Misplaced Pages

Charity involvement

I added a mention about Levin's involvement with Troopathon, a charity which makes care packages for soldiers. Is it okay to use the charity's homepage as a source, since Levin is pictured on the front page as a featured speaker? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable enough source for a brief mention. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 13 June 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Media Matters

Someone tried to add a "comments and criticism" section citing a bunch of Media Matters articles. Can we agree that a web-only, admittedly partisan opinion outlet fails to rise to the level of reliable source? And can we agree that if only the only sources we can find of these "controversies" are from partisan attack websites, then the incidents fail to rise to the level of notability?

I'm really annoyed that Media Matters, who's entire purpose is to attack the credibility of anyone they don't agree with, gets to decide what is controversial and what isn't. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the section in question, and I did so because it adds balance to an article that otherwise presents an incomplete picture of someone who is inarguably a controversial figure. And Media Matters is no less valid of a source than the right-wing National Review and Human Events, both of which are cited as sources in this article. Just because you personally disagree with Media Matters's politics doesn't make the information they provide any less truthful or valid.

If you believe that there are problems with the section I added, you're more than welcome to improve on it by citing sources that counter the information I've added or add context to it. Or if you have any evidence that anything I added is factually incorrect, feel free to remove it after specifically citing evidence to that effect. But attempting to suppress valid information from this article simply because you personally don't like the politics of the source that it came from, or because you're a fan of Mark Levin and don't want the article to contain any negative information about him, amounts to censorship and runs counter to what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about.76.187.136.200 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters does have a POV, but it is also generally reliable and notable. If we use their opinions they should be clearly attributed. The material added by 76.187.136.200 was probably much too long. I'd suggest cutting it down to a sentence or two, just listing their primary criticisms. Something like,"Levin has been criticized by MMA for what they characterize as ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source?!? It's a web-only opinion outlet. Nothing more than a well-funded BLOG with an openly stated partisan purpose. Not only are they non-POV, but they come close to fitting the definition of an extremist source.

It's the stated purpose of Media Matters to criticize people like Levin, so it's not at all noteworthy that an admittedly partisan watchdog site has complaints about a conservative host that is on the radio for 15 hours a week. If these instances were noteworthy, I maintain traditional news sources would have picked up on them...yet none can be found.

Levin has criticized Media Matters, yet his complaints don't appear on MM's wiki page. I can't support the double-standard that gives one opinion outlet prestige while denying it to another.

Sponsors have dropped advertising on Glenn Beck's show. Don Imus got fired. Dick Durbin apologized for comparing troops to Nazi's. Keith Olbermann was criticized by the ADL. That's because the events that lead to these consequences were truly controversial. Nothing in the screed against Levin has generated any sort of consequence or even bad publicity for Levin...in fact his show keeps getting picked up by more radio stations. It's asinine to consider his words to be "controversy" just because David Brock has been well-paid to say they are controversial. We need something a little stronger, don't you think?

Don't be surprised if other web-only opinion sources like Olbermann Watch and Hot Air are cited for nitpicking criticisms on the pages of left-wing pundits, considering the low standard for reliable sources we're setting here. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Will Beback. This seems like a reasonable approach. Gamaliel (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Before I reverted the section, Media Matters was cited 10 times (out of a total of 22 citations in the entire article). Media Matters doesn't get to write the entire criticism section, nor dictate its length. C'mom...if they are the ONLY source of criticism we can cite for these alleged "controversies", then THEY ARE NOT CONTROVERSIES! Can any partisan pundit with an audience of millions and 750 hours of airtime a year avoid any and all criticism? Don't controversies have consequences? Don't they make waves outside the far-left blogoshpere?

Or do we just contact someone who works at http://www.olbermannwatch.com/ to write a multi-paragraph, single-source "Criticism and Controversy" section on Keith Olbermann. In fact, I notice that any reference to Olbermann's use of the Nazi salute (while wearing an O'Reilly mask) has been scrubbed from Olbermann's wiki page, in spite of the fact that he was criticized openly by the ADL. THAT is more of a controversy than anything Levin has done to elicit the steady stream of whining from David Brock at Media Matters.

Furthermore, there is no reference on Jim Webb's page about the criticism he received for campaign literature that was viewed by some as anti-semitic, yet Levin gets accused of being a self-hating Jew for a SINGLE, LIVE COMMENT he made all because Media Matters said he was a anti-semitic? Nonsense!

The double-standard is a joke. Don't expect me to passively let Levin's page be turned into a pseudo-mirror site for Media Matter's anti-Levin section. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for the histrionics. Will Beback suggested a mere "sentence or two". Gamaliel (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. The article had become extremely unbalanced, and the criticism section nicely balances what had been pretty close to PR. I'm open to discussing here, but I think we can all avoid what Gamaliel correctly termed as "histrionics." --BobMifune (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's check the score. Three editors have reverted the edit in question. Two editors have said the edit needs to be drastically scaled back. On the other hand, two editors with a very sudden interest in this page keep re-adding the contentious edit. Both have ignored the growing consensus, and one of them has shown unprovoked hostility towards me in the past by using vulgarity and insulting me in an edit summary on another page.

10 out of 22 citations would be from Media Matters. It's unreasonable to claim that this is somehow up to Misplaced Pages standards. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's accurately check the score. Two known editors have reverted the edit in question. One with a history of reverting at will without explanation, and the other who has waged a hysterical POV campaign for months to remove any criticism of Levin from the page (that is, when he's not trying to claim the "Southern Strategy" never existed). Another revert came from an anon IP, which hardly is a case for consensus. I'd be happy to have the criticism section scaled back by a non-POV editor, but blanking it will not wash. --BobMifune (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking me to other talk pages then misrepresenting my words won't make your case. If you want to rail against users with anon ip's, then you're the only editor with any "standing" left defending these contentious edits...except that your very brief editing history doesn't lend you much credibility. Nor does your stalking, nor ignoring consensus, nor vulgar and abusive behavior. I'm going to seek admin intervention as you are way out of line.

And blanking it will wash. It's better than giving nearly half of the citations to Media Matters. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And this appears to be your fall-back mode. Throw a fit like a two-year-old, claim "stalking" when someone points out your contentious edit history, and start a revert war. Please "seek admin intervention." It will be a pleasure to bring your actions to light.

Media Matters is an acceptable, reliable source for subjects like this throughout Misplaced Pages. I've no wish to violate 3RR, so I'd encourage any non-POV editors to restore the criticism section, honing it as suggested by Gamaliel and Will Beback. --BobMifune (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters seems over-represented to me. It's fine saying what they think is controversial about the subject person, but it is a bit much when we dedicate several paragraphs to the opinion. The whole thing comes across as giving undue weight to the "controversy." HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the editor formerly known as 76.187.136.200 - per the above discussion, I have readded the controversies section but have reworked it in a way that I hope will address some of the reasonable suggestions that have been made. I've cut the section down - it's not quite down to 1-2 sentences but it is a lot shorter now - and have also added a few sources including a conservative source, and removed some of the MMFA cites since relevant text was remved from the section. I've also placed the section at the bottom of the page.

I don't want to wade too deep into the flame war that appears to have broken out here, except to say in response to Ynot4tony2's remarks about edits to the Keith Olbermann and Jim Webb pages that for the record, I think a similar section in both of those articles would be equally appropriate, and I personally wouldn't delete it if he added such a section (though I would reserve the right to make corrections or add context if I thought it were needed, as I would suggest he do here rather than simply deleting).BigTex71 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune, you obviously needed to misrepresent my edit history to make me look bad. All I need to do is point to yours. Vulgarity, abuse, and edit wars are the sort of things admins intervene on...not people guilty of "editing while conservative".

And someone, anyone, please address this question...how and why is any of this criticism actually noteworthy (aside from "Media Matters said it was")? You mean, a far-left pundit has criticized a far-right pundit? Stop the freakin' presses! That NEVER happens in political punditry. We MUST put this in every encyclopedia because it's so ground-breaking and outside the normal American experience. /sarcasm off

Oh, and also citing a "conservative" critic does NOT remove the POV of the section (and David Frum is a conservative every bit as much as Dick Morris is a liberal...get the parallel?). The section in question has cited a blog (Media Matters), another website so insignificant it doesn't even have a wiki page yet (Frum's New Majority), a blogger (Goldstein), Media Matters several more times, a seemingly unknown writer from yet another non-notable website, and David Frum and his obscure website again. No major news outlets, mind you...none of the traditional "reliable sources"...just a bunch of glorified, INTERNET ONLY blogs. If any of this were notable, couldn't someone at least find a single mention of each event in a major newspaper, or something that an actual honest to goodness television reporter reported on? Or can a blog determine what's noteworthy? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let us know when you wish to begin discussing the article reasonably, and in good faith. If you keep up the tantrums, there is more than enough harassment in your edit history to earn you an article ban, beginning with this one. --BobMifune (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ynot4tony2, of the 12 cites that were on this article before I added the controversies section, 8 were from either right-wing sources or Mark Levin's own writing - 2 from the National Review, and 1 each from the American Conservative Union, the Ronald Reagan Legal Center, Human Events, Move America Forward, and Chronicle Christian Newspaper, and one of Mark Levin's books. That's 2/3 of the cites in the entire article before I added what I did. Strangely enough, you didn't seem to have a problem with any of those sources despite their unmistakeable bias.

As for David Frum, I'm sorry if he's insufficiently orthodox as a conservative for your personal tastes, but he's widely acknowledged to be a conservative by people on both sides of the political spectrum, self-identifies as such, and he's a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, for god's sake. I'm pretty sure there aren't too many people, Dick Morris included, who consider Dick Morris a liberal. And to suggest that Frum isn't notable because the web site that he happened to be posting his opinion on is a few months old is laughable - aside from being Bush's speechwriter, he's also written for several prominent national publications in this country and abroad, has several books in print, and has appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher, Larry King, the O'Reilly Factor, the Colbert Report, Hardball, and Countdown. If he's a nobody then I suppose there are a lot of booking agents at these television shows who need to lose their jobs.

Media Matters is no more partisan than Move America Forward, and at least as noteworthy. The American Prospect is no more partisan than the National Review, no less prominent a national publication, and has twice as many readers. Your criticisms of what I added are ridiculous and clearly motivated by political bias. As said before, I believe I've done my part to address the constructive feedback that was offered above, but if you have a problem with what I posted, feel free to improve on it by including properly cited information that counters what I added or adds context to it. This isn't a Mark Levin fansite, however much you might want it to be. BigTex71 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole section is not encyclopedic -- it sounds like a rant. A rant about ranting, no less.

Look at the first sentence: "Levin has been accused by critics on the left, including blogger Dana Goldstein, of sexism for derogatory remarks that he has made about about female political figures and organizations." Accused by a blogger? So what? Misplaced Pages does not allow blogs as sources for anything other than the blogs themselves. So why is opening the whole section based on what a blogger said any different. It's not different. It's a rant about a rant, not encyclopedic, and should be removed.

Mr. Levin's rants are part of what make him entertaining, sometimes newsworthy, but particularly successful. See, for example, http://www.wabcradio.com/rant/ . So perhaps the page should include a section about his rants, and include some of the existing ones that now sound like unencyclopedic rants about rants. But all the Media Matters links to prove sexism, etc., is over the top when Media Matters is a reliable source for reliably taking snippets out of context and spinning them in one direction only.

Lest anyone think the purpose is to remove all criticism, that is not what I am suggesting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Goldstein is a professional journalist, not just a blogger, and the blog that her remarks appeared in is afffiliated with a nationally published political magazine. She is an associate editor at The American Prospect, and her writing has appeared in several national publications that are both partisan and non-partisan. So the identification of her as a mere blogger was an error on my part, and has now been corrected with my apologies.

As for the assertion that the section sounds like a rant and is unencyclopedic, that's just nonsense. The fact that what you refer to as rants (or what others might refer to as hate speech) might be entertaining or widely listened to is irrelevant to the fact that they were controversial and have garnered notable criticism. If there are sources that have countered the allegations that some of his remarks were sexist, or have otherwise defended his remarks against the general criticism that has been leveled against them, then they would certaintly be appropriate to include in this section and I would defend doing so. But to blank out almost the entire section is an attempt at censorship, nothing more. BigTex71 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Goldstein? Who? And that link that's linked, it goes where? To a blog? To a blog. The "liberal intelligence" blog. Does that mean the usually rules about blogs not being reliable sources need not apply in the interest of using Misplaced Pages to cast the page's subject in a negative light by singling out snippets here and there? There's a reason why Misplaced Pages steers clear of blogs--this is one of them. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages rules refer to self-published blogs, and the blog in question is not self-published - it's on the web site of a nationally published magazine. Keep trying. BigTex71 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "keep trying" is not very wikifriendly. While you are belittling me here, each time I have said something you have edited/improved the page in response to my legitimate concerns. BigTex71, please consider working collaboratively instead of making editing a drag waiting for the next snide remark of a personal nature. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider practicing what you preach. While I've been working to improve the section in question, you and a couple of other Mark Levin fans keep trying to blank out all or most of it, in a thinly veiled attempt to keep the article free of anything that might make Levin look bad. Where was all this concern before I added the section, when 2/3 of the cites for the article were from right-wing web sites? BigTex71 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not for the reason you stated. Rather because a list of rants is just not encyclopedic. People have said, and I agree, a quick summary that Media Matters says so and so, but the long list of rants is just plain not encyclopedic. I edit lots of pages in a similar fashion, whether I'm a fan of the subject matter or not or neither. It makes no difference. As to where was my previous concern, I just plain didn't notice previously--I don't edit here much. Will you please stop directing your comments at me personally? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I just noticed this Media Matters hit piece: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280012 The subject matter is substantially similar to the list of rants sought to be added here. I am certain, what, plagiarism?, of a Media Matters hit piece?, is one more nail in the coffin of the list of rants sought to be added here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism? Really? This discussion is growing increasingly absurd as the members of the Mark Levin Fan Club grow increasingly desperate. BigTex71 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and still get together in a positive way to edit articles - that's what it's all about." 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. I'm no Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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'. He also referred to US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds', and has nicknamed former Democratic Senator and current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton 'Hillary Rotten Clinton' and 'Her Thighness'. 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."

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 Misplaced Pages community nor for the rules that require such decency. You restore edits that are clear Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. - 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

RFCU needed

I am curious. It concerns me that this all summed up to the statement that Media Matters is a "progressive watchdog organization for conservative information." That really tranlates to me as "media hacks spinning liberal talking points against the nearest conservative target." The only fact is that there is actual information here. There is spewing of poison that is driven by political ideology. I am curious where that is appropriate in a purported encyclopedia forum?

Now whether you are a fan or not, there is no need for the viscious rhetoric that is going left and right. I do not pile up with conservatives or liberals when I am trying to find some factual information. This may be why I look to information from publications like Liberty and Tyranny, as apposed to Misplaced Pages, when I need to know the answer to a question.

Protection

Applied because of spate of irresponsibly incited vandalism. Rodhullandemu 16:41, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. Rodhullandemu 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. Rodhullandemu 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Rodhullandemu 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. Rodhullandemu 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)

Bias

The Mark Levin article in its current form serves as an unfortunate example of biased writing, which should not be present in a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.” (Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles. Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 "Misplaced Pages 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 - Misplaced Pages 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)