wikipedia is not bound by the 1st Amendment. We aim to have only NPOV material in our articles. We also aim to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Users who repeatedly disrupt the project by inserting POV material or by making personal attacks on other editors are not welcome. -Will Beback 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Quote Section

It needs to be pared down to five. Will Beback did a very good edit, which was reverted with what I think is a specious argument (I've written more about it below). The rest of the quotes need to go to Wikiquote, in compliance with Wikipedia standards. Eleemosynary 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've chosen five at random to keep. I'm open to discussing whether a different five should be there. The rest should go to Wikiquote, in compliance with Wiki standards. Eleemosynary 19:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Some guidelines

1. No personal attacks.

2. Sign your posts.

3. Put only sourced facts in the Levin article. Not pro-Levin or anti-Levin propaganda.

4. Try to get a source for most facts in the article. Already there is a dispute that some of the nicknames may not have come from Levin. As there is no way to prove Levin didn't say something, perhaps only sourced quotes (and from a reliable source, not a pro-Levin or anti-Levin blog) should be in the article. And saying "It's true because I say so" or "it's true because I heard it" won't work. Wikipedia does not accept edits based purely on personal research and assertion.

5. There should be no advertising in the article, e.g. no "helpful hints" about how easy it is to go to a radio station's online site and listen to Levin, and then a couple of handy links on how to do so. Wikipedia is not a place to try to boost, or hurt, Levin's ratings.

6. Remember that NPOV is to be strived for. And that, especially with political pundits, balance is always necessary (thought admittedly difficult). Eleemosynary 18:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on numbers 3 and 4. I was shocked to see the list when I looked at this page for the first time earlier today. The names in there for FDR, Truman and Katrina are *not* from Levin (I'm a regular listener to the audio stream). Levin actually goes out of his way to praise what he calls "The party of FDR, Truman and JFK" (meaning the pre-Vietnam Democratic party).

I'm not censoring anything objectionable, there are more than enough objectionable (but funny!) names on the list. But let's not smear the man by adding stuff he didn't say. If it ain't sourced, I'll continue to delete them.

And I fully support cutting the list down to 5. There are way too many. If you want easily verifiable ones, stick with NY Slimes, BJ Bill Clinton, Meet the Depressed, Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, and the Cape Cod Orca. Those are frequently used on air and could easily be agreed to be Levin's by acclamation.

The Left must really fear this guy going national if they have to resort to unsourced Wiki-sabatoge. They must have a lot of free time after the NY Times editorial board called them out today for all the whitewashing at Diane Frankenfeinstein's (another Levin-ism!) entry.

If you're going to edit Wikipedia, you need to review their policies of signing posts and NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. "Agree on 3 and 4" wont' cut it. 1, 2, 5, and 6 are hallmarks of Wikipedia. Your attack on "the left" is out of line here. Eleemosynary 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

END OF STORY

"Granted, much of this has become a discussion board. What makes this guy such a hot topic is the way he uses the public airwaves to segregate one group from another with innuendo's, half truths and manipulation (Opinion) He feeds off the listener who agree with any all of his wacko (Opinion) thoughts. This is who he is. He rides on his past as a lwyer and a former part of the administation but really appears as a jealous little man (Name Calling) who wishes he could fit back into Reagan uniform (Opinion). I would suggest reading Slates review of his book. No childish name calling - just a review of a book most people are buying to say they belong to his club. Most people who bought this book are more interested in placing a NASCAR #8 on the window of there Tahoe (Offensive Stereotyping, Name Calling). The (gargage) (Opinion) publisher is the same publisher who churned out the Swift Boat vets book."

COME ON! Your opinions of mark levin are of no relevance in an Encyclopedia! It is hilarious, from the perspective of someone with no political axe to grind, to watch the hypocrisy of partisan politics. Everyone thinks that their guys are good and the others are bad. Everyone thinks that they are right and of course, the other side is just wrong, as though its a FACT. It isn't a fact! Any time you refer to someone's work as 'garbage', its an opinion, no matter who it is or how obviously deploreable you find their work. Yes, those are your opinions, no matter how true you think them to be. I don't beleive that you cannot grasp this. How many different ways are there to drill this into your head? Conservatives think that Sean Hannity is just a straight talker, while Michael Moore is a lier spinning 'half truths'. Liberals think the opposite. "Oh, but [whichever group you subscribe to] is right! Its a fact!"

People, if you want to discuss your opinions about Mark Levin there are PLENTY of venues to do this. Discussion boards, websites, chat rooms, blogs, etc. Heck, you could even make your own anti mark levin page. This is not one of those venues!

By the way, nothing that you have said is original or different. It speaks so clearly to your immaturity that you cannot help but rattle off the same old talking points every time you run into a figure you disagree with. These are boilerplate criticisms. OH, he's an obnoxious conservative who is in bed with big oil. Yawn. Get real. When have you ever opened an encyclopedia, turned to an entry about a controversial figure, and read opinions and character attacks? This is not a forum for cheap political banter.

Can we please stick to the facts, from now on, both in the Talk Pages, and the actual content pages ... For all political characters, left and right.

First, Levine is not a "political character" he is a radio personality, and this is not political banter -do you remember free speech. in comes in many forms, not just the ones you think are "appropriate. Second, I think the above post was referring to Levines publisher as a "garage" publisher as in a publisher who works out of there garage. Finally, Who cares what you think ya big dope! User: 69.37.174.3

Thanks for going on record with this, "69.37.174.3" It will be much easier to have you blocked for vandalism now. Have a great day! --Eleemosynary 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, you need to quit working on this article. If you hate Mark Levin so much, why don't you just quit looking at this article? You've recently argued with many people over what should be included in this article, and so far all of them have disagreed with you. You need to stop Levin-bashing and perhaps come up with some constructive ideas. You are the vandalist, and it's obvious that you've vandalized other articles with deletions so that the great majority of users will see your POV instead of the plain and simple truth. People have made great arguments against your vandalism, and you need to stop dismissing all of them as "personal attacks" just because they don't agree with you. This is America, where free speech and majority rule. So quit the politically-motivated censorship, please. User: 68.116.251.13

Opinions

I can't believe this gratingly loud-mouthed, transparently strawman-arguing, derivative demagogue has merited an article in Wikipedia. Sigh. Wasted Time R 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Hitler has a wiki [15:13, 4 February 2006 24.238.88.184]

Yes, Hitler has a wiki, and amazingly, it has less character assasination than this one!

Mark Levin has no "influence" from Michael Savage. That's a damned lie. Mark Levin has said on the air that he doesn't like Savage.

Political influence or agreement, no. Broadcasting style influence, very much!

What the censors of this page don't want you to know:

He pronounces his name the French way, not the Jewish way.
He always says "lib", never says "liberal". It's like "Jap" vs "Japanese".
He believes libs are the cause of all of America's problems, and are pretty much traitors.
Many other conservative talk show hosts wouldn't have him on to promote his book. He complained about this on air. This pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Shill for his contributors

Mr. Levin's tirads supporting big oil company profits is based on the fact that Landmark legal foundation, of which he is president, has received large amounts of funding money from Exxon Mobile, and other notable companies in Pittsburg who have held stock in Exxon Mobil

Like all Chicken Hawks,

Like all Chicken Hawks who drape themselves in the "image" of patriotism, Levin does little more then give lip service to the administrations talking points of the day. Let this toad volunteer HIS son if he beleives so strongly in this war. We'll continue to challenge this administration and fight to keep any more of our children from dying, including yours Mr. Levin.

    Any evidence of this? Besides internet rumors?

Rumors? - Listen to his radio show! He's McCarthy all over again. Question the administration and he calls you un American. Want "proof"? call his show - tell him you want our troops out of Iraq then listen to him tear you down as un american. Are you willing to sacrifice some one elses child because he thinks it's patiotic-to support this war? I hope not.

Sheesh

You guys are ridiculous.

There are shills from both the left and right of the political spectrum. Levin is no worse than Moore. Yet the purpose of wiki is to present the facts of who the person is. He is a relevant and popular commentator and thus should be presented as such. There wouldn't be any content on this site if things weren't posted because you found them at odds with your personal beleifs. Your arguments against him have nothing at all to do with presenting an article on who he is. Grow up.

The Exxon Mobil contributions to his foundation and his defense of the oil company profits ARE FACT on who he is.

-- Again... Any proof? just show me some relevant information from a reputable source. That is what I was referring to.

YEs there are a lot of political shills out there but few have been given a radio show to spead the message as Levin has. You can pay my gas and heating bill if you think he's right. By the way, he's not "relevent". He uses free speech as a weapon to call anyone who doesn't agree with his talking points "unamerican"

Mr. Levine is anything but a "political figure". He's a mean,devicive ratings hungry talk radio entertainer

-- Ok again ... there are plenty of forums on the internet to voice your political opinions. This is not one of them. I don't really care whether or not you think that he is mean or devicive. A lot of people think he great. A lot of people hate him. so what. This is not the place to be sorting out your various political opinions.

Any time we talk about figures and commentators on political subjects, there is going to be controversy. But we don't fill the Ann Coulter or Michael Moore pages with biased opinion. We should just try to portray him for the facts of who he is, not your opinions.

and YES, what you've said is purely OPINION. whether someone is 'mean' is a subject opinion you happen to hold and has no relevance here... Stick to blogs for that kind of stuff.

Maybe all you Libs out there should take a lesson from Mark. How many of you have his credentials? I would like to see you debate him on the Constitution. You'd all be left 10 miles back scraping your tongue up off the dirt road you got thrown onto. (Jan 12, 2006)

Take a lesson from Mark??? Credentials??? How many pictures of this guy DO YOU have in your wallet? He's loud mouth shill for the administration AND big oil who underwrite his "foundation". If he's so great, why does he resort to making up childish names for any one he against. He never allows an open debate because he'll get his bigoted, closed minded rear ended kicked. It's all about the ratings baby.... the more obnoxious he is the higher the ratings. If he was such a great legal mind he'd be practicing the law. not behind some AM radio microphone.

He has, and does, practice law, at a very high capacity.

How much of this sounds like Mark Levine:

14 defining characteristics common to Facism:

This is just liberal name calling. What does this have to do with Mark Levin as a person? This is not factual, these are your opinions of the right wing in America in general. What is this doing here?

The following has everything to do with Levine as a person, and the message he and others like limbaugh and hanity spread over the airwaves: Be honest and read the list, if only 5 of these resemble the content of an average right wing talk show then you can be assured the they are on a mission to spread facism

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Defending Bush at King service 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - Read Men in Black 4. Supremacy of the Military - Sen more troops, kill them all! paraphrased from Levine comment

  Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - Divorce, abortion and homosexuality Constant reminder of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton years after it happened - But Rush is drug addict and no one mentions it 6. Controlled Mass Media - No one with a differing view gets on the air 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used - Espaecially during the election

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Hannity and o'Reilly making a case for when ther enever was one

9. Corporate Power is Protected - Levines "Foundation" is underwritten by Exxon/Mobil

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Levine hates those who criticize Wal-Mart and there lack of labor rights

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Everyone in Hollywood in nuts. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. WIRE TAPS!!!!!

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Levine sasys he is a big supporter of Tom Delay. Never question Bush's crony appointees ie Brown

14. Fraudulent Elections - Levine clearly see no wrong with manipulation of the media or the truth. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. just like the supreme court elected Bush.

Wikipedia is not a Press Release, nor a Program Guide

I've removed several clearly POV parts of the article that seemed clear PR. Eleemosynary 08:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed two advertising links for his book, and a broken link as well. Eleemosynary 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK look. Its one way or another. I was under the impression that Wikipedia exists to give a presentation of the facts in the most objective way possible. I did not think it was a place for pseudo intellectual pet theories that align people with fascism. Who honestly cares whether you like this person or not? I still do not see how that is even remotely relevant.

I've heard many remarks on here about how Mark Levin is a shill for big oil. Again, besides rumors, what cold hard evidence do you have of this?

There are many controversial political figures that are maligned by those who oppose thier ideological viewpoints: Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, etc. We could go back and forth all day about the relevant merits or flaws of these individuals. But it would be outside the scope of this site. I think Michael Moore is a deceitful con artist, but I wouldn't post it on his wikipedia entry. I wouldn't even state that in the Talk page.

How is it relevant?

Jargon

A few examples of the subject's humor are appropriate. But 48 funny names for publci figures are excessive. The usual limit for quotations is five, with the excess going to Wikiquote. If anyone thinks these are especially worthwhile please speak up (and provide a verifiable source). Otherwise I'm going to cut the list down to five entries. -Will Beback 09:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, some are funny, most are childish, and a couple are down right mean and cruel. The good news may be that Citadel doesn't like it either.

Here in New York Mark is often cut off in mid sentenance to air Seaton Hall Basketball and Rangers Hockey. "I get no respect"

Mr. Beback, If the list is to be cut down, then who is to cut it down? It is a clear list, does not clutter the article, and a reader would easily bypass it to get to other information if need be. There is no good reason for the limit, and so the limit will not stand. The number 48 is rather miniscule when it comes to the limitlessness of the internet; even with this list, the article is relatively short. And if transferred to Wikiquote, the list would undoubtedly be viewed much less than in its current state, because it would be less accessible under average means of seeking information. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide objective information, and censoring it would negate the whole point of providing the full list: to highlight its significance in the subject of the article. Please cease to uneducatedly edit this article, thank you. --68.116.251.13

The list definitely needs to be cut down. Beback's assertion that the general Wiki rule is 5, with the rest going to Wikiquote, is sound. "Limitless of the internet" is not a solid argument for keeping an ever-expanding list of Levin quotes. Wikipedia has format and length guidelines. Your Wikiquote = "undoubtedly be viewed less" argument is specious. The fact is, the majority of quotes for all article subjects go in Wikiquote. It is not "censorship" to respect Wikipedia guidelines. And you choose to end your paragraph with a personal attack. Nice work.

Here's the deal: You (I've placed your anonymous IP number after your entry; please sign your entries from now on) have placed many, many NPOV pro-Levin and advertising edits in the article. In addition, you've continued to delete a link to a Slate.com review of Levin's book, choosing to call the source "uneducated," now a familiar rhetorical pose for you. Simply put, you are vandalizing the article via your actions, and you will continue to be called on it whenever you do. Eleemosynary 18:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Exxon mobile "fact:

Here is the source: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=79

If someone else wants to make a different selection of quotes/Jargon then that's fine. Let's just keep the overall list down to no more than five entries. The Mark Levin page at Wikiquotes can have as many quotations as anyone wants. -Will Beback 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've chosen five. As I've said above, if others feel a different five should be there, I'm open to consensus. The rest will go to Wikiquote, and there will be the standard Wiki link on this page. Eleemosynary 19:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

... in the hopes that folks can work things out here instead of reverting. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,Katefan. Eleemosynary 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Posts after Page Protection

Who really cares? Nothing on this page is "objective". If that were the case,there would nothing more then name birthday, and any other statistics. Levine does not lend himself to objectivity as he is far from objective himself.

Nothing is objective? So we should be subjective? In what way? Should the article praise Levin? That would be subjective! OH no, you want to be subjective from YOUR POV. it should criticize him. Should we be critical of every figure that we believe does not lend themself to objectivity? Or only the ones you dislike.

Read between the lines people. All you are saying is that wikipedia should reflect your views! you don't like levin, so it doesn't need to be subjective, it can criticize him. But we shouldn't criticize people you like because, after all, well you like them. It's as if your subjective opinions are facts, and should be used as the basis for making articles. What about people who disagree with you? Oh well they are just wrong. I think Levin is grating and annoying and dumb, and I'm right, and everyone else is wrong!

So you really don't mean that we should abandon objectivity for just ANY subjective account. Only, YOUR subjective account.

Its really is bewildering that you think such logic is valid and legitimate. You are truly sickening. 208.252.21.146 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While an unhinged rant like the above has potential comic value, it changes not one whit that the anonymous user (now posting under multiple anonymous IPs) has no argument to make beyond personal attacks.

The current, locked version of the article is the most NPOV one created to date. Nothing in the current article remotely criticizes Levin, and the perfectly valid link to the Slate.com review echoes similar critical links on the Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken pages. The three other links are to extremely pro-Levin sites.

Although I think the "Music" section is somewhat nonencyclopedic, I'm open to discussing why it should be there. Another user has contacted me, suggesting 14 nicknames (rather than 5) should be on the page, similar to nickname count on the Mike Malloy page. I think that's fair.

Let's keep the article as it is, strive for more NPOV, and either add more nicknames, or remove some from Malloy's page.

Eleemosynary 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would agree with you. I was responding to the previous versions, and to comments on this discussion page regarding opinions about Levin, positive or negative. I think that the page, the way it is, is fine. Add more nicknames, take out some, it doesn't really matter that much as far as objectivity goes. 5, 10, whatever. The Slate Review is completely fair. Acknowledging that a figure is controversial is certainly objective. Providing a balanced view of him in links is understandable. None of this is a problem as long as the degrees of this balance are fair and consistent for every controversial political figure. This seems to be the case with this page.

What doesn't belong on here, in any capacity (Whether on the article or discussion pages), are opinions regarding Levin's show. This includes positive comments (ie 'you libs need to take a lesson from mark') as well as the more frequent negative comments ('I can't believe this grating, loud mouth has a show', 'He's a chickenhawk/shill for big oil', 'Here's a list of ways his show is facist'). This is especially true when people defend these statements by essentially saying 'Who cares about objectivity? Mark Levin isn't objective, so game on'

Its not an unhinged rant, its part of an ongoing commentary on this subject that seems to be consistently ignored. I don't care about Levin one way or another. But when even wikipedia becomes a dumpster for political opinions, it bothers me. Yet, it seems that people on both side of the fence consistently forget, or just ignore objectivity.

I don't see whats wrong with voicing this problem. The 'rants' we should be worrying about are the constant pro levin / anti levin arguments that have no place here. they are not appropriate.

208.252.21.146 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, we're in agreement. My apologies for misinterpreting your previous post, and for confusing you with the other anonymous user, who has done so much to harm the article and this page, that it's sometimes confusing who's saying what. Eleemosynary 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm quilty for creating much of your upset - I'm an outside agitator, an activist, some one who speaks openly whatever the forum. I'll challenge anyone anywhere that spreads hate and encourages others to join them. It's true - I really don't like Levine. I hear one point of view built on lies and half truths. Of course these are my opinions and this might not be the place that YOU think they should be expressed but WE need OUR country back - the country where we cared about each other and support the truths that many of us beleive in and not the one where one is better or worse then the other. Don't let some Left or Right wing talk show host divide us. Recognize what you beleive to be right,and wrong then fight for it - I hope you will vote for peace and a government that serves us - the rich and the poor the strong and the weak and the young and the old. I guess my attitude for Mr. Levine comes from his assertion that people like me undermined the Viet Nam War. I hope thats true. Mr.Levine has no right to tell me I'm unamercian because I question my government. This is our most basic freedom and this is my county. I thank EVERY soul that worked to make this country great. Stop listening to these people!

You're welcome to start a blog about your viewpoints re: Levin, democracy, etc., and I encourage you to do so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has entries for Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot, among others. Few would dispute these were reprehensible men, and volumes are full of writing of how terrible they were. But any slant whatsoever in an encyclopedia article undermines the project as a whole. Go to the Hitler page. No sentence calls the man "a genocidal, evil butcher," but the facts make his actions clear. Perhaps more about Levin's particular broadcasting techniques (divisiveness, derision, mockery, baiting) needs to go in the article, as long they're free of POV. Eleemosynary 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad we are able to get on the same page on this. You guys need to understand that protecting the integrity of Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia is not an endorsement for whatever person it is protecting. This was the point I was trying to make earlier!

Do you think that you are the only one with strong opinions? Many people feel just as strongly as you about the exact opposite arguments! They may take themselves to be 'activists' as well. But where does that leave us? Chaos! I'm sure there are commentators and figures that you like. Should other people who hate, say, Michael Moore or Bill Clinton be able to excersize their 'activism' by editing their respective pages to reflect the writers opinion? you wouldn't want that would you?

Truthfully, you would only want activists representing your viewpoint. But that wouldn't be the case. There would be activists from every viewpoint constantly battling for supremacy of their 'voice'. Because these are all ~opinions~, there is not way to say that one is right and one is wrong.

And no, Its not just me who believes this is not the appropriate forum to voice your crusade. Its Wikipedia policy! Invoking 'free speech' is irrelevant. This is not your website or your project. You must respect the rules for which is was created. Your mentality that vandalising an article is OK because your an activist cuts both ways, as I mentioned. Wikipedia is only usefull as a place to present objective information. If we lose that to battling political opinions, than Wikipedia is just another of many useless internet blogs.

With regard to your incoherent, almost excruciatingly cliche speech: Maybe the best way to convince people to stop listening to people like Levin is by helping create a society of individuals who are conducive to rejecting his mentality on their own. When people know enough, then they will be able to evaluate Mr. Levin objectively and come to that conclusion independently. Smearing him on Wikipedia isn't going to change any minds. Its immature. Although you may not mean to, your actions are really just attempts to keep people ignorant of other beleifs (no matter how offensive), as a way of propogandizing your own views. Please stop.

208.252.21.146 23:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++==

Nice response: "With regard to your incoherent, almost excruciatingly cliche speech...."

By the way "progandizing"... is spelled "propagandizing"

So, in my one short paragraph you've managed to be disrespectfull AND determined that my objective is to keep people "ignorant", and all I want to do is "smear"... and I'm "immature"! Glad I could share my reasons for posting on this discussion board, and I'm glad you had the chance to be so demeaning. I wish you would be less judgemental and defend my right to free and open speech with the same strength you defend this site. Lets see if I can be a little more coherent: I don't care what you think you small minded, pseudo-intellectual, anal retentive twit. Turn off the radio, put on your coat and get outside - go out of your way and have conversation with with some one who might have a differing opinion then yours. You might actually have to face that person rather then hiding behind your keyboard - ya big dope! (I do have my immature moments)

By the way, "pseudo-intelectual" is spelled pseudo-intellectual ... See, it doesn't matter...

For what its worth, I am not a mark levin fan. I am not defending him. You are the small minded one. You are assuming that anyone who likes mark levin is wrong, or stupid. I don't really care either way.

This isn't about 'freedom of speech'! Its about using a service according to service guidelines. Thats all I am enforcing, not some political POV. You are disrupting the service and using it in an innapropriate manner. As you have been instructed before, there are other outlets for that. Try and blog. Heck, after all of this, I'd love to read it.

Lets just use this service appropriately so that wiki can be a usefull service. Is that so hard?

68.38.185.27 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see that we agree that the current version of the article (i.e., the locked version), is fine. The locking came about after another anonymous user (68.116.251.13) insisted on reverting the article to a version rife with advertising links and pro-Levin POV. He was also obsessed with deleting the Slate.com link. Interesting that he hasn't shown up here to defend his actions. That's telling. The current version stands. Eleemosynary 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Photo

needs to go, as it does not appear to adhere to Wikipedia copyright standards. If an official press release photo is available (or any photo that follows Wiki standards), that should replace it. Eleemosynary 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User: 68.116.251.13 tries an end run, and is SMACKED DOWN

Well, now.

We haven't heard from this particular anonymous user since the page was locked.

You remember him, don't you? He just loooooved filling the page with POV, advertising links, and was hell-bent on removing the Slate.com review.

But since the page was locked, we heard not a peep. No defense of his edits. I guess that's because they were indefensible.

Well, he tried a hoary end-run, sneaking off to beg an administrator to (get this)... UNLOCK this page, RESTORE his edits, and then LOCK the page again. Here's the diff (followed by the administrator's response): [4]

Sheesh. Such cowardice. Pathetic, but not surprising.

Heh. Eleemosynary 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem pretty partisan and animated over all of this, despite your facade of trying to maintain NPOV on this page. What's with your obsession with Levin? A scan of your contributions (Sheehan, Air America, et al) leads me to believe you're yet another one of thos Lib Wikipedian wannabe admins who are trying to create their own, heavily POV, version of history under the guise of some glorious NPOV 'project'. 88.108.190.38

Please do not attack your fellow editors. We're here to focus on the contributions, not the contributors. -Will Beback 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then answer me this question: Why does someone who is pretty transparantly partisan and biased get to be the one who dictates what version of the page is locked and what we are and are not allowed to post here? Given this Elmo chaps contribution history, I'd argue he's not the best one to deem what is POV and what is not. Wiki seems to be steadily slouching towards becoming DKospedia - a liberal dystopia alternative version of history. NPOV, indeed! 88.108.190.38

To the anonymous user above: Yawn. Eleemosynary 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What rapier wit oh NPOV warrior! Quick, I think someone said something unflattering in the Cindy Sheehan article! Man the barricades and freeze the alternate universe Lib circle jerk version! 88.108.190.38

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz--Eleemosynary 23:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what the deal is with all of this, but the current page is fine. I wasn't supporting liberal-leaning NPOV any more than conservative NPOV. I don't think that this page represents a liberal bias at all. nor do I think it should. If eleemosynary supports the kind of discussions that certain liberal vandals were trying to implement, then I don't agree with that. But it seems to me that he just put down a fair account of Levin, and is does not seem to desire to vandalise the page with liberal bias. I do agree that some pages on liberal personalities do seem to be favorably biased, while conservative voices are disproportionately balanced. Nonetheless, that is a seperate issue to take up with those pages. If the Al Franken page doesn't have the same 'balance' that the Levin page has, then change the Franken page accordingly. This page is fine. Good to see it.

68.38.185.27 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad consensus has been reached. Eleemosynary 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of words in defense of opinions and the purpose of this site. Seems that the intended purpose of this site has jumped the tracks a long time ago. Reminds me of the recent story about house that burned to the ground while the fireman fought over who had control of the hose - or something like that. I must admit that I did manage to listen to Levine and was absolutley in awe to hear him yelling over Katrina, blaming the residents who stayed in New Orlean for there own misfortune, and defending the administrations actions, or lack of action by the local government. He twisted the documented and historic truth to the point of appearing dilusional. My view is non bias, but I can see why conservatives are guilty by associations to this radio personality. By the way, who is this person, Eleemosynary? It means charitable?!

Vandal: 68.116.251.13 now posting as 129.120.142.34

This coward is reverting to POV edits that have been disregarded by consensus. Just a heads up. Eleemosynary 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What the heck?! Your calling someone a "coward" for posting a thought? This is really over the top and you should be ashamed of yourself. I read the post and found it to be nothing more then an opinion about this article. and what "consensus"? a few people out of millions who use this? Get over yourself! Where I come from, and the way most of us have been raised, calling someone a "coward" is very serious business, and not taken lightly. If you really are a man of your convictions, you cal another man a coward to his/her face and be prepared to defned it. Whomever this Eleemosynary is should consider an apology is made for such an inappropriate insult!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Eleemosynary 04:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Elmo is one of the army of wannabe moderators that run around Wikipedia lecturing and scolding other sers, partcularly those that are not lockstep Liberals. He acts all big and tough on talk pages, holding himself out as an admin (which he is not) and then goes and whines to the actual mods to get them to come lock things, revert things, etc. His response above is what he does when caled out on his blatant POV and his childish actions (e.g., Yeah gutless anon SMACKED DOWN! and the like). His laughable attempt to say "consensus" has been reached on this page, when no one else has agreed with him, is classic. But be forewarned, this little wanna be mod will now stalk you all over Wikipedia, whining about "Smackdowns!" and tattling to actual administrators, while at the same time lecturing on Wiki nonsense such as "no personal attacks" and "NPOV" (the latter of which is laughable given Elmo's history of contributions.

In short, he's an obsessed internet troll with no life.

+++++++++++++\ The heck with Mark Levin.... Lets start an "Elmo" page!

I'm a little disappointed that Elmos, behavior charachterizes him as a Liberal. As a "Liberal" I don't which is more offensive, to have him call me a "coward" or to know this weenie might hold the same socio-political views as me! Crap.... +++++++++++++/

LOL! I've got a little fan club. Made up of one little vandal, posting under separate anon IDs (and too cowardly to sign any), talking only to himself. Heeeeeeeere, vandalvandalvandal. Eleemosynary 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal: 68.116.251.13 now posting as 70.248.125.57

Returning like a cockroach, disregarding consensus, trying to revert edits that were agreed upon by consensus weeks ago. Man, watching this guy fail again is gonna be fun! LOL. Eleemosynary 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SORRY ELMO, but you are no longer needed here. All those in favor say "I" - Talk to the hand ELMO

I second the motion. "Elmo" is nothing but a little POV troll who calls everyone who disagrees with him a vandal. He's already whined on the Admin's page that the "anon vandal" is back. A quick check of contribution history on this talk page shows that both pro and anti-Levin contributors are tired of Elmo acting as if he owns the page and his views are "consensus". Move on to other pages Elmo and let the serious people determine consensus here. Your childish "SMACKDOWN!" garbage is against the cherished Wiki rules, so practice what you preach. 88.108.195.104

Says the coward who vandalized my User Page. Nice. It's especially satisfying to watch the sputtering rage of someone who has been undeniably, indisputibly exposed as a POV shill. In other words... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Eleemosynary 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it best to send Elmo away, or just continue to have him/her stay in his semi lucid sate of sleep "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz." 12.33.152.41

Awww, some widdle clueless vandal's got a crush on me. He just... can't... stop... responding. How sweet. Eleemosynary 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over possible misattributed quotations for Levin at Qikiquote

I'm not sure if all editors here also track the Mark Levin page at Wikiquote. Many of the "Levin-isms" that originally were included on this page and have been added to by multiple users over the last year, were moved to Wikiquote by an Admin some months ago (ostensibly to avoid clutter on the Wikipedia page).

Certain quotations that I believe were made by Rush Limbaugh have been repeatedly attributed to Mark Levin on this page by one anonymous editor whose edit history displays a great deal of overlap with one of this pages more vocal editors. As it is impossible to source material heard on the radio (short of obtaining transcripts), the dispute here appears to be at a stalemate.

I invite others who have a knowledge of Levin's program to go to the article and talk page discussion at Wikiquote to review and weigh in on this.

Levin says a lot of things that are over the line and that I would disagree with (particularly calling people traitors or commies), however as a regular listener to the show, I find it hard to believe he'd ever wish death upon a public figure or make a millitary slur against someone, no matter how much he disagrees with them. I've never heard these quotes from Levin and strongly dispute them. I notice thaat in the past, certain Rush or Hannity quotes were also wrongly attributed to Levin, so perhaps this is a case of misattribution? Please visit the other page and weigh in. As Levin is a living person, I believe Wikipedia requires a greater duty of care to ensure accuracy with respect to controversial material or attributed quotes.213.86.213.196 08:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)