Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 4

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

Sourcing in Controversies and Criticism

The following notice appears at the top of this discussion page concerning content of the Mark Levin article, since it is a biography of a living person:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

WP policy on reliable sources states the following:

"There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material."

Every single source listed in Controversies and Criticisms is poorly sourced, as they are self-published websites or blogs, as opposed to news organizations: MMFA, New Majority, the blog section on The American Prospect, and The American Scene. This section should instead be built on reliable sources.--67.232.93.56 (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely untrue, and a poor attempt at sockpuppetry. None of the sources listed are "self published." --BobMifune (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

67.232.93.56, if we were to apply your definition of "self-published" to the entire article, there would be maybe 4 or 5 sources left and the article itself would be reduced to a few sentences. Thankfully, your definition of "self-published" isn't applicable to the sources used. BigTex71 (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-published: "Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers." All of the sources fit into that description of self-publishing. You might be able to argue that The American Prospect is not self-published--if the source was their magazine itself and not a blog. BobMifune, this is my first venture into the Mark Levin article--not sockpuppetry (check it out). BigTex71, if those other sources are successfully challenged as being self-published, then they should go too.--67.232.93.56 (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A blog published by the American Prospect is not "self-published". Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The newly-minted anon IP/sockpuppet is engaging in sophistry. Nothing on the Levin page is "libellous." Nothing is "poorly sourced." Notice the clause in the suggested policy he is conveniently ignoring: "There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion." Nothing on Levin's MMFA page is "opinion"; it's transcripts of Levin's show, backed up by recordings of that very show. Frum and the other conservatives' criticisms of Levin are documented fact. Their criticism may be opinion, but that they criticize Levin is a fact, backed up by their own writing on nationally recognized publications, both in print and online. (It's not like we're citing criticism of Levin from some unknown with a Wordpress blog.) On the other hand, the newly-minted anon IP/sockpuppet, on a crusade against MMFA that echoes another histrionic user on this page, is trying to make up his own facts. And he's failed. Again.

Let's be clear: there is a user on this page who has carried on a campaign for years to remove any criticism of Levin from this page. When he cannot achieve consensus, he resorts to ranting. When the rants get him nowhere, he resorts to nonsense like this. --BobMifune (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be libelous to be not allowable--it's just more important to remove the material if it is libelous. The policy for self-published sources in Biographies of Living Persons is even more clear, with no distinction of whether the material is a statement of opinion or not. The entire policy on self-published sources in WP:BLP follows:

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.[4]

Notice that nothing in the policy has anything to do with whether it is a "fact" or not. It is whether it is published by a reliable third-party source or not. I have nothing against having a criticism section--it's probably warranted for such a controversial figure. Just build it out of material from news organizations, books by established publishers, or academic articles (there should be plenty of sympathetic sources that don't care for Levin). --67.232.93.56 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you have been campaigning to remove fit the definition of "self-published blogs." But, of course, you're quite aware of that. --BobMifune (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in Controversies and Criticism

I have restored the Controversies and Criticism section, again, after it was blanked out. The use of the words "controversial," "derogatory" and "targets" are not editorial comments but statements of fact - Levin's remarks did generate controversy, they were derogatory in nature and they were targeted at specific individuals. And the remarks listed are notable examples of the behavior cited in the section. There are plenty of others that aren't included because they are less noteworthy, so this isn't just a "list of rants" as asserted above. BigTex71 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a list of rants. Your comments only point out you are patting yourself on the back for not making an even longer lists of rants. We should all be grateful you are forcing us to use only a small list of rants.

These rants came to your attention how? I'll bet they came to your attention from a group opposed to Mark Levin that records everything he says then takes the juicy parts out of context to give it a totally opposite spin. In what way is such behaviour appropriate for use as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Further, it only compounds the problem to string a list of such hit pieces together.

On the Barack Obama page there is no similar string of rants by, say, Mark Levin. Why? You know why? Because such a list of rants in not encyclopedic. Not on the Barack Obama page, and not on the Mark Levin page. This has nothing to do with political leanings. It's just not encyclopedic. If I had an encyclopedia company and I allowed such a list of rants to be published, whether on the Mark Levin or the Barack Obama page, I would be embarrassed. Worse, people would not purchase a biased encyclopedia.

This is Wikipedia. We have rules to follow. Lists of rants is not encyclopedic, particularly from a source that lives to record and twist the words of the likes of Mark Levin. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "list of rants." It's documented criticism from, primarily, conservatives. Hysteria is not the best tool with which to build consensus. Stop blanking the info. --BobMifune (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to be bullied. Do not tell me to "stop blanking the info." I have already written above, "To be clear, I didn't realize there was an edit war going on. I'll not partake in an edit war, but the section as currently written is not encyclopedic." You have never spoken with me before yet you instantly attack me with implied vandalism in your first comment to me. I expect the respectful, Wiki-appropriate behavior as Wikipedia directs. Your presumed apology is accepted. Let's move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a history of edit warring, contentious edits, and a stalling tactic of filling pages with obfuscatory nonsense. You have been repeatedly blocked for this, and one admin who blocked you summed the reason up aptly: "Continued NPA attacks on article talk page to point where nothing but attacks and discussion about the attacks is happening." That tactic isn't going to work here. Also, you shouldn't be surprised if you're treated with the same respect (i.e. none) with which you treat your fellow editors. Stop blanking the info. --BobMifune (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording needs improvement. Please collaborate instead of edit warring inappropriate text back in that violates NPOV and BLP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune, that was long ago when I was new or newish. People are allowed to improve without others attacking them for the past constantly, are they not? Were your initial edits here perfect? So far, all you do is attack. Even when I point out how I inadvertently stepped into an edit war and I said I would no longer do it, you raise that very issue again and tell me to stop blanking the information again. I know now how to stand up to such attacks. If I have to, I will go done the path needed to stop you for consistently attacking me each and every time you write. I am sorry to have be writing this, but I will not shrink in the face of unjust attack. If I am "filling pages with obfuscatory nonsense," as you can see in this case, it is only in reaction to unjust attacks, in this case made worse by your ignoring my admission of innocent error and offer to let bygones be bygones. I am trying to participant here like everyone else. Apparently, you are in the thick of an edit war, indeed a major participant, and you have confused my innocent and recent edits with other people. That's understandable, by you have to de-escalate. As I already said, I won't be editing in this edit war any more, now that I see it's running at full pitch, as your attacks on me evidence, so you really should stop telling me to do what I did in error and said I would no longer do.

Again, I expect the respectful, Wiki-appropriate behavior as Wikipedia directs. Your presumed apology is accepted. Let's move on.

By the way, I was blocked once by an admin who had her admin rights removed for arbitrarily blocking people. Further, just hours ago, another editor said about me, "I also agree that your content proposals and editing are helpful. We can all have differences of opinion both about the editing process, and about events outside of Wikipedia, and still get together in a positive way to edit articles - that's what it's all about."[1] Exactly. That's what it's all about--it's not about constant personal attacks. Apparently, as opposed to what you claimed about me, my fellow editors do respect me. As I said, your presumed apology is accepted, let's move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BobMifune, I now see he has 40 total edits on Wikipedia. So he is a newbie. We are supposed to be nice to newbies. BobMifune, I apologize for what I said above, it's not really appropriate for a newbie. From the way you spoke, and from your actions on this page, I thought you had far more experience. Sorry. Please accept my apology.

BobMifune, as a fellow Wikipedian, we all work together collaboratively to build excellent Wiki pages. You will find out soon that edit warring achieves nothing but frustration for all concerned. Just relax, go with the flow, be bold and explain things if needed, but please refrain from direct confrontation with anyone. Editors are far more successful if they work collaboratively than if they act like bulldozers. Please continue to enjoy your experience here at Wikipedia. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely. Enjoy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hilarious to me that the Controversies & Criticism section is on one hand being criticized for citing specific examples of remarks made by Levin in support of what the section says about him, while at the same time it's being hit multiple times with the "who?" tag. The assertion that Levin has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives has been supported with an example of each - MMFA, a liberal organization, and David Frum, a conservative journalist. Likewise, the assertion that he has made derogatory remarks about female political figures and organizations has been supported with the specific examples of NOW, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. In fact, these examples constitute the bulk of the "list of rants" that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling keeps insisting we remove. I'm removing the "who" tags because they're unnecessary, since specific examples have been provided.

To address the disputed statements tag that has been attached to the words "controversial" and "condemned," I don't see what the dispute is about. The statement about Levin's remarks being "controversial" isn't an editorial statement about Levin's remarks, it's a factual statement referring to the widespread criticism that his remarks garnered. Likewise, the statement that Frum "condemned" Levin's remarks is factual, not editorial. I'm going to leave these tags in pending further discussion, but I think they should be removed because there's nothing dubious about the words in question. BigTex71 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's improper to say something like, Levin has been criticized for attacking women. It's unfair and somewhat slanderous. If the examples given are what you are talking about, then the unfairly broad and unencyclopedic statement doesn't need to be made at all, just stick with the specific instances. Same with saying he's been criticized by conservatives and liberals. It's too broad. That's true of everyone in politics. It's not encyclopedic, helpful, fair, or accurate. You need to say who and why. Also, saying John Doe "condemned" Fred Smith is improper if that's not what's in the source and if the actual issue is someone's comments being condemned.

The material is sloppy and violates BLP and NPOV. Again, if you collaborate we can fix it so it's accurate and consistent with our policies. If you just go on the attack, edit war and dismiss legitimate problems that are identified by editors in good faith, then it's going to be more difficult, frustrating, and acrimonious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on this, Child of Midnight does not have standing to lecture anyone about going "on the attack," "edit warring," etc. He/she had no qualms about disrupting the pages of political figures he disagreed with, going so far as to earn himself a topic ban. So now he comes here and attacks other editors, claiming the section in question is "sloppy," when it isn't, that it "violates BLP and NPOV" when it doesn't, and rails against "legitimate problems" where none exist. If he keeps this up this "difficult, frustrating, and acrimonious" behavior, I'll be happy to nominate him for his next article ban. --BobMifune (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Pretty cowardly to try to malign me and to make me out to be a bad editor. By all means review the disputes involved over the Obama articles. Confronted with a pack of uncivil editors I was steadfast in trying to maintain wikipedia's integrity and abiding policy. I was harassed, stalked, and dragged through numerous frivolous ANI reports. The best they could come up with against me was 4 edits over 2 days with discussion inbetween as "edit warring". If you think there are no notable controversies or criticisms of Obama and that only positive viewpoints should be included, then I disagree with you strongly and I am confident that the policies of Wikipedia back me up. I've worked effectively with lots of editors on contentious material making substantial improvements along the way. Now, hopefully, we can stay focused on collegial editing and improving the article. We seem to have worked out a compromise over the disputed text. Do you have any objectsion, suggestions, ideas for improvements? I have one issue that I would still like to see adressed that I posted on my talk page in response to Tex. Cheers. Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Playing the victim card is no defense. --BobMifune (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just completed some minor edits to the section, but have not made any substantive changes to the edits made by ChildofMidnight. I still maintain that the disputed words are acceptable, but since the section works as re-edited by ChildofMidnight I don't see any point in carrying the dispute any further. BigTex71 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See my above comments. Please check CoM's block history and article ban status. He has no interest in working productively on this page, and his threats are empty ones. --BobMifune (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune, you have attacked me and you have attacked ChildofMidnight. You really have to calm down. It's no fun for anyone to edit when there's someone constantly on the attack. We all realize you are a newbie here so we are willing to let you stretch your wings a little. But please, the constant attacks against various editors, please just stop. Let's get back to editing the article together as fellow Wikipedians. Frankly, at this point I'm a little discouraged to write here. I can write on other pages and not be abused. People always on the attack are not seen as credible editors--for your own sake, your own edits will be given more weight if you work cooperatively with other editors. I'm trying to help you here and I hope you will not further attack me for this comment. Please let us all get back to editing and discussing the article, not the editors. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The above attempt at "projection" just ain't gonna work, friend. --BobMifune (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

Folks, here is another example of the POV of editors trying to push their view of things:

"Levin has been accused by critics on the left, including journalist Dana Goldstein,[15] of sexism for derogatory remarks that he has made about the appearance of female politicians and members of organizations he disagrees with, including the National Organization of Women, which he has called the 'National Organization of Women Who Look Like Men' and the 'National Organization of Really Ugly Women'.[16] He also referred to US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds',[17] and has nicknamed former Democratic Senator and current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton 'Hillary Rotten Clinton' and 'Her Thighness'.[18] Levin has singled out Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a number of occasions, frequently referring to her as "Stretch" because of his stated belief that she has had multiple facelifts.[18]"

Do you see the POV? Does anyone see the fake, phony, fraud POV here?

Oh yes, it's all true, he said and says those things. Yes, it's true Media Matters reported those things. So what's the POV being pushed here?

It's "sexism." It's misogyny. It's trying to say the subject of the page makes fun of women because he is sexist.

It is true that Levin makes fun of women, but it is equally true that he makes fun of men equally. Actually, for him the dividing line is political, not sexual. Yet that appears no on this page. Nowhere. Instead you have over a hundred words devoted to making Levin look like a wacko for being sexist.

A subtle but palpable POV has been introduced into the article by exemplifying Levin's morphological remarks as only against women.

The solution is either to include examples of how Levin remarks about men and remove the "sexism" claim, or remove this entire paragraph. Letting it stand as is would let POV stand. Either write it to be accurate or remove it.

Removing it would be best as it is really not encyclopedic how a radio hosts makes fun of people morphologically, and certainly you will not find similar comments on the pages of media personalities who make fun of conservatives. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes that I believe make it far more encyclopedic. Specific reasons for the changes are explained in the history comments. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your advocacy of Levin is noted. Stop whitewashing the section. Stop removing sourced info referenced to reliable sources. If you continue to do so, I'm taking this to AN/I. --BobMifune (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Go then. I have tried to guide you. Other editors have not reacted as you have. I am reverting you as your edits are beginning to border on vandalism since you are restoring POV, double references to the same source (Frum) that just makes for poor writing, a POV headline that appears on the top of the page, etc., and you have done this repeatedly. You even reverted the edits of others at the same time as if you alone own this page. I'm reverting your edit. Do not put it back without discussing why here. And you have to be more detailed than "sourced info referenced to reliable sources". Comment specifically on notability. You also have to drop the personal remarks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence, the guy's been warned for disruptive edits on another Wiki page this very month. I sense a pattern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As JoshuaZ said above, "We're not arguing that he didn't make the comment. The issue is its significance. In general, we need to be very careful about giving undue weight especially in biographies of living people." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor you mention was referring to a different quote, months ago. And several editors disagreed with him. I'd be happy to stack my "disruptive edit" against your scores of poisonous edit summaries, ongoing edit wars, and outright vandalism. You have a history of hysteria-laden vandalism to political articles, followed by personal attacks and projection when you're challenged. Your edits on this page have been more of the same. Stop the vandalism. Now. --BobMifune (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune. I have reverted you again for BLP reasons and others. You never, ever address issues here substantively. Instead you personally attack one author after another. You make false accusations with the sole purpose and design of besmirching another author. You bully and intimidate without regard for common decency that occurs in the Wikipedia community nor for the rules that require such decency. You restore edits that are clear Wikipedia no no's, like wikified dates. You are, at this point, a newbie who has defied each and every person whom has offered to guide you. You predominantly edit only the Mark Levin page. You are simply out of anyone's control and outside of Wikipedia rules. You will find you will continue to be reverted by me and others while you continue to behave in this fashion. If it does not stop, there is a chance someone could ban you from editing for certain periods of time. If you still do not control your actions and accusations, you may be banned permanently.

Please act in accordance with the wiki rules so editors can edit instead of being attacked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune, you said in a history comment, "vandalism by user who has already been banned from all Barack Obama articles for similar activity." To whom does that refer, because it is not true for me. If it was meant to refer to me, it is one example of your efforts to besmirch other authors. You were already reprimanded this month for using a history comment inappropriately. I linked it above, but remember this?:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to George Tiller, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit summary is totally inappropriate! WuhWuzDat 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please. Do not attack further or I will inform WuhWuzDat that you attacks have recurred this very month. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Take your tiresome, empty threats elsewhere. If you like, I'd be happy to post the 50+ warnings, blocks, and article probations you've received for your combative, disgraceful behavior on this site. --BobMifune (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Levin's Picture

Why must we keep up a picture that doesn't make him look good? What about all of the pictures available online? Just do a google image search, there are plenty. If he doesn't take a good picture then why put one up at all unless it's a good one?

Matcat1116 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia image policies require that we use a photo that is copyright-free or has an appropriate license. Most images you find in a google search are copyrighted images and thus we'd be unable to use them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture seems fine to me -- but feel free to change it to a better one if you have one that is copyright-free. HyperCapitalist (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How was the picture of LIberty and Tyranny used in a later section, and why can't we just use that as the main image?Matcat1116 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's an image of a book, not an image of Levin. As a fan of Levin, I don't think the picture is all that unflattering...certainly not enough so that the picture should be removed. Replaced? Sure. I'm on board with that, but I have no idea on how to make sure the images aren't copyrighted.

But if you look around at other Wikipedia pages for other political pundits, you'll find many pictures where the people don't look their best (for instance, compare the picture of Maureen Dowd on her wiki page to the one for her New York Times page). Your example of the Obama picture doesn't apply, as there are plenty of professional pictures of him in the public domain. If you think the picture of Levin was chosen to intentionally make him look bad, I assure you that is not the case. We work with what's available. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickr is a good place to look for pictures. The license status is right there on the picture page, and you can even customize your search to look for just non-copyright photos. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP relies on "fair use" for covers of books, cd, etc., and one of the rules of fair use is that it must accompany a relevant discussion of that book, cd, whatever. The picture of the book could be used as the lead picture in an article about the book, but not for an article about Levin in general. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

On his radio show tonight, Mr. Levin claims that he has offered several photos of better quality. Is anyone aware of this? Since he has made a personal request, can someone more experienced with wiki edits contact him at marklevin.show@citcomm.com to get a photo of his preference that meets the guidelines? GeneralSturgeon (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters?

Does Media really matter? Or is this just an excuse to talk about how terrible Mark Levin's jokes are. Journalists are citing these fun pokes and jeers as some sort of hate speech. Mark doesn't curse or use obscene language like many other talk shows on which even the President has appeared. Mark is non-partisan. He screams at "Republicans" and others of his own claimed party citing their shortcomings. We're conservatives, and truly try to be partisan, as difficult that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.118.139 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Negative over-pressure of the Left in free online Encyclopedic entries regarding Mark Levin

Concerning recent publications about Mr. Levin on Wikipedia, there has been a controversy of the appearance of a Controversies section of this page. Albeit well-cited I also note the lack of such sections on other pages of notable living people. So as to be completely unbiased, there should be a section about all shortcomings of public figures and any verifiable citing should make it published information on Wikipedia's main page regarding the person. Concerning the proposed "fairness doctrine" of the liberal or progressive left, I can easily agree that this information be published if such allowances as I have defined are taken. 72.54.93.138 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Sam.B

Whatever that means. There are many experienced editors who disagree on whether "Criticism and controversy" sections are inherently biased; however, when you set yourself up as a commentator, or even as a critic, or wasp at the picnic, as Levin seems to have done, it should not be a surprise that you attract reaction. My first instinct is that we should not allow Wikipedia to be the battleground for those debates- but we should report them if they are notable enough for mention and are of encyclopedic value in that they illuminate to a disinterested reader what the topic of the article is about. We should do that neutrally, and we are neither a platform for Levin nor his critics, and that is probably the most important consideration here. Let's face it, Levin and his opponents are not starved of the oxygen of publicity, although I'm amenable to a proposal that they should be starved of the oxygen of oxygen. That, at least, would ensure that those of us who wish to improve this encyclopedia could do so in peace. Rodhull andemu 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think sections that are dedicated to "Criticism and controversy" cannot avoid being biased, no matter how good the intentions of the editor are. If the article's subject has done something truly controversial in their life it should be covered in the section that deals with that time in their life don't you think? I just don't see how simple criticisms can be considered encyclopedic and that's probably why they're not included in the pages for other media figures, such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for example. Wiki publius (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be drawn, I think, between films and musical works, when an article subsection such as "Reception", or even "Critical Reception", suitably and neutrally sourced to accepted authorities exists, and similar sections in biographical articles. Whereas I do subscribe to the "do no harm" principle in such articles, equally, those who set themselves up as commentators and pundits on particular topics should be prepared to take the rough with the very rough. It's analogous to "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". But when these people complain about the treatment they get, my reaction is "tough". Sadly, they are making money out of all this, and I am only a humble volunteer doing what I do at my own expense and trying to keep this encyclopedia within the limits of what it was originally intended to be. I am not interested in ego-pushing media whores who incite sheep to subvert the purpose of this enterprise for their own self-aggrandisement. Rodhull andemu 23:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely fair that if you put yourself out there then you better be ready to "take the rough" but I don't think that's what is at issue here. Is that the purpose of Wikipedia? Is this section, on this page, truly NPOV? You say if the article's subject doesn't like the treatment they're getting, tough. Even if that treatment goes against what Wikipedia should be about? Would you be open to the creation of similar sections on other articles? I wouldn't think so or at least hope not.

On a separate note, I don't think your repeated characterization of those questioning this section as sheep is very civil. I would expect more from a humble administrator. Wiki publius (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To this first; the "sheep" comment was in specific reference to this (second message down). If people are going to unquestionably follow suggestions like that, they deserve all they get, and if I remember correctly, "Befehl ist befehl" wasn't regarded as a valid defence by the Nuremberg Trials. So, sorry, when provocation results in threats to the integrity of this encyclopedia as a purveyor of information, as opposed to being a vehicle for personal vendettas, I take my side on preserving the status quo. Sorry if Levin and his sheep don't agree with that, but that's really not what a encyclopedia is for. Rodhull andemu 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On your first point: I know very little of Mark Levin's work because in the UK, he has no presence and is therefore irrelevant. My initial take is that he is so desperate to make money that he is prepared to pander to whatever audience he can garner, and that his political analysis is insubstantial but shockworthy. In this way, my only comparator is Howard Stern, who also seems to make money, but in abstracto, also offers little by way of constructive analysis. It's too easy to criticise what is without offering an alternative, and is intellectually extremely very lazy. Hate is a powerful motivator, and clearly attracts supporters in a society bereft of substantial values and prepared to believe almost anything they hear. In my own country, the extreme right-wing are regarded as irrelevant, and even the traditional purveyor of conservative values has now moved so close to the formerly "socialist" party that you couldn't put a cigarette paper between them. Sic transit gloria mundi, perhaps. Rodhull andemu 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You admit you "know very little of Mark Levin's work" but then launch into a fairly deep analysis of him. Without getting too into it, since this isn't a discussion forum, Levin is not a person who came to conservatism recently for ratings nor does he criticize without offering an alternative. Really, we're getting off topic. I'd be more than happy to discuss with you more (not on this page), but let's get back to the Controversies & Criticisms Section. Even your example, Howard Stern, does not have a section similar to the one being discussed here. I don't see how this section, in the way it is presented, is appropriate. I haven't heard an argument to the contrary. If there were controversies that could be fit into a more biographical narrative, that would be the place to put them vs. just a list of people's complaints. Wiki publius (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what liberal overpressure is, nor have I studied this enough to develop a feel on adequacy of sourcing or bias. Just a general point that I generally disfavor separate controversy and criticism sections, in favor of working that into the article in chronological or subject-matter order, and if one particular controversy is truly a major biographical event, make its own subheading. Posing the life or work of a political writer as a series of controversies introduces a POV however you cut it, because it says that the person's life is assessable by the controversies they have been in. That's true however "pro" or "anti" the coverage seems, it's slanting things in the direction of overemphasizing controversy. This isn't like a work of art or fiction, or a restaurant, an elected politician, or a philosopher, where the debate they've stirred up and their level of acceptance and praise / criticism in the public is a primary way of understanding them. Films each have their own metacritic and tomatometer ratings. People usually don't. It's only one way of looking at a person's life, and not usually the most informative way. Reading through it texturally, I think the "some have criticized' approach just isn't all that helpful for a lay-reader to get to know Mr. Levin. Wikidemon (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would love to thank the powers that be for exerting the negative over-pressure I was talking about by removing my latest claim in support of the topic and the removal or free use of a properly cited criticism column on any public figures page. While philosophical in reasoning, and from another computer, it is not correct to say it is wrong, or that I am not Sam.B. It is also not appropriate to call me a sheep when I base my actions on respect and come to the aid of someone I would consider a friend. Another thing I might add is "Don't dish it out if you can't take it." (talk) 72.54.93.138 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

The Mark Levin article in its current form serves as an unfortunate example of biased writing, which should not be present in a Wikipedia artilce. Of the 899 words, 452 comprise not-so-thinly-veiled attacks from the the political left. Many of these are direct quotes of unsubstantiated ad hominum attacks.

The tone of those parts of the article, particularly the Criticisms and Controversy section, violate mutliple editorial principles of Wikipedia, most centering about the NPOV principle.

The section is poorly sourced. It gives undue weight to the detractors, and describes a controversy without citing a single opposing viewpoint. In this the writer/editor has engaged in a 'one-sided argument', a "...variant of the logical fallacy known as special pleading. In this variant, only the reasons supporting a proposition are supplied, while all reasons opposing it are omitted.” (Wikipedia article 'One Sided Argument')

The writing clearly meets the definition of biased writing per the WP:NPOV section, which states:

"Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."

The Criticisms and Controversy section should be removed until it can be re-written in a manner consistent with the NPOV guidelines.

Flyer190 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you there. Beyond the Criticism section, this article was generally written in a NPOV style. And even the "Criticism" section was generally NPOV. And knowing Levin's controversial style, some criticism is to be expected. But checking some other articles on Wikipedia, it seems that there IS some POV here. As someone said earlier, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have no "Criticism" section. Yet, Levin has a Criticism section on his own section, generally made up of mild criticism from a single source.

What's up with that? THAT'S where this article is NPOV. The sources should be diversified in the Criticism section, because it gives the impression of a general dislike for Levin when, in fact, all of that hate is coming from one group. Mezmerizer

I agree. The section is only providing negative criticism of Levin, and no positive criticism, of which there is a great amount. I can only hope that somehow this issue will be resolved with both left & right, positive & negative critique, and the article thus unlocked. 4.153.59.178 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there not a policy against this sort of "criticism / controversy" section? If we are going to have all the negative criticisms of Levin on the page shouldn't we at least balance it out with positive criticism coming from media sources? This needs to be resolved. Is there any way to get an admin in on this? Onefinalstep (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section until someone can demonstrate that criticism from sources like media matters and David Frum contribute to the individuals notoriety. This is in accord with the WP:BLP. A secondary concern is the biased point of view of the section which is unbalanced with a "praise" section. However, either section "criticism" or "praise" needs to demonstrate that the information provided under the sections are relevant to the individuals notoriety.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative Time Out declared

Ok, after reading various complaints, threats and outraged diatribes let me say that from henceforth this page will be conducted with decorum and civility.

In my opinion no-one participating in this debate can claim the moral high-ground. I'm not going to name names, or dig too deeply into what has gone before. but for ease of reference, the following acts will NOT be tolerated on Wikipedia.

1 - No personal attacks of any form. This ranges from outright insults to accusations of right-wing/left-wing bias, and accusations that people are not editing in good faith for whatever reason. Also includes accusations that people are "newbies", people are ignorant of policy, and anything else about an editor and which is not related to improving this article. I personally believe everyone here is attempting to edit in good faith. Regrettably you just have completely opposite viewpoints. It happens.

2 - Actions must be considered individually Just because UserX has made 20 edits you felt were wrong, this does not entitle you to automatically revert Edit 21.

3 - Don't label stuff you don't agree with as vandalism - Saying "Mark Levin has goatsex" is vandalism, as is writing "Wikipedia Sucks". However content disputes are NOT vandalism. They are content disputes. If anyone uses the "vandalism" tag in future, they'd better be on solid ground.

4 - Wikipedia is not a forum. If a comment is not directly related to the issue of improving the article about Mark Levin, then it can be removed as per the terms of our "Not a Forum" policy. This cuts either way. Discussions about the general motivations of editors on this article fall on the right side of this debate... but only barely. And not for much longer.

5 - All editors benefit from WP:AGF. There was a call to vandalise this article made by the subject himself. As deplorable as this is, we are not entitled to take specific action against the subject's article as "retribution" (beyond the semi-protection already undertaken.) It may be the case that previously dormant accounts arise to give this article a "pro" viewpoint. Or maybe these past users decided to start editing again. By their edits shall we know them.

6 - Thou shalt not edit war.

OK - I and other admins are monitoring these pages. We are not taking sides, but we ARE going to enforce decorum and civility. If everyone can stop shouting at and accusing each other, then maybe you can get a good article developed. Manning (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - Commenting on my administrative actions is NOT the purpose of this talk page. Further comments exclusively about this admin warning will be edited/deleted. Go and work on the article. Manning (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to try to do that (improve/work on the article)... but we can't. It's locked.76.93.65.255 (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an unfortunate necessity of the recent public call to vandalise the article. Anonymous and newly-registered accounts are barred from editing and this will persist for at least a few more days yet. However if you register an account and then alert me, I will enable you to edit immediately rather than wait the few days normally required. Manning (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

a small change

I would like to put a link to Progressivism in the progressive-media definition being used as it relates to media matters, some may confuse their brand of progressiveness with the 19th century Progressive_Era ideology instead of the modern term viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies. RohnySaylors (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Rohny

Reverted Edits

It seems we have not made much progress in abiding by the rules. An edit made this am on an NPOV issue was nearly immediately reverted, and included in the commentary language that was specifically prohibited in the 'adminstrative time out.' This is not in keeping with WP:BLP, which requires that editors obtain consensus prior to reposting removed material. No such consensus has yet been obtained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer190 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing wrong with the material you deleted, nor do the problems you cited in your edit summary apply. This has already been discussed on this page. There is nothing wrong with quoting a reviewer, this is pretty standard and uncontroversial, and the very same quote you objected to was quoted in another reference work. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you see nothing wrong with the material. But your belief, however well intentioned, does not constitute a consensus. The WP:BLP requires a consensus prior to reposting the material, and the burden of proof rests on he who reposts it to demonstrate that it meets WP. The editor who posted the revert did neither. That the quote was cited in another reference work does not obviate the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The text fails to identify the reviewer's political bias, which is easily identifiable with a very cursory search. The statement made by the reviewer is almost certainly false: she does not know and cannot speak for all. The statement is an ad hominum attack on anyone who finds merit in Levin's arguments; it is therefore inflammatory, and per NPOV should be paraphrased, and in a neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer190 (talk • contribs)

The quote is clearly not an attack, there is no requirement that the reviewer's "political bias" be identified, and you have presented no evidence that the reviewer or review demonstrates any such bias. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe time to restore full protection? If for no other reason than to help me resist temptation. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is nothing *but* an attack. It contains no critique of any content, but rather demeans the 'seriousness' of anyone who 'wastes their time' reading the book. The requirement for the identification of the political position of the source is in the contentious article page. That the source is a committed liberal is overwhelminly evident by following the link to the article on her in Wiki, and then to its sources. Her statements and positions are not centrist. The text implies that she is an impartial expert; she may be expert, but she is anything but impartial. Finally, the WP:NPOV cautions not to "quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Finally, the WP:BLP clearly places the burden of proof of compliance with WP standards on the editor posting or reverting the text, and to obtain consensus prior to reverting the edit.Flyer190 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the quote directly critiques the content, in that the claim is that it is free of serious content. Again, there is no requirement that we identify any ideology of book reviewers, and you have presented no evidence of ideological motivation here, other than to simply assert it and claim it is "evident". There is no evidence of a "heated dispute", it is merely a book review. BLP does not require us to remove quotes unflattering book reviews, nor does it require consensus to introduce such quotes. You can quote policy all day, but none of the policy you have quoted is in the least relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am researching the Mark Levin article for bias and proper factual information. I just did a quick read for a check of bias on Wikipedia. I read the Justice Sonia Sotomayor article. I then read the Justice Clarence Thomas article. The bias is overwhelmingly evident. Wikipedia is used by everyone of every political persuasion. Wikipedia should not be controlled by only a certain political persuasion. This current dispute should lead Wikipedia to become a truly factual online encyclopedia, devoid of bias. (jimking) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

jimking Wikipedia is full of political bias inserted in to a supposed factual online encyclopedia. The bias is relevant throughout. Yesterday my attempt to save a factual description of the book itself was removed. Currently reading the article nobody would have a clue what it is about thanks to BobMifune. Not only that when I went to discuss it in here it was locked and he proceeded to remove everything he could find which was saved as it exists today. I thought encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Anyone who read the book would agree that the description of the book was accurate. Yet it remains defaced. I switched the picture to a nice one vs a very obviously unflattering ridiculous picture. My picture was removed and I was immediately admonished for being a "copy right infringer". All this before I was even allowed to update the picture information. I feel there's a lot of BS going on in this so called encyclopedic online content site. It looks to me more like the lame stream media to me. Mikestilly (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you've somewhere missed the principle that this is a "free-content encyclopedia", and "free" here means free of copyright as opposed to "free of charge"; in relation to images, since Mark Levin is a living person, our policies and guidelines predicate that an uncopyrighted image of him is obtainable, and for that purpose, a copyrighted book cover would not satisfy that criterion, although it might (and I put it no higher than that) be usable in an article about the book itself. When it comes to accusations of bias, we are guided by major policies we require reliable sources to be cited for verification purposes. Rodhull andemu 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Mikestilly, just stay calm, work with Wiki policy, and everything will be okay. Don't let that one guy get you done. If he is behaving outside Wiki policy, there will be consequences, like he was blocked once already. So you don't have to worry about it. Just stick to the facts, using reliable sources, edit boldly, but be willing to obtain consensus here on the Talk page if needed. Most of all, enjoy! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are indeed consequences for editors who continually violate policy. ; ) --BobMifune (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That block was contestable but I did not contest it. See here. It involved another newbie editor acting very similar to BobMifune, only on another page. Now I'm sorry I didn't contest it so people like BobMifune could not use it as a weapon. In almost 7000 edits, sometimes things like that can happen. BobMifune never, ever misses a chance to personally attack someone, somewhere. In his 100 or so edits, I'll bet the vast majority contain personal attack either in the edit itself or in the history comment, even if it's just to call someone's edit vandalism. Like this last comment of his had nothing to do with this Mark Levin article and was simply an attack on me. Hey, BobMifune, why don't you start to calm down and start to work with the community? You should be starting to figure this out by now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to bait, you'll be dealing with the admins. Limit your actions on this Talk page to discussing the article. I suggest you refactor any attacks on me you've placed on this page today. If you do, I'll be happy to refactor my responses. --BobMifune (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent(edit conflict) To quote "It seems we have not made much progress in abiding by the rules". Indeed, and it seems WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be remembered here. I suggest that any personal beefs be taken to your respective Talk pages, or email, or anywhere else but here, which is intended to be a page for discussing improvements to this article. The bottom line is that this article is subject to WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and partucularly WP:BATTLEGROUND. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 908, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Circuit 2002). Rodhull andemu 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My responses came only after being called out by name. I'd be happy to refactor if the instigators do. --BobMifune (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone take a time out

Okay things have rapidly gotten out of hand here. Let's start over, okay? I would like everyone, before they post to this page again, to think about what they post before they post it. No more accusations, no more bringing up things that happened on other pages. Discuss the specific reasons for your edits here. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

People seem to have too much emotionally invested. It's not healthy for the editors, nor for Wikipedia. - Crockspot (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the section inserted by BigTex, later edited by CoM, to the last point of consensus on the page. The edits over recent days, by one editor in particular, have removed sourced, relevant criticism which helped balance the article. The justifications given for the removal were specious at best. To avoid warring, it would be best if all substantial edits to the page were discussed and agreed to here by consensus first. --BobMifune (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Referring to another editor's edit as "vandalism" is not in the interests of civility and that kind of thing only makes tempers flare and encourages editwarring. Gamaliel (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel and Crockspot: BobMifune clearly has not taken a time out and has continued his status quo, even in this time out section. Be that as it may, I'll step out for a while in respect of your comments. See you again in a number of days or weeks. If BobMifune continues unabated in reverting and attacking by then, I'll just give up editing this page and perhaps come back when it's safe. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer watching this page. If anyone wants to contact me for any reason, please use my Talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of criticism is sources to media matters. I think it would be good to diversify the sources to more mainstream and relaible sources that are less partisan. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find MMFA a partisan source at all. If anything, it's fair and balanced. No problem with using this mainstream, reliable source. --BobMifune (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters describes itself at a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters is well within the mainstream left. It's a valuable source. But, BobMifune is incorrect to claim that Media Matters is simply mainstream. IMHO, we should locate a media monitor in the mainstream right. Then, we can present both views. Jeff.younger (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's edit attacks were really unfortunate and as a listener of Levin I was disappointed that he instigated it. Reading through the comments on Facebook it's obvious that many of those who vandalized don't understand what Wikipedia is about. Obviously what is at issue is the Controversies & Criticism section and I think some of the problems stated are warranted. To start, there are no controversies in this section, only criticisms. What is listed in this section are simple criticisms, which I don't think are encyclopedic. Actual controversies should be included because they usually have some sort of consequence/result for those involved. Should we include the "widespread criticisms" of Barack Obama on that page, even if they are just accusations by individuals? No, and rightly so. Complaints and criticisms of Levin are being given undue weight or are being cherry-picked to make a controversy. For example, no on disputes - Levin included - that he uses the nicknames listed for Clinton and Pelosi. The important point to consider is that he also creates nicknames for prominent men and presumably genderless news organizations. He makes up nicknames for anyone that he disagrees with regardless of race, gender, or creed. Just because someone calls you a sexist, doesn't make it so and without some concrete evidence shouldn't be included. Also, the citations of these criticisms aren't NPOV but how could they be? Criticisms are inherently biased because someone is a critic because they come from a certain POV. The 10 citations in this section come from only 5 sources, 50% of which are Media Matters, which is a declared progressive watchdog of "conservative misinformation" and criticize every conservative radio and TV host out there. Another source, Mark McKinnon, accused Levin of using hate speech for calling the President a "jerk", despite the fact that he (McKinnon) called Rep. Joe Wilson a "sorry ass" and a "lout" and compared Sarah Palin to a moose - not only unbiased but also a hypocrite. Like I said, I am not opposed to posting controversies, but nothing in this section is a controversy. Wiki publius (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In all possible encyclopedic-level objectivity and with all possible fairness to people of all political views, the article does need to be cleaned up. Mark Levin is known primarily because of his radio show and, increasingly throughout this year, because of his book Liberty and Tyranny. By a word count done by simply cutting and pasting into a Word document, I found that the "Mark Levin Show" section of the article has 246 words. The "Liberty and Tyranny" section has 141. By comparison, the "Controversy and Criticisms" section has nearly as many as both combined at 342. Again, being as objective as I can, that seems to be a clear disproportion. Despite what anyone thinks of him, his controversial statements would not be so controversial if not for his being a political talk radio personality and popular author, so I think the article should stick to the latter two concepts foremost. Anyone who is involved in politics and political commentary to the level that Levin is and has as clear of a stance as he has is inevitably going to be a source for "controversy and criticism." In my honest opinion, instead of an entire "Controversy and Criticisms" section, perhaps there could be a compromise with a "Style" section under "The Mark Levin Show" that explains not only his presentation - which, yes, is sometimes controversial because of his words - but also how it distinguishes him from other conservative talk radio personalities. Such a section could include a sentence or two or three about some of Mark's statements and how they are perceived to be controversial, sure. But I don't think this article needs a whole section about it that contains example after example after example of controversial things he has said. People on TV and radio who get high ratings often say controversial things - it's why people watch them and listen to them and talk about them. As far as I know, every controversial thing about Levin is related to what he has said either on his show or someone else's. He does not have a controversial personal life or background that I have heard of, nor has the prose of his books, so far as I know, caused any controversy (other than what would normally be expected from books involving political philosophies and topics). In fact, it's my understanding that his books are written with a civility that can surprise a reader who is familiar only with his radio show. Therefore, it seems to me, whatever controversy there is surrounding him stems largely from his radio show ... not from his books or personal life, in other words. Thus again, the point being, a disproportionately large controversy section for the whole article/person appears biased and unbalanced. Just my thoughts - sorry so lengthy. Harry Yelreh (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement

The last two comments BobMifune added have been personal attacks against me and have had nothing to do with this Mark Levin page. This kind of behavior is a pattern with him and numerous people discuss his disruptive editing, though not in so many words. He was even warned not to revert edits of things under discussion yet he continues to do so. He was warned upon expiration of his block to act civilly yet he does not. Short of banning, isn't there something to be done to get him to work WITH the community instead of AGAINST it? The point is we have to build an excellent Wiki page, not persistent deal with disruptive editing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to bait, you'll be dealing with the admins. Limit your actions on this Talk page to discussing the article. I suggest you refactor any attacks on me you've placed on this page today. If you do, I'll be happy to refactor my responses. --BobMifune (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my most recent comment. This is not the purpose of an article talk page. Rodhull andemu 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've edited the header of this section to remove the personal attack. I'm happy to let this drop and refactor. --BobMifune (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please just get back to discussing the merits of the section in question? Levin and some of his listeners behaving badly isn't an excuse for others to do the same. I don't think a section devoted to criticisms is NPOV at all. That's the reason I assume you can't find a similar section for other politically-related media figures such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Arianna Huffington, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O'Reilly. A Controversies & Criticisms section is inherently POV, no matter how good your intentions are. If the subject has had a controversy in their life, it should be covered in the biographical narrative, not in its own separate section. Wiki publius (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that such a section in inherently POV. Levin is a combative, often vituperative, broadcaster and has provoked criticism from progressives, conservatives, and centrists. I would direct you to the pages of Michael Savage here and Bob Grant here, the tone of whose shows' are similar to Levin's, and who both have significant "Criticism and Controversies" section. That said, I'd be fine with renaming Levin's section "Criticism" and concentrating on the sourced comments by conservative and GOP pundits (Frum, McKinnon, Friedersdorf) who think Levin is actually harmful to the conservative movement and ruinous to the Republican Party. (Frum actually has commented on Levin's "vandalize Wikipedia" campaign here.) We don't need to give as much space to criticism of Levin by progressive organizations, as his stock-in-trade is inviting it. But we should surely mention it (Dana Goldstein, MMFA, etc.). --BobMifune (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Glenn Beck? He's drawn a lot more ire from more well-known people than McKinnon and Frum but there is no criticism section on his article? Why? Because it's not encyclopedic. It's also hard to frame criticism in a balanced light. Much of the section paints Levin as a sexist because of the nicknames he has given various women and organizations. It leaves out that he makes nicknames for men as well as news organizations. You may label it vituperative, but he is an equal opportunity name caller. Additionally, I think it's important to weigh the credibility of some of the sources. McKinnon, supposedly a conservative, quit the McCain campaign once Obama was nominated because he didn't want to run a campaign against him. Frum and Levin have had a little battle going on before this article was ever mentioned on his show so I would say that source is biased as well. Wiki publius (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because something isn't in the Beck article doesn't mean it can't be here. I notice you didn't respond to my comments re: the Bob Grant and Michael Savage pages. I guess you're conceding that point. That you don't care for Levin's conservative critics does not alter their significance. Discussion is not gainsaying. Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation about this. --BobMifune (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Because something isn't in the Beck article doesn't mean it can't be here." Wouldn't the logic follow that because something is in the Savage and Grant articles that it doesn't necessarily follow that such section should be included here?Onefinalstep (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wiki Publius" made the case that the reason Levin shouldn't have a Criticism section is because several other commentators didn't. I showed him some commentators, whose style is much closer to Levin's, who have those sections. Dude, it's not a college dorm room, Crito, or freshman year Lincoln/Douglas debate. --BobMifune (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you've moved on to personal attacks, I don't really see a reason in giving your arguments the benefit of the doubt. But if you read Publius's statment at 00:44, you'll find you're incorrect. --BobMifune (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just using my list as example of how the majority of similar biographical articles don't have this section. You just proved my point. Would you be opposed to me going out and collecting criticism of every liberal media figure I can think of, using the Media Research Center for most of my citations, and creating a section on each of their page? Of course not! Because I would have a motive behind it. How is a list of criticisms (I'm glad to see we've basically agreed these aren't controversies anymore) NPOV? I haven't seen a good explanation of that. I don't think he yells a lot is a good enough reason. You just seem opposed to any and all changes people are proposing. Wiki publius (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Much pro-Levin PR in need of trimming

Right now, the article has far too much pro-Levin promotion/POV. To wit:

The NYTimes best seller ranking for Liberty and Tyranny is mentioned in the lede and in a separate section. That's overkill.

Agreed, I think the best seller reference could work just in the section about the book. Wiki publius (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Wiki publius (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Each of Levin's books gets its own paragraph. Bill O'Reilly, who has written many more bestselling books, gets nothing close to that on his page. One paragraph, or a bulleted list, could mention all of Levin's books. No need for a summary or critique (pro or con) of any of them. No need for sales figures, though NYTimes bestseller list ranking is fine to mention once.

Some authors have entire articles dedicated to just one of their books so I don't think it matters that Bill O'Reilly has shorter summaries. If someone wants to go in there and expand them, then good for them. Wiki publius (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So, by your reasoning, we should follow the example of having no "Criticism" section (as on O'Reilly's page), but disregard the example of limiting book mentions to their titles (as on O'Reilly's page). Interesting. --BobMifune (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I said "many authors", you're the one that brought up O'Reilly specifically. I even said that the book section on his page should be expanded. Why would we ever want to limit information on anyone's books? Wiki publius (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Ronald Reagan" award from the "American Conservative Union" is padding straight from Levin's PR bio. Few have heard of this award, and fewer know of its significance (if any).

So? It's an award he's received. That's a fact, so why not list it? Wiki publius (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because all facts are not, by nature, encyclopedic. Your argument for the Levin page seems to be "All criticism is biased, but no praise is too trivial."

Lots of biographical articles list honors and awards. Is the standard that the large majority of readers must know what each award is? Wiki publius (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The language that Levin's show has "been rated number one in its time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas - Fort Worth and Washington, D.C." is flat-out PR, and is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. The language is also misleading. The show could have "been rated" number one several ratings periods ago, and have fallen in the ratings since.

I would agree that some work needs to be done to that statement, as there is no time period given. Wiki publius (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be removed entirely. --BobMifune (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, let me work on new wording and I'll post here before posting to the article. Wiki publius (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How about: The Mark Levin Show is widely syndicated on AM and FM stations as well as XM American Right and SIRIUS Patriot satellite radio channels. The show has been rated number one in multiple markets and in 200x reached over # million listeners weekly. Wiki publius (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning Levin's work with various charities is aggrandizing. O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, Huffington, etc. all work with charities. It's not mentioned in their articles.

Again, if someone wants to go to those other pages and expand on their charity work, good for them. Some people are known for their involvement with charities (think Denzel Washington and The Boys & Girls Club). Wiki publius (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments re: the "Ronald Reagan" award. --BobMifune (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit different than the award. I don't think listing charities is a bad thing. Please explain why you do. Wiki publius (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved this info in the the Career and Personal Life section. Wiki publius (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The "other programs" section may be interesting trivia, but its unencyclopedic. What is the encyclopedic significance of nicknames Levin and Sean Hannity have for each other? --BobMifune (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this section, at least most of it, is of encyclopedic value but could be presented in a better, more narrative, fashion. Wiki publius (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

? --BobMifune (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Other Programs section talks about (although very briefly) what he did before the radio show. I think that's important to include but should be told in a more narrative form. I could concede that the nicknames aren't necessary but aren't nicknames the basis for much of the content of the criticism section? Wiki publius (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved this info up to the start of the radio section to serve as an intro leading into the part about his own show. Wiki publius (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Must controversies or criticisms create or add to the notoriety of the subject in order to be included in a BLP?

In order to be included in a biography of a living person, must any controversy or criticism be the source of notoriety for the person the article is covering. When does criticism and controversy become relevant enough to be included in a living person's biography?Onefinalstep (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A guide to this can be seen at WP:STRUCTURE, which is part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It addresses the segregation of text in an article based on the POV of the content. This includes putting information into a "criticism" section solely because that information has a negative POV and is criticizing the article subject. This is far from ideal because it could potentially violate the policy that insists on a neutral POV in all articles, but it isn't expressly prohibited. The policy suggests as an alternative that the information be redistributed by "folding debates into the narrative", as that is considered a more neutral approach.

So what does that mean? To me, that means that if the criticism is well-sourced, notable, and appropriate to the article it should be included. The "lazy" way to go about this is to dump it all into a criticism and/or controversies section. But if the article is improved by including the information then this is a necessary (if temporary) evil that can be fixed later with an experienced hand that can more appropriately restructure the information. It's better to have it in that section than to not have it at all. If at a later time that information is moved to appropriate locations throughout the rest of the article, that is much better. What is certainly bad though is to insist that such information remain in a criticism section when someone else is trying to improve the quality of the article by redistributing the information in a more encyclopedic manner. So if someone wants to take on the task of doing that I would encourage it, and discourage others who try to maintain the section itself permanently.

In a nutshell, if the criticisms themselves are okay then it's fine to leave them in the section until someone moves them. Be sure to keep in mind WP:BLP when considering whether the criticisms themselves merit inclusion. -- Atama頭 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the question was when does the criticism merit inclusion. My reading of the BLP policy is that the criticism has to be the source of notoriety for the person in question. Otherwise all criticism and controversies will violate POV policy. Whether the criticism or controversy creates notoriety for the individual is an objective standard.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to feel that most the content of the disputed section refers directly to his radio show, and ought to be in that section. Perhaps even in an article about the show itself. CarbonX (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A Proposed Solution

I generally try to avoid giving input to political sections, but I did a bit of research and found that individual talk show hosts generally do not have criticism on their biography sites. My sample consisted of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz.

The Hannity page does not include any personal criticism. There is not separate page for The Sean Hannity Show radio program. There is no criticism section for the Hannity & Colmes or Hannity’s America pages. The Hannity page does have a controversy section, which I tend to think is a bit picayune. However, because it involves his show it is legitimate.

The Limbaugh page does feature a section of controversies of his show. However, they are not criticisms proper, but definitely phrased that way. There is not section for criticism on the Rush Limbaugh Show page. Though some controversies are mentioned.

On Olberman’s page, it does mention that he did have conflict with his employers at ESPN. However, that would legitimately be part of his biography in that it explained the trajectory of his career. On the Countdown with Keith Olbermann page there is criticism of things he says and does on his show. This is legitimate in that it explains controversy over the show.

The Maddow page does not have any personal criticism of her or her show. The Rachel Maddow Show page does not feature a criticism section.

The Schultz page does mention some controversies he had as the North Dakota State University football commentator. However, again this explains a major event in his career that may have led to his removal from the air. The Ed Schultz Show page does have some information that could be considered negative, but not specific criticism section. The Ed Show page has no criticism section.

Based upon these examples, I believe the page is patently unfair to Mr. Levin. I propose the following solution (which I do not have the skills to do). First, a page should be created for his show that includes general information about the show such as ratings, number of markets, home station, and segments. A controversies section should be included written in a neutral manner. Criticism could be included there, but responses should be made to those criticisms.

I would appreciate feedback on this proposal.

216.15.34.154 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)ericsean74

Your proposal has merit. The trick will be in trying to get those sections re-written IAW WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The guidelines for biographies of living persons requires that editors wishing to restore disputed material must first obtain consensus, and that the burden of proof of compliance rests with he who seeks to repost. That is written policy, but so far the unwritten policy here has been just the opposite. The material needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic, neutral tone. A neutral description that a controvery exists would be appropriate; a list of direct quotes of inflammatory and derogatory criticism of Mr. Levin is not.Flyer190 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is fair. If the man's show has created controversy that may be information appropriate to a page about the show. But given WP's "conservative" stance on BLP we should try and move the content.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Beware attempts at false consensus by new and long-dormant accounts

In the 24 hours since Levin directed his listeners to vandalize this page (as well as David Frum's here), a significant number of new and long-dormant accounts have suddenly appeared on this Talk page to argue -- usually via discursive screed -- for the removal of the criticism section. Good faith editors should take note of this, and regard such accounts with a healthy dose of skepticism. Much of Levin's "go vandalize Wikipedia" rant was spent complaining about his criticism section, and this current campaign is certainly a result of that. --BobMifune (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point: User:BobMifune will delete anything he disagrees with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, and completely off the point. --BobMifune (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please! A look at your edit history will clearly indicate otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. There's plenty I "disagree" with on Wikipedia that I wouldn't dream of deleting. You appear to be smarting from your activities on my talk page of late. Best to let that go. --BobMifune (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the comments disputing what you say that you almost immediately delete, hoping the issue will go away? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you refactor that untrue personal attack. Re-read my above comments. Then, read Manning's below. Repeat as necessary. --BobMifune (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of the edit history of your talk page will prove what I say. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. --BobMifune (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you generally, but Mark Levin has no idea of the definition of v as used here. So while he may have said his users should write here, even be disruptive, to say he told his users to "vandalize" the page as defined by Wikipedians would be inaccurate. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's hairsplitting, and inaccurate. Levin directed his listeners to deface this page, and David Frum's. --BobMifune (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune, I don't know if you were referring to me or others but I have been inactive on Wikipedia for quite awhile, but this is no reason to discount what I have to say. I was moved to action by what Levin did, not because I wanted to participate in the vandalism (sorry, that's what it was) but because I was so disappointed in what he asked his listeners to do. Please take a look at the discussion under Everyone take a time out and Negative over-pressure of the Left in free online Encyclopedic entries regarding Mark Levin, I think there was some good discussion in both sections. Mainly, what I and some others are arguing is that a Controversies & Criticisms section is inherently POV, no matter how good your intentions are. If the subject has had a controversy in their life, it should be covered in the biographical narrative, not in it's own separate section. Like I said, please take a look at the discussion above and share your thoughts. Wiki publius (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He said that because an administrator erased all the positive comments of him and left all the negative comments on this talk page. The administrator than locked this talk page and it was just stuck with negative comments. --12george1 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominum

From the article on ad hominum:

"Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's."

The reference to a need to be 'suspicious' of postings from 'long dormant accounts' is an ad hominum argument. It has no bearing on the validity of the comment. The only statements which have any logical meaning are those that address the issue: does the writing meet Wikipedia standards for NPOV and BLP? There are multiple violations of these principles within the article, and they need to be corrected. Flyer190 (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's actually a valid behavioral / article editing concern having to do with assessing consensus. Clearly people who do not normally edit Wikipeida have flocked to this article in response to off-Wikipedia exhortations. That creates an untenable editing environment where the consensus process becomes derailed. We normally are on the lookout for WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, and similar suspicious editing. At times like this we have to be extra careful. It's fair to continue the discussion and we should minimize meta-talk about bad accounts. That normally belongs on meta-pages, not article talk pages. However, it's fair to leave a notice so that people are alert. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as Wikipedia has been prone to ginned-up campaigns to influence pages, it is completely appropriate to point out that the sudden surge to scrub the criticism section (and vandalize the page) was spurred by Levin himself. Editors can certainly debate the merits of an argument, but the fact that Levin himself is trying to dictate what's on the page is entirely germane. Good faith editors need to know what's going on. --BobMifune (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm kind of sympathetic to Levin's reaction, he's just going about it the wrong way. The article is locked now, which is a good idea. From experience, this will all die down within a couple days after Levin stops stumping on the issue. If he or his supporters actually want to discuss it, or even file an OTRS ticket if there's something particularly heinous. Plus Levin is welcome to create an account and discuss it here with us. It may take some wind out of his sails but if he's got a valid concern about his article being wrong or unfair there are plenty of people happy to work with him. If he's just pulling a prank, he won't be the first or last, and it will all die down because he and everyone else has much better and more rewarding things to do than add pointless nonsense to Wikipedia articles. Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP Policy question - admin input

An IP user posted the following question to my talk page. As I am taking the role of "Conduct Referee" at this page I am deliberately choosing to not participate in content discussions. Hence I have posted the question at the Administrator's noticeboard and asked for independent input from other admins.

"Manning, if you have the time, I have a question regarding policy, and the enforcement thereof. The issue comes up with reference to the Mark Levin page, but would be applicable in a variety of instances. The WP:BLP calls for questionable content to be 'deleted immediately,without discussion'; and that reposting or reverting is allowed only after gaining a consensus. That is how I read it, but the opposite seems to be true on that page: disputed content is reposted immediately, and without regard for consensus. Am I misunderstanding the policy?"

Regards, Manning (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair point. The WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for inclusion. Anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. I've not looked at the specifics here, and if there is already robust consensus for inclusion or someone is simply gaming the system then all bets are off but as a general rule once something is removed, especially from a WP:BLP, it should not go back without demonstrable consensus. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument seems to be not an objection to the particular material in this article - in which case we should proceed in the manner you describe - but an objection to including any material that criticizes Levin on spurious policy grounds. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I have great respect for you. I've been watching this article for a while. I used to edit it until a month again because of the evident edit war, among other reasons I'll leave out for civility. From what I see, people are not against appropriately written criticism that is written within the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. The wall of negative comments almost exclusively sourced to Media Matters for America, however, had more to do with POV than with writing an encyclopedic article. So, with all due respect, I disagree with you that the honest editors (as opposed to the recent sudden spate of vandals) "objected to including any material that criticizes Levin." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to debate the appropriateness of particular criticism, that is a valid point of view and is exactly what we should be doing here. But let's be honest, that's not all that's going on here. Instead, other editors have committed 3RR violations and opined that no criticism at all is acceptable under spurious BLP grounds. If you feel that I've lumped you and others with valid objections in with those editors, I apologize. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Comments here are so voluminous that it is very easy for anyone to miss anything. For me, wiki-worthy criticism is a must because Wikipedia is not a host for puff pieces. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So I think we should agree to take down the section in order to come to some sort of consensus on whether the info merits inclusion or whether it should be moved to a page on the Mark Levin Show itself - as was suggested above under another heading.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ericsean (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep, to that end, I would like to suggest again that somebody make a page for the Mark Levin Show. I think it would put any criticisms in better perspective. Unfortunately, I do not really know how to do so.Ericsean (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)ericsean

Levin and Hillsdale College

I know that Mark Levin is a major supporter of Hillsdale College and Imprimis, Hillsdale College's monthly leaflet. When I checked Wikipedia's Hillsdale College article a couple months ago, I could have sworn that Mark Levin's name was shown under the "Notable Alumni" secion. I checked the article again earlier today and noticed that Levin's name is now gone. Is Mark Levin a graduate of Hillsdale College in any way? Vgcap 15:46, 17 August 2009 (EST)

No. I am a student at Hillsdale, and Levin is not an alum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.229.119 (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Applied because of spate of irresponsibly incited vandalism. Rodhull andemu 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of neutrality, I would suggest the following is more appropriate: "Applied due to an unusually high volume of inappropriate and non-contributory additions to the page." Cheers! JSMan55 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Restore the page to full protection

There's been too much blanking today. This article needs to be locked, with the article as it was before Levin called for the page to be vandalized. Discussion of what and what not to include can take place here in the meantime. The article can be edited once cooler heads prevail. --BobMifune (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's WP:Plaxico again! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. --BobMifune (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued accusations of vandalism are not in keeping with rules of decorum, politeness, welcoming attitudes, or discussions in good faith. Let's all strive to elevate the discourse. JSMan55 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism Section

I removed the section until someone can demonstrate that criticism from sources like media matters and David Frum contribute to the individuals notoriety. This is in accord with the WP:BLP. A secondary concern is the biased point of view of the section which is unbalanced with a "praise" section. However, either section "criticism" or "praise" needs to demonstrate that the information provided under the sections are relevant to the individuals notoriety.Onefinalstep (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place on this very page, at this very moment, about that very issue. This is the ~~second~~ third time you've blanked the section unilaterally, and I will revert it again (for my second time). Discuss the issues here. Make your case here. Avoid 3RR. Don't blank the section again. Blanking the section, than demanding your fellow editors -- many of whom have worked on it for months -- justify its return is at once combative, rude, and unproductive.

P.S. Please cite the exact rule of the BLP policy you're referencing. Right now, what you're suggesting is a bit vague. --BobMifune (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing it here. The WP:BLP requires that the information provided on the subjects page be a contributing factor to the individuals notoriety. Criticism by third parties about statements made by the individual, in this case, can hardly be considered the reason for the subjects notoriety. The burden is on the poster to persuade those interested that the information meets the guidelines of WP:BLP. Please stop reposting the information in the "Criticism and Controversy" section until those who would want the information posted explain and detail why such information satisfies WP:BLP, or provide such information yourself. Continuously reverting the page amounts to edit warring and is against WP policy.Onefinalstep (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Projection won't wash, either. You're misstating BLP, and trying to draw post hoc justification of blanking the section. Stop. --BobMifune (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of this sort are not in keeping with politeness, discussion in good faith, or welcoming attitudes. As such, the above comment is not appropriate to this discussion. Please refrain. JSMan55 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that I am misstating BLP please point to how and why I am doing so. I will quote BLP guidelines to ensure you understand what section I am relying on and hopefully dispel the notion that I am creating "ad hoc" justifications for removing this section. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."WP:BLP - "Criticism and Praise"

For example: if I wanted to include criticism on the page for President Obama or Bush I would need to show that the criticism itself created notoriety for the individual. Stating that Rush Limbaugh stated that he wanted Obama to fail would not qualify for the page because it is not in itself the reason that Obama is known. He is known because he was elected to the U.S. Senate and Presidency etc. The criticism on the Mark Levin page is similarly not the reason that Mark Levin is notorious. He is known because of his publications and talk show.

You're confusing "notability" and "notoriety." There is nothing in the BLP policy that states one would need to show criticism of Levin "itself created notoriety for" him. That's an assumption you're making. And it's specious. Frum, et al. are significant conservative commentators, and their criticism of Levin is indeed notable. Especially since Levin spends so much time talking about it. --BobMifune (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Another example ... on Joe Wilson's page it would be appropriate to add "conroversies and criticisms" because the controversy he was engaged in was the reason in itself that he became so well known.Onefinalstep (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See above comments. --BobMifune (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On another note ... I would argue that the criticism section is biased in its point of view which is also a violation of BLP.

Please explain the reason that you think the information in this section does not violate these two policies. I am not trying to get in a fight or anything I just believe that the policies of WP are being violated by this article. If we cannot resolve this I will ask for mediation.Onefinalstep (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Onefinalstep makes a great point with his Limbaugh-Obama example. Levin is not known because of the criticisms listed. Wiki publius (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no bright-line rule in BLP that criticism is only germane if it "created notoriety" for the article subject. Frum, et al. are indeed "relevant" to Levin's notability. Their criticism of each other is well-documented, and part of the current conservative debate. Semantic gymnastics are no substitute for good-faith discussion. --BobMifune (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This point is debatable. One could also suggest that Frum's notoriety is due to his criticism of Levin and Limbaugh. Not the other way 'round. Discussing these issues is indeed the definition of good faith discussion. JSMan55 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So would it be appropriate to edit Obama's page to include quotes from every conservative that has called him a socialist? The subject of whether or not the criticism of Levin has created his notoriety in such a way to warrant its inclusion onto his BLP page is worth discussion; and I am willing to enter into it. But because WP:BLP advises us to take "[c]are ... with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral [and] in particular, [that] subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability" (emphasis mine), and that a "conservative" approach should be taken, I would argue that we come to some consensus first as to whether the criticism warrants inclusion due to its creation of notoriety.Onefinalstep (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered. There is no BLP or Wiki policy that states criticism is only worthy of inclusion if it "creates notoriety." --BobMifune (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I dislike redundancy - especially in discussion pages as it tends to dilute substantive argument - I will quote the WP policy again: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ... If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Is this not clear? If it isn't please explain why ... maybe I am missing something.Onefinalstep (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See my above comments. I dislike redundancy, too. If you're making the argument that Frum, et al. are not "relevant" to Levin's "notability," that's not gonna wash. Levin, for one, spends half his time screaming about those critics; one could argue they're a source material for his show. Seriously, though, those critics (Frum, McKinnon, Friedersdorf, etc.) are not random bloggers; they are leading figures in the conservative movement and GOP. Just so you know, attempts to blank criticism under the "violates BLP!" catch-all is a long-discredited maneuver on Wikipedia. --BobMifune (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is evidence that Levin and Limbaugh contribute to Frum's notoriety, not the other way 'round. Suggesting that Frum or McKinnon are "leaders" in the conservative movement is highly debatable, slightly comical, and impossible to support. It is also irrelevant to BLP and the subject's notability. JSMan55 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point I don't even know what to say. You refuse to explain or argue why the quoted material from the WP:BLP does not support my contention. You are just saying no.Onefinalstep (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. Read it again. --BobMifune (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it wasn't "untrue" until you rewrote your post - as the time stamp shows.Onefinalstep (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We were writing at the same time; it was an edit conflict. However, it was untrue even before my rewrite. --BobMifune (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment I originally responded to stated "See my above comments. I dislike redundancy, too." You then rewrote the post after my comment to include an argument which I claimed was lacking. At this point I say we ask for mediation on the question of whether the criticism and controversies alluded to in the disputed section are relevant per WP:BLP's requiremnt of creation of notability. If the vote says these things do create notability then you win.Onefinalstep (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for mediation; you're misinterpreting the policy. And it's not a question of who "wins"; it's a question of creating a good encyclopedia article. Understanding that is a freeing concept; I highly recommend it.--BobMifune (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There IS a need for mediation, whether you think so or not. The fact that there is such obvious disagreement about a manifest policy is, in itself, proof of the need for mediation. Comments directed at users, which could be considered condescending and sarcastic, such as the last sentence in the post above, are not relevant to the page discussion. As such, they are not useful or appropriate. Please refrain. JSMan55 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we would agree that we disagree on whether or not I am "misinterpreting" BLP policy. I will tell you right now that I don't intend to change my view on the matter for the simple reason that I can't read the policy to mean anything but that which I have stated. I will assume that you are not going to change your opinion that I am wrong. This seems to me to be a hopeless impasse and one that would require mediation in order to solve. Unless you are willing to change your view to be in line with mine, I don't see this being resolved by compromise. Hence, mediation is needed.Onefinalstep (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It's not between you and me. It's between you, Wiki policy, and (as you will soon find out) many, many other editors. Enough with the sophistry and faulty logic. --BobMifune (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, such personal and accusatory statements as "sophistry and faulty logic" are not in keeping with politeness, discussion in good faith, and welcoming attitudes. As such, they are not germane to the subject or the editing process. Please refrain from using such arguments in this discussion. JSMan55 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the moment we are the only ones debating this on the dicussion page. I obviously understand that I am not the authority on WP:BLP policy which is why - since we can't agree - I would like have a third party or editor with knowledge on the policy comment. And I do hope I "will soon find out" what the policy means to the broader WP community so I don't have to wait around for you to make some sort of substantive explanation of it which you are clearly unwilling or unable to do.Onefinalstep (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point made by Onefinalstep with the referenced Wiki policy is clear. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ... If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I have read this section, and appreciate the back and forths, but the answer seems obvious to this observer. Criticism of Mark Levin by David Frum and other Liberal personalities is not warranted. Yes BobMifune I do not consider David Frum a true conservative. Frum markets himself as a conservative so he can get on Liberal programming in order to trash every conservative who breaths. I am not the only person who sees that am I? It appears to me that Wikipedia has the answers and the proper rules for how pages should be edited and constructed, we simply need to agree to follow Wiki rules in doing so. If you, BobMifune cannot agree to that, than Onefinalstep made the call for mediation, and I would second that motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikeric (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of comments on his talk show would seem to be directly relevant to the reason for his notability and notoriety, his talk show. Gamaliel (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. You admit that the reason for Levin's notoriety is his talk show and then add that because there is criticism of said talk show, it becomes relevant material. An example would show the absurdity of this argument: Because President Obama is notable for becoming President, all criticism of his Presidency (the reason that he is notable) is relevant and should be included on his BLP page. This is clearly wrong.Onefinalstep (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Come now, Onefinalstep. Surely you can do better than that. ;-) --BobMifune (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama's presidency is certainly relevant to him and his notability and should be included in his article. All of it? No. None of it? No. Either extreme is clearly wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of someone may be relevant to his notability (although I'm not sure what that even means), but whether or not it creates the person's notability is a whole different discussion. I am saying that the latter formulation is what is relevant to whether or not the information should be placed in a persons BLP. Whether or not I am right is up for debate, and I would ask for an admin to clear up the policy. But, if I am right, then the question remains whether or not the information in the contested section does create the notoriety of Mark Levin. This is also open for debate and I think a debate on this subject is much more likely to end in consensus, or at least be amenable to a vote.Onefinalstep (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we accept this ridiculously restrictive bar for article content, a controversial and outspoken radio host is notorious for being controversial and outspoken, and those aspects of his hosting certainly are part of the reason for his notoriety. He isn't Casey Kasem, the controversy is part and parcel of his fame. Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please do not edit(revert or remove) the article anymore becuase there is a risk of being blocked. Keep the discussion going and eventually we will find a resolution. Good luck! --A3RO (mailbox) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the encyclopedia and its policies, does not the fact the article remains, mean that there is no real intention of continuing a discussion? Hasn't the point been made that such an article has not been allowed on pages belonging to Liberal political celebrities like US President Barack H. Obama? Would you agree that if Media Matters is an appropriate source of criticism, then a similar article for President Obama could cite Levin and other talk radio hosts. If there is no discussion to be had, I'd like to go ahead and stop wasting my time looking at an irresponsibly biased source page and encourage would-be donors to save their money and even pay for reputable sources. More on this matter, while saying something like "I don't care if your husband puts a gun to his head" is rather uncouth, it is not explaining the context of that statement - I too, not knowing the 'husband' in question from Adam, could care about as much. And while he does make comments about the figures of some women in politics and more often than not - liberals, is what he says about them any fairer than posting any unflattering non-copyrighted photo on the front of his BLP article when better ones are available? (granted that it was removed - however, not replaced) Also the comments from other "conservatives" are by your own view perhaps, making the article entirely fair, that is quite arguably more of a difference in personal desire to see confrontation on part of the gentlemen who made those claims - and I can cite Levin himself who often talks about how some Republicans have grown spineless. Confrontation is the core purpose of The Mark Levin Show. Without the confrontations, it would not be set apart from the other conservative radio talk shows. While I am not offended by as much of what he says or by his tendency to yell during his monologues, and you may or may not be, is this more of a matter of opinion not solvable by anyone who simply does not try to understand well enough? If you want to be fair, then back up your comments with proper references of a desire for the allowance of fairness. 173.74.37.91 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Sam.B

My apologies for the comment on my own post, but having now read the article in question "No Wonder they Hate Us" I would love to explain the rationale for the statement Mr. Levin is being scrutinized for. Mr. Levin is, if I may impose an opinion, more married to the Constitution than perhaps his own wife. He has said before, and the segment of audio is repeated often as an advertisement of his book, [paraphrased from memory] "Do you know what I would have given to be one of the men in that building when they signed the Constitution? ..." and goes on very convincingly to let the listener know that the Constitution is where his heart is and the founding of America is what he holds as his greatest pride. 173.74.37.91 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Sam.B

I agree with Onefinalstep and suggest that mediation in the interpretation of the policy is in order. There seems to be widely varying interpretations among the editors. Let's get it right. JSMan55 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Levin says this article is "90% cleaned up"

On his show broadcast Friday or Saturday of this week (October 9 or 10), Levin stated that this article is cleaned up about 90% and is now much more accurate. He gave Wikipedia credit for doing the right thing after his recent on-air complaints.

96.250.148.189 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he's happy all criticism of him has been temporarily removed. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the animosity I sense from the use of "temporarily", I expect that some editors have an agenda that needs to be addressed. Anyhow, I'm glad that an appropriate consensus was reached as he is.173.74.37.91 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. My agenda is to see this article is compliant with NPOV and this should be addressed. I have animosity towards those who are opposed to that agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You must admit though that what to one person is neutral is biased to another. Sorry to be so postmodern. Ericsean (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We strive for NPOV as best we can. Whether or not we can achieve neutrality is a question best left to philosophers. Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Gamaliel is right here. The section will eventually contain some criticism, but it will be encyclopedic due to adherence to Wiki standards. As you know, the section is very controversial because of the left using MMfA to smear him, the right claiming all criticism should be removed or moved to a separate page, and ML himself talking about the page to his large audience. No POV will win. Instead, Wiki policy will prevail. So I moved the section here so it can be discussed here, Wiki policy can be applied, then, with consensus, the section will be restored. Only this time it will be encyclopedic.

Left and right ought to stop arguing about each other and instead focus on improving this Wiki page by applying Wiki policy and by working cooperatively with each other, which is part of Wiki policy anyway.

For all newbies involved, know that the process will take time--nothing is of an urgent or emergent nature. So edit warring is really not a good idea as it never really accomplishes your goal. Gamaliel has a ton of experience at Wikipedia. May I suggest you all consider what he says, "Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should all take the time to consider that the BLP guidelines were created for a reason. These edit issues aren't merely Left vs. Right, or our own personal edit crusades. They are words that mean things, and can go a long way to damaging the lives and reputations of the subjects... if we don't get it right. Nobody is suggesting the whitewashing of noteworthy controversies. But great care should be taken in crafting language that can truly be said to conform to NPOV and BLP, and in placing certain issues in their proper places. Pushing responsibility off onto "philosophers" doesn't seem to be a responsible position with respect to legality and wiki policy. Let's take the time and get this right. No matter the ideology of the subject, we are framing an article about a living person after all. Lets consider the proposed content from this prospective. I daresay we would all be outraged if our reputation was unfairly trampled in an "encyclopedic" entry. Let's leave the partisan debates to the beltway pundits. JSMan55 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that Mark Levin is a serious thinker who in his radio show references everyone from Edmund Burke to Milton Friedman, and so it is important that his sarcastic comments, and those by irrelevant people like David Frum do not come to dominate. I get the feeling that many of the people who want this stuff added to his this page are not really familiar with this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.163.2 (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want this article to represent the view that Levin is a "serious thinker", then you should find reliable sources discussing this aspect of his work. Deleting legitimate criticism from people like Frum won't make readers of this article suddenly realize what a scholar Levin supposedly is. Gamaliel (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why we are having the discussion. Nobody is suggesting deletion of criticism. Criticism, as well as praise, should be relevant to the subject, well sourced and abide by the BLP policy. Additionally, there is a valid discussion as to whether such criticism belongs in this bio article or in a seperate article about his radio show. Let's debate in good faith, present the facts and allow the readers to decide who is a scholar or not... without damaging the subject. JSMan55 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually a number of editors have advocated the deletion of criticism. I would be very happy if we have indeed moved past that and onto a discussion of what to include in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that may or may not be true. It's in the past now. We are moving forward. The substantive discussion here over the last several days has been about exactly that. Producing a balanced, quality article that abides by NPOV, BLP, and legal considerations with respect to the subject... and where such language belongs structurally in this, or possibly an additional, article. Let's step back from our biases and produce something worthy of a serious encyclopedic entry. Let the civil discourse continue! JSMan55 (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel qualified to make edits in this controversial page, and I haven't read the entire discussion, etc. That is why I've chosen only to put comments on the talk page. I still consider this a contribution. I just wanted to make it known to those who are reading it that it is my informed opinion that while Mark Levin might be controversial, sarcastic, etc., he is also very intelligent and very well educated on the history of America, the great libertarian thinkers, etc. I suspect many of the editors are not aware of this fact. If people just keep this idea in mind, it will help to ensure that the article applies appropriate weight to all aspects of his life. 67.185.163.2 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And if we take the time to find and include the relevant source material in an appropriate way, others will also have the opportunity to either agree with, or reject, your reasoned conclusion. Thanks! JSMan55 (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Emotions getting in the way...

I really hate to say this everyone, but I feel like emotions are beginning to run very high on here to the point where people are coming as close to the NPA line as they can without crossing it. To me that kinda misses the point of the regulation, and it is making me feel uncomfortable to even discuss the subject (and I know I'm not the only one). While everyone has the right to get as angry as they want, I think the high emotions are getting in the way of making a consensus. Could we take a few days off from discussing how to revise the section so everyone can calm down Ericsean (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)a bit.

I have been closely monitoring conduct in the past week and to everyone's credit the standard of behaviour has improved considerably. Regardless, your advice is very good. Taking some time to cool off has never hurt anyone or hurt the project. Manning (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

References need consistency

The references need consistency, from a Wikipedia style point of view. Some have periods at the end, some don't. Some titles use title case, some don't. Etc. Things like that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a WP standard for the format, and if so, where is it published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer190 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Might WP:EDIT help? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE looks more to the point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Levin Lexicon

I know the main issues of criticism and neutrality are currently being discussed... but I would like to propose another addition. I have compiled a Levin Lexicon which consists of the many pet names Mr. Levin has used for politicians, talking heads, actors and media outlets over the years. I'm sure this might also spark controversy, but I think it would be a lighthearted and encyclopedic addition to the page. Please leave your opinions and I will post the list here if anyone is willing to consider it. Cheers! JSMan55 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion? Yuck. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a substantive contribution. Nor does it inform the debate or the subject. But thank you for your unfiltered opinion. JSMan55 (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If we get around to making a page for the Mark Levin show, your suggestion might have a place there. Might. I don't think it belongs here. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. It would be more appropriate on a radio show page. I would argue that it is certainly relevent to his notoriety and has sparked controversy. It should be included in some fashion. JSMan55 (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Restore (Deleted Portion) of McCarthy Quote

The (portion of the) McCarthy quote that was deleted from the Liberty and Tyranny section today needs to be restored. This change is not appropriate, nor has it been discussed in this forum prior to edit. JSMan55 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is still in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I have edited the section header and my initial post to better reflect the objection. Otherwise your previous post runs the risk of sounding misleading. Yes. The quote is still in the article...minus 2/3 of the original quote, of course. Specifically, the part of the quote that unfavorably references President Obama and his ideology/policy. This is a controvertial deletion, made without consensus, and it impairs the integrity of the full quote. Considering the current dispute over neutrality, I think the current stated policy of "consensus prior to edit" should hold. JSMan55 (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will restore it. The editor who pared it back did so on the excuse of 'undue weight to one review'--when in fact it is now half the length of the opposing review.Flyer190 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, less the first phrase; now both reviews contain quotes that are almost exactly the same length, about 4 lines. Odd, though, that editor had no issue with the liberal review being 2x the length of the conservative one after his edit, nor did he take issue with the review of the other book, of which the negative review is half again as long as the postive one. Maybe we should remove that review until an equal length opposing viewpoint is posted?Flyer190 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A reasonable compromise. But I would even go so far as to restore the quote to it's original form prior to the edit. There was really nothing wrong with the quote to merit its partial deletion, nor was a convincing argument put forth to support such an edit. Until such time as a consensual agreement can be made as to the ultimate form the quote will take, the edit should be reverted completely. Your points on the length of the favorable vs. opposing reviews are well taken. I would hold off on removing other sections at this time, yet discussion of how they could be improved is certainly appropriate. JSMan55 (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. The balance before the drive-by edit was about even when you considered the unequal space given to the reviews of Men in Black; there the positive review is much shorter than the negative, and not nearly so 'intense.' So, if we are going to trim the reviewers' statement for Liberty and Tyranny to equal length on an undue weight basis, we will have to do the same for the Men in Black reviews. Actually, I think this whole review thing is a bit overdone; once equal length is achieved, the review section is longer than the description of the book itself. I would prefer to forgo directly quoting the reviews at all, and instead just describe the reception the book has had in general terms, something like this:

'As of (date) none of the major US 'newspapers of record' had published a review of Liberty and Tryanny. What reviews did appear in the national press appeared in magazines, and were sharply divided along ideological lines: reviewers on the right spoke highly of the work, while those on the left gave largely negative reviews.'

We could and should do the same for Men in Black. Such a narrative gives equal weight to both points of view, stays in the narrative, encyclopedic tone, and quotes no reviewer--positive or negative--directly.Flyer190 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with your assessment, and your proposed language is a very good starting point, I'm not sure we need to leave out the quotes altogether. Contentiousness may ultimately require it. But at the very least the quotes can be alluded to in the article and linked to for the user to access the full context. Then the quote editing debacle will be put to rest. But before we walk down that road, I think it is appropriate to try to find consensus and include the quotes. If this proves impossible, the merit of your proposal is difficult to impeach. Thanks again. JSMan55 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The links to the complete content should, I think, be in the standard form of reference citations, with the retrieval statement (link to the full content) in the reference footnotes. There should be such a reference for each of the three points: no major paper reviews, the New Criterion review as an example of the positive review, and the Salon review as an example of the negative. To include such refernces was my intent; I just didn't include them in the proposed text. They would be there in the final. We could and should do the same for the Men in Black reviews, or even combine all the review material into one section (the narrative would be essentially identical for both books anyway), and include all of the references there in the one paragraph. In the meantime, the Men in Black section is out of balance: the negative reviewer has a 29 word quote, while the positive only 14--more than a two to one ratio. I propose to use the following positive review in lieu of the National Review quote: "...a forceful indictment of what Levin identifies as an increasingly 'activist' court for amending our national Constitution in the guise of construing it." It is 23 words--closer in length to the negative quote's 29--and is from the Defense Council Journal, a very solid 3rd party source.Flyer190 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. Again, you raise very valid points. As far as the quotes are concerned, I'm not necessarily concerned as much with their comparative length (although this IS a valid concern with respect to neutrality) as I am with the reliability of the sources and content. That appears to be what is concerning the opposing editors here, though they may use other excuses to justify their edits. I also agree that the DCJ quote is far more relevant to the review of the book. It offers an analysis of Levin's arguments, serves to balance the opposing quote, and is substantive enough to interest readers to access the full review link. However, I would suggest that a more substantive quote be offered from the Slate article. While it is indeed powerful, the quote itself seems to be purely dismissive of the content of the book rather than a critique based on the arguments themselves. It criticizes the messenger... not the message. The full critique is slightly more substantive. A more relevant quote from the article might be, "Absent any structure or argument, this book could just have been titled Legal Decisions I Really, Really Hate. Levin follows the lead of lazy pundits everywhere who excoriate 'activist judges' without precisely defining what constitutes one." Thoughts??? JSMan55 (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either quote addresses the content. Both are dismissive of Levin's ideas (i.e. 'absent any structure or argument'). Having read Levin's book, I think he is very clear in stating what an activist judge is; asserting that he does not define it is both false and spurious. Not that it is not a valid quote from the review; it just doesn't address any issues better than did the first one. The original quote disses Levin's fans as 'not serious'; the second disses Levin as a 'lazy pundit.' Neither addresses the real issue, which is that the reviewer supports the 'living document' doctrine, and Levin does not. Having read some of her articles, I fear it may in fact be difficult to find a quote that actually addresses the content rather than ridiculing the personalities. She does not seem to feel it is necessary to offer logical rebuttals to her advesaries, but rather engages in various forms of ad hominum attacks: ridicule, dismissiveness, etc.Flyer190 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have a question here. I though we reached a consensus that at this point we were going to revert to the longer version of the McCarthy quote. Low and behold, I come on and see that Jimintheatl has undone the change upon which we had reached a tempory consensus, after he had not been involved in this discussion. (I searched the discussion page for his name.) Is this allowed? Why are we even discussing this if people are ignoring the consensus, as temporary as it might be, and don't even talk about the change they make. I don't want to be getting into and edit duel, so I want see if we can reach a consensus about what to do when people ignore consensus.Ericsean (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that as you were posting your question, he undid his own revision. It is now present as the 59-word version, close to equal to the 54-word length of the negative review. Perhaps we are approaching a consensus. Difficult to tell, given the lack of communication. I am waiting to see if he is going to pare back the negative review of Men in Black; after all, it is over double the length of the postiive one. His original justification was 'undue weight'. Odd, no one seemed to have a problem with the paragraph prior to adding the McCarthy review; at that point it contained only the 54-word negative review. No one seemed exercised about the undue weight then...Flyer190 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The McCarthy quote should be reduced. "We are in the high tide of America’s Leftist ascendancy: the Obama evisceration of individual freedom and installation of authoritarian collectivism—at warp speed, driven by an ambition that would have made Woodrow Wilson and FDR blush..." constitutes McCarthy's opinion of the Obama administration. Not McCarthy's opinion of Levin's book. Not Levin's opinion on anything. McCarthy's opinion about Obama. I say yank that part because it's irrelevant.

My view has nothing to do with the length of this quote in relation to other reviews. It just doesn't belong. It's Obama criticism by someone other than Levin. Semi-consensus or not, that portion of the review is unrelated to Levin and his book.Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. McCarthy's comments on the 'acendancy of the left' are completely relevant to his review of Levin's book. It is a completely accurate discription of the state of events (from the conservative point of view) which made the book important and unique in that it arrived at it's 'perfect moment.' That it is a critique of the Obama administration isn't beside the point, it is the point. The book is, in his opinion, the perfect response to that 'ascendancy of the left'. It is anything but irrelevant; it is the reason the book the book is so important and aprapo.Flyer190 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. The words strike me as McCarthy's personal views. Sure, they are shared by Levin and many other conservatives (myself included). But they don't relate directly to the contents of Levin's book. Personally, I think his book sales speak plenty about the positive reaction to L&T. No need to pad them with second-hand opinions of the Obama administration, unless McCarthy's words somehow mirror Levin's stated purpose in writing the book. But, I can see when I'm outvoted. Just thought I'd add my two cents anyway. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect your right not to be convinced, and it is not my intent to dismiss your position in any way. But, IMHO, McCarthy's quote captures the very essence of why Levin felt he had to write the book: to counter the 'tidal wave' of the 'ascendancy of the left'. Whether one agrees with McCarthy's assessment or not, it describes the nature of the times (in the view of a conservative, such as Levin) that brought Levin to write it, and likely explains some of the reason for its success (sales of 10k considered normal for a political book, vs. 1mil + for L&T. The first version of the quote included the 'Against this tidal wave' reference, but not what the tidal wave was. Your point that it is the reviewer's opinion (about the times) is well taken, but then that's what reviewers do, they render their opinion on the book. As controversial as McCarthys' opinion might be, I feel it is much less so, and given in a much more respectful tone than that used by the negative reviews in Slate and Salon. Unlike the other two, he does not insult anyone's motives. With the quote in this form, the content is about equally balanced in terms of length.76.93.65.255 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The McCarthy quote is relevant to the book and the political climate that led to the books creation by the subject. The full quote is most appropriate here. That the quote criticizes Obama is not not a valid reason to exclude the language. The book was written prior to the election, and if anything, adds to the significance of the books message and prescience. As stated above, book reviews are nothing more than opinion. Our task is to use quotes that will substantively describe the book and its value, interest the user and abide by BLP. I still think the opposition quotes (including the one I suggested unfortunately) are not so much criticism of the book as they are opinions of the subject, which is not appropriate. After reading Flyer's point, I withdraw the quote I suggested previously. Does anyone have a more substantive opposing review of the book that we can reference? It is, admittedly, a difficult task as the MSM has refused to acknowledge the books existence. JSMan55 (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section to discuss

Below is actual Criticism section to be discuss. Let's work on it here, then, when completed in a reasonable time, say a month given the edit war that has already gone on for a month, let's reach consensus and add the changed section back. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this entire section is irrelevant. Jon Stewart says controversial things while trying to be funny. David Frum's opinion doesn't matter, and neither does Mark McKinnon. If either of those guys said something negative about Barack Obama, would it make it to his web page? Finally, his ridicule and humor aside, putting in these comments completely overshadows that he is a serious thinker who talks about big issues every day. Furthermore, just think of the nasty comments we have all said or thought in our lives -- would we like a section of them put into our biography? I"m not excusing his comments as I think they are humorous and so not offensive to me, I'm just trying to make it clear how such a section can easily overshadow the rest of someone's life story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.163.2 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Levin has been criticized for statements he has made on his and others' shows. The progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America has been a frequent critic of Levin, citing his remarks on several occasions.^[1]^[2]

David Frum, a conservative journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has also criticized Levin's confrontational approach as an example of an "[...] increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters" and has accused him of contributing to an atmosphere that "invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence."^[3]Mark McKinnon, a Republican political consultant to George W. Bush and John McCain, has called Levin "truly a hate-monger" who "spews venom."^[4]

Levin has been criticized by journalist Dana Goldstein,^[5] of sexism for derogatory remarks that he has made about the appearance of female politicians and members of organizations he disagrees with, including the National Organization of Women, which he has called the "National Organization of Women Who Look Like Men" and the "National Organization of Really Ugly Women".^[6] He also referred to US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as "Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds",^[7] and has nicknamed former Democratic Senator and current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton "Hillary Rotten Clinton" and "Her Thighness".^[8] Levin has singled out Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a number of occasions, frequently referring to her as "Stretch" because of his stated belief that she has had multiple facelifts.^[8]

During his May 21, 2009 broadcast, in response to a female caller who spoke in defense of President Barack Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay, Levin shouted at the woman, "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here."^[9] Levin's outburst drew condemnation from both liberals^[10] and conservatives, including David Frum, who said that if a random listener overheard his remarks, their reaction would be "[...] something like, 'I dont know what’s wrong with that horrible man, but I do know this: whatever side he’s on, any decent person would have to be on the opposite.'"^[11]

References

^ http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910050008
^ http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909090001
^ Frum, David (2009-08-13). "The Reckless Right Courts Violence". New Majority. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-04/obamas-george-bush-problem/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
^ Goldstein, Dana (2009-05-22). "Do Conservative Talk Radio Hosts Ever Have Sex?". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
^ "Levin on his 'National Organization of Ugly Women' remark: '[F]or now on, it's the National Organization of Really Ugly Women'". Media Matters for America. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
^ "Mark Levin: Sotomayor is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds"". Media Matters for America. 2008-07-15. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
^ ^a ^b "On Hannity radio show, WABC's Levin said of Pelosi:'You could bounce a dime off her cheeks'". Media Matters for America. 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
^ Friedersdorf, Conor (2009-05-22). "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple". The American Scene. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
^ "Levin to female caller: "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here."". Media Matters for America. 2009-05-22. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
^ Frum, David (2009-05-22). "No Wonder People Hate Us". New Majority. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

Discussion

I argue that most of this "criticism" is leveled at Levin in his capacity as a radio host. If a page were created about his show (like Hannity or Limbaugh) the criticism could be placed there without violating BLP standards. It is an easy fix that will remove any reason to continue this on someone's biography page.Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we did so, it should still be summarized here. Articles such as Bill O'Reilly's note controversies and criticism about things that happened on his show. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep, I'm sure we can all agree that some criticism should be in the article. It's the amount and wording we are discussing, not the existence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely like the idea of moving the section to here for a little bit to work on, then move back out the the article. I think/hope we can work towards a more condensed version that can fit into the the section about his show, with the majority being reserved for a separate article about his show - and even there it shouldn't all be contained in a criticism section. Wiki publius (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been silent on this page for a while, but here I am to rear my ugly head once again. No one has convinced me that these criticisms are noteworthy, nor are the alleged controversies. First of all, David Brock (and MMfA) make it their stated purpose to criticize conservative media figures...so how is their predictable criticism noteworthy? Second, any successful media figure will certainly be criticized by his political opponents, competitors, and rivals...again, this is to be expected, and is therefore hardly noteworthy. Third, nearly all the sources are web-based only, and the ones that aren't are still editorial/opinion pieces. Fourth, no mainstream, traditional reliable sources are cited...if Levin created genuine controversy, it would make the news (such as Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" controversy, Coulter's "faggot" comment towards Edwards, Imus's "nappy headed hoes" comment). Lastly, under the BLP standards, in the "self-published sources" section it says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Media Matters is an opinion blog, and certainly fails the "never use self-published...websites...group blogs" standard.

Can anyone cite a news article in the New York Times? A news alert from a major television news program? Any consequences of these alleged controversies (i.e., has Levin had his columns pulled, his show canceled in certain areas, a boycott against him, condemnation from a non-partisan site, massive protests, or has Levin been forced to apologize for anything)? Shouldn't these reasonable standards be applied to decide what's a noteworthy controversy?

The comparison to Michael Savage's criticism section falls flat because Savage's actions were indeed picked up by mainstream media sources (as cited on his Wiki page), he lost advertisers, was condemned by non-partisan groups, and was banned from entering the U.K. for a while. The criticism/controversies of Savage are undoubtedly noteworthy, as evidenced by mainstream media stories, and obvious consequences to his actions. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Again, I find it humorous (to say the least) that User:Bob Mifume insists that MMfA is a reliable source for such criticism. (When I noted that on his talk page, he simply removed the comment, hoping it would go away.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to take a user seriously when his edit summaries consist of things like, "rv. 'CNS News' is a right-wing editorial site, and does not conform to RS", yet considers Media Matters to be a "mainstream, reliable source." Bob further hurts his credibility with edit summaries that contain constant accusations of "advertising", "partisan", "member of the Mark Levin fan club", sockpuppet accusations, and this charming little nugget: "Rv hysterical 'abortionist' language/douchebaggery by asshole." I also chuckle at the hypocrisy of him pointing out editors who "have never been to this page before." Why anyone else would take him seriously deeply perplexes me. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Mifune's edits are lacking ... but the real problem here is that the section in question is so clearly in violation of BLP policy. As I have said earlier, moving this criticism to the page of his talk show (if it is ever created)would at the very least stop such violations of BLP policy. Even on such a page however, I still think this "criticism" is not noteworthy at all. Otherwise we should add all the criticism Levin makes of liberal politicians onto said politicians web sites. I don't think any responsible editor would allow Levin's criticisms of Obama/Pelosi/etc. or praise for conservative politicians to be included on the subjects BLP page.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an absurd comparison and you know it. Significant and representative criticism of Obama and Pelosi is included on their pages. Just because Levin's particular criticism of them isn't significant to the Obama and Pelosi articles doesn't mean that Frum's criticism of Levin is insignificant to this one. Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem particularly notable, nor controversial, that a radio talk show host would engage in overheated rhetoric. Almost all of them do that; it is the primary means of getting ratings in that industry. That this would draw criticisms from the opposite political extreme is, at best, unsurprising. Still, that the criticisms exist could reasonably be included if written IAW WP:NPOV and WP:BLP; that is, described from a neutral editorial position, rather than quoting directly a laundry list of the equally overheated accusations from the other side. Since most of the 'criticisms' do indeed stem from his radio show, perhaps such a description could be added to the section about the show, rather than in a stand-alone section.Flyer190 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is this. It says in the first sentence that MMfA criticizes Levin. Let that stand, and then in the later part of the text get rid of everything else attributed to MMfA. It seems to me that including all of those specific complaints from MMfA is redundant. If you did that, the criticism section would look like the following:

Levin has been criticized for statements he has made on his and others' shows. The progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America has been a frequent critic of Levin, citing his remarks on several occasions.

David Frum, a conservative journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has also criticized Levin's confrontational approach as an example of an "[...] increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters" and has accused him of contributing to an atmosphere that "invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence." Mark McKinnon, a Republican political consultant to George W. Bush and John McCain, has called Levin "truly a hate-monger" who "spews venom."

Levin has been criticized by journalist Dana Goldstein of sexism for derogatory remarks that he has made about the appearance of female politicians and members of organizations he disagrees with.

During his May 21, 2009 broadcast, in response to a female caller who spoke in defense of President Barack Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay, Levin shouted at the woman, "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here." Levin's outburst drew condemnation from both liberals and conservatives, including David Frum, who said that if a random listener overheard his remarks, their reaction would be "[...] something like, 'I dont know what’s wrong with that horrible man, but I do know this: whatever side he’s on, any decent person would have to be on the opposite.'"

I think that would be a good start in managing the criticisms. Piling on one MMfA criticism after another seems to be a POV effort. -- Atama頭 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I say MMFA is only reliable for information about itself. It does raise issues and links to the sources it feels support its opinions. Those sources may be useful for a Wiki article, but MMFA's views of those articles are not, except on the MMFA Wiki page perhaps. In others words, if someone wants to add something MMFA said, they should use the primary sources themselves to make that point, if legitimate, not the MMFA article itself. MMFA spin is not encyclopedic, except about itself. The underlying source may be encyclopedic and should be used instead. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The practice of citing MMfA multiple times in criticism sections about conservatives has been a frequent practice on WP. It borders on violating WP:COATRACK. I'm beginning to think that there is a concerted effort on Wikipedia to do this, kind of a WP version of Rush Limbaugh's "seminar callers." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the section proposed above is a good start, though you could trim some about Frum a bit since he's mentioned twice. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if trimmed in the fashion you describe, the section still does not comply with WP:NPOV. The sources quoted are cherrypicked: that is, they all represent one POV (see one-sided argument, or special pleading.) The choice of sources gives the appearance that the criticisms are coming equally from accross the political spectrum, and this is not remotely true. The two 'republicans' quoted are from the left edge of the party, and are in no way representative of the word 'conservative.' Also, NPOV states that we should avoid direct quotes from contentious debates: these criticisms should be described, not quoted. This is especially true given the requirments of WP:BLP.Flyer190 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Frum does not represent the left edge of anything and is certainly conservative. Levin has been criticized from both sides. And NPOV does not prohibit quotes, it just cautions against overly inflammatory statements. Better to quote than to risk mischaracterizing an argument. Otherwise we'll spend another year on this talk page trying to determine exactly how to describe Frum's criticism instead of just quoting him. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Frum most certainly is from the left edge of the conservative movement/Republican Party. He's one of several moderate conservatives who is trying to make his bones by railing about how "the extreme" of the right is ruining the party. As a rival/competitor of Levin, Limbaugh, et al, Frum's criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt. Just read his blog here: http://www.newmajority.com/were-number-3 where he laments being ranked 3rd among the "least liked and respected" conservative (as polled by conservative bloggers) but considers him and his ilk "a big improvement" over Limbaugh and Palin. Seems obvious to me he's to the left of the conservative movement. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaining about extremism doesn't push you towards the left edge of conservatism, any more than if I complained about, say, Code Pink, that would make me a right-wing liberal. Absurd. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apples, meet oranges. Limbaugh/Levin is hardly the conservative counterpart to Code Pink. Absurd. Do you have anything better than that skewed attempt at a parallel? And, 3rd place "least liked and respected" conservative says volumes about how the right thinks of Frum, whom they hardly consider one of their own. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We can play analogy bowl all day long, but you'll have to find some way to explain all the conservative publications he keeps getting published in and convince the editors at David Frum he's not the conservative they say he is in the first sentence. Good luck. Until then, we're not going to seriously consider the notion of Frum being of the left or a leftist or a left-wing conservative or any kind of left. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said he wasn't conservative, but you did a wonderful job of arguing against a point I never made. Perhaps your political scale is shifted to the left, since you consider Limbaugh the "extreme" wing of conservatism, Frum to be its center, and apparently believe there's no such thing as a conservative who is to the left of the mainstream conservative movement.

But regardless where Frum lies in the political spectrum, his criticism of Levin hardly provides balance. It's not political balance we're supposed to be seeking, but balance of opinion. If we must post criticisms of Levin from political commentators, there won't be a shortage of pundits and media figures on record praising or defending Levin that would likewise merit inclusion. I'd rather the page didn't go that route. It's all unworthy of an encyclopedia. Facts over opinion, I say.Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've confused you with another editor who thinks Frum is a liberal. Apologies. And this article should mention all points of view, praise and criticism, but let's not pretend Frum represents anything than what he actually is. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's easy enough here. We should have a chart of who's who! hahaha! --01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully disagree with the points about the editing. I maintain my opinion that as Limbaugh, Hannity, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow have pages for their shows, Levin should have a separate page for his show. As for the proposed edits. I believe the best way to put the criticisms in a NPOV would be to mention who criticized him something like,

Levin has been criticized for comments he has made on his show by diverse groups and individuals. Dana Goldstein, a journalist for several progressive publication, has accused Levin of sexism. Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has accused Levin of being overly confrontational. However, Levin's supporters respond...

In my opinion this would show that there is criticism from both progressives and Republicans, but talks about them in generalities. If someone wants to find the exact criticisms they can do the research themselves or go to the linked references. After all wikipedia does specifically state that it is not and does not try to be comprehensive. Also, most controversy sections do have responses as well. If the criticism are mentioned the rebuttals should also be included. Just my opinion. Ericsean (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:"...not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.”Flyer190 (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You left out the "try", making it seem like a commandment instead of a warning/guideline. "Try" again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This criticism section is absurd. it places great weight upon small items of a radio program which has run for hundreds of hours. can you imagine the outrage of a criticism section in the Barack Obama article if we added sourced pointed tidbits on his past drug use, ongoing chain smoking, sealing his school academic records and dissertation text, Reverend Wright, [removed per blp] Bill Ayers, [removed per blp] Rashid Khalidi, his sister's testimonial of his Muslim youth? the sources are also not reliable....numerous blogs. Please keep consistency in wikipedia and keep this small minded criticism garbage out of a BLP.Cdcdoc (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of the criticism is irrelevant. NPOV requires we cover the good and the bad, and the sources are by notable commentators like David Frum whose views are certainly reliable by WP standards. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This version seems pretty reasonable. Is there any objection to this besides "I don't like MMFA and Frum"? Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not whether anyone likes MMFA or not, it's whether they're an objective source or not. Their stated purpose it so criticize conservative media figures. Much of their content isn't even fact checking or pointing out bias, but just opinions. As for Frum, he and Levin are engaged in an on-going back and forth (before Levin started talking about Wikipedia on his show), so I don't know if that is an objective source either. The criticisms insinuating Levin is sexist shouldn't be included either because it's cherry-picked. He makes similar comments/nicknames for male political figures as well as news organizations. His style may not be appreciated but it is not targeted towards a specific gender, race, creed, etc. Wiki publius (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why they have to be "objective", we're not citing them for objective facts, but for their opinions on Levin, which is completely compatible with rules regarding sourcing. Gamaliel (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I am really confused about the policy now. Media Matters is definitely a progressive organization. Quoting their website, "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Obviously, they are not going to mention any conservative in a positive light, since they only want to 'correct misinformation'. I would consider them as objective as the Media Research Center would be. I do not see how either could be considered an objective organization. In my opinion, if one is to include criticisms from Media Matter, then it is fair game to include positive comments from equally non-objective organization or people on the political right. If it is the case that both are encyclopedic, then where is the boundary. I do not know which version you were say was best, but I would like you to consider the very trimmed proposal I made above. It mentions that he has been criticized by both sides giving an example of a specific criticism on each side. Then the would be a place for a brief mention of how his supports respond. This would make it similar to similar pages on here.Ericsean (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have said before that I support the inclusion of positive opinions of Levin. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section above is not representative, but is cherry picked for the most vile and extreme criticism, but more importantly the sources are not reliable sources. blogs and media matters dont really cut it for BLP issues. If media matters is so relevant, get a source such as the wall street journal that notes what media matters says. but this is all missing the main point. the criticism section is not parallel to treatment given to other controversial people such as obama, david letterman etc. and most of all, this muck raking material is un encyclopedic and an embarrassment to the wikipedia community. Cdcdoc (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of people appears in plenty WP articles. If you find a particular article lacking, please discuss that on the talk page of that article. If the examples we are discussing here are in fact not representative of the criticism of Levin, please provide examples which are representative of the criticism of Levin. Gamaliel (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism added

I just used info from the removed criticism section to add significant criticism from a reliable source. Hopefully this will go a long way toward reaching significant consensus on this issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] ttp://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910050008

[2] ttp://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909090001

[Frum1-3] Frum, David (2009-08-13). "The Reckless Right Courts Violence". New Majority. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[4] ttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-04/obamas-george-bush-problem/?cid=hp:mainpromo2

[Goldstein1-5] Goldstein, Dana (2009-05-22). "Do Conservative Talk Radio Hosts Ever Have Sex?". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[MMFA2-6] "Levin on his 'National Organization of Ugly Women' remark: '[F]or now on, it's the National Organization of Really Ugly Women'". Media Matters for America. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[MMFA3-7] "Mark Levin: Sotomayor is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds"". Media Matters for America. 2008-07-15. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[MMFA4-8] "On Hannity radio show, WABC's Levin said of Pelosi:'You could bounce a dime off her cheeks'". Media Matters for America. 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[Friedersdorf-9] Friedersdorf, Conor (2009-05-22). "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple". The American Scene. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[MMFA5-10] "Levin to female caller: "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here."". Media Matters for America. 2009-05-22. Retrieved 2009-08-18.

[Frum2-11] Frum, David (2009-05-22). "No Wonder People Hate Us". New Majority. Retrieved 2009-08-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]