| Revision as of 04:45, 26 December 2020 editEpiphyllumlover (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,091 edits →Editorial about this article: addTag: Reverted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:00, 21 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,937,080 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep B; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (44 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|long}}{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}}{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBanners|1= |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B |
|
| ⚫ |
|listas=Levin, Mark}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Philadelphia|class=Start|importance=mid}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Radio|class=Start|importance=high}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=Start|importance=mid}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Start|importance=high}} |
|
|
|collapsed=yes |
|
|
|blp=yes}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=120}} |
|
{{Annual readership|days=120}} |
|
{{US English}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Calm|#FFCCCC}} |
|
{{Calm|#FFCCCC}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
{{Recruiting}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes |
|
{{press |
|
|
⚫ |
|blp=yes|listas=Levin, Mark| |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Philadelphia|importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Radio|importance=high}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
| author=Tim Graham |
|
| author=Tim Graham |
|
| title=Mark Levin Slams 'GOP Consultant' As Having 'Integrity of a Sham-wow Salesman' for Accusing Him of 'Hate Language' |
|
| title=Mark Levin Slams 'GOP Consultant' As Having 'Integrity of a Sham-wow Salesman' for Accusing Him of 'Hate Language' |
| Line 44: |
Line 43: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
| Line 55: |
Line 53: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Pennsylvania == |
|
== Adding who makes claims about him == |
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to first ask {{who|}} that claimed he is "right wing", but it was removed with the comment . Then I put it in myself and it was removed with the comment , removing content and quotes. It is a good practice to include the exact citation, who has made it in what source. By not providing the source it looks like something all agree on. Here we have the left wing sources that describe him like that. Not one conservative have been used to describe/pace him. This looks like a hit on him by some of his political opponents? How can this be clarified. I would prefer that the right wing section will be taken out if the persons claiming it is named. Is this "unreadable"?: |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="toccolours"> |
|
|
… |
|
|
He has been described as "right-wing" by ] from the left leaning ] in 2017<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/media/mark-levin-joel-pollak-breitbart-trump-obama/index.html|title=Trump's wiretap claim: How a conspiracy theory got its start|last=Stelter|first=Brian|date=2017-03-06|website=CNNMoney|access-date=2017-08-24|quote=An incendiary idea first put forward by right-wing radio host Mark Levin is now burning across Washington}}</ref>, by ] in ] in 2009<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/graham-takes-on-conservatives-025361|title=Graham takes on conservatives|work=Politico|access-date=2017-08-24|quote=Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it}}</ref> and by ] in the left leaning ] in 2017<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/business/media/fox-news-mark-levin.html|title=Fox News to Bolster Its Conservative Lineup With Mark Levin|last=Grynbaum|first=Michael M.|date=2017-11-21|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-11-22|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|quote=that another hard-line conservative is set to join its ranks: Mark Levin, one of the country’s most prominent right-wing radio hosts}}</ref> and "conservative" by ] in the left leaning ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/trump-far-alt-right-syria.html|title=Trump's Far-Right Supporters Turn on Him Over Syria Strike|last=Haag|first=Matthew|date=2017-04-07|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-08-24|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|quote=The radio host Hugh Hewitt said the missile launch was “justice for these children.” Mark Levin, another conservative host, agreed. “We’re proud of you,” he said of the president. Laura Ingraham, a conservative commentator}}</ref> |
|
|
… |
|
|
<references/> |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
] (]) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Attribution now added. I did not do so for "conservative" because it meant repeating the phrase ''The New York Times''. As it is both descriptions seem uncontentious for someone like Levin who uses the phrase "Republican in Name Only". As far as I am aware, ''Breitbart'' is the only online outlet which might describe CNN as "left wing", but editors' on this website cannot use that website. ] (]) 20:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: We do not need to attribute the "right-wing" description when multiple RS say it, and it is not contested in any way. If Levin isn't "right-wing", then no one is. ] (]) 20:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] states "Google's left-leaning media bias revealed: Academic study exposes how search engine massively over-promotes results from liberal news websites over right"] by referring to a paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300683 that "Google's bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others. ". ] (]) 21:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Restored the correct order of comments, Snooganssnoogans followed mine. The ''Daily Mail'' is ] on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Cross you must be living under a rock if that is the only time and place you have ever heard CNN called "liberal" or " left-wing". ] (]) 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality is clearly finessed in this item. == |
|
|
|
|
|
The test of “Content must be written from a neutral point of view” is whether, after it is written, a neutral observer will see it as free from any clear bias. Here, the bias is clear. Using negative critics, usually without reference to specific errors in an author’s writings, serves no purpose other than to denigrate. An unbiased article would simply highlight the significant points of a book. There may be as many critics as there are readers, but quoting their opinions is superfluous. Here favorable comments are followed by strongly negative remarks which allows the bias to be cloaked in an appearance of balance. I made no changes to this article, because it needs wholesale revision, which I suspect the bias will prevent. ] (]) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Fredric Williams 11/9/2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
:If the majority of quality sources are critical of the subject, then the article will follow suit. We do not create a ] by dredging up poor-quality sources just because they like the subject. ] (]) 16:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with the above. Not a neutral article. The talk in the two preceding paragraphs is spot on. The article is not encyclopedic. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2019, the PA legislation changed voting rules. I have been told that it included the ability of the Governor to make changes in special circumstances. You have told us that the voting regulations could only be changed with an amendment to the state constitution. Both cannot be correct, which one is right? ] (]) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Can false claims of election fraud be described as "false"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== IPA of the name Levin == |
|
The editor Springee removed "false" in front of indisputably false claims of fraud in the 2020 election, leaving it unclear to readers whether there is merit to accusations of fraud or not (there is no merit). The editor cried BLP, but there is of course no BLP violation. The text reflects both the cited source and is required per ]. ] (]) 14:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:You can describe them as "false according to the NYT" or other attributed source. We should not state in wiki-voice that a person has made a false claim. It is a BLP claim, in this case BLPGROUP to suggest that people are making "wild and false" claims in wiki voice. Additionally it violates NPOV, "Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.". ] (]) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree. NPOV requires we remove opinion, not facts. ] <small>(])</small> 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Calling something "wild" is an opinion. The allegations of voter fraud are in a gray area since we aren't reviewing a specific claim. Again this should be attributed if we are going to say false and "wild" is a label that shouldn't be included at all. ] (]) 14:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Since claims of election fraud have been thrown out by the Supreme Court (and other courts), the results of the Popular Vote have been certified by the 50 states and the Electoral College has met to declare Joe Biden the winner of the Presidential election, I believe it is entirely possible to describe claims of fraud as being "false". ] (]) 15:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Which case? For example, the Texas case was not rejected based on the evidence, rather based on the view that Texas didn't have standing. Also, as the WaPo says here], "There has not been evidence presented of any significant fraud, which is the second qualifier. We’re not concerned here about a few dozen illegally cast votes, should such a thing be demonstrated. We’re talking about the existence of enough fraud to call the results of the election into question — meaning tens of thousands of fraudulent votes." So if someone says "no fraud" the WaPo wouldn't claim that has been proven. They would only claim that any level of fraud is not enough to change the outcome of the election (BTW, that is a view I agree with). This is why I think we have to be careful to present this impartially. The term "wild" is hyperbole and shouldn't be included. Even "false" is proving a negative and thus isn't a claim we can logically make. "Unproven" or "no evidence of significant" is demonstrable and better follows IMPARTIAL. ] (]) 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agree with Springee. Leave out terms that are not necessary to convey the facts neutrally. ] 17:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think Philip Cross's edits are improvements as it's more true to the source. However, we shouldn't say what it lead the audience to think. We simply don't know that. Instead we should say what the guest argued for. Thus, "He frequently had guests on his show who led the audience to think Joe Biden's win in the presidential election could be overturned." could be "He frequently had guests on his show who argued Joe Biden's win in the presidential election could be overturned." ] (]) 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I also agree with Springee. There are still some ongoing legal cases, and I'm pretty sure we have readers who would appreciate (and maybe will even contribute to the next WMF fund raiser) if our articles represent all significant views, in addition to being accurate and informative. It's not quite time to sweep it all under the carpet. ] ] ] 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please change the IPA of Mark Levin's name to "/ləˈvɛn/" (second vowel pronounced as the E in DRESS) as this is how he, the narrator in his show's intro, and everyone I've heard all pronounce his name. I've never heard it pronounced with /ɪ/ (like the I in KIT) ] (]) 00:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Editorial about this article == |
|
|
I do not endorse this editorial, but think it might be useful to readers of this talk page because of the detail it provides: {{nowrap|https://www. breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/13/wikipedia-editors-smeared-mark-levin-in-multiyear-campaign/amp/}} "Misplaced Pages Editors Smeared Mark Levin in Multiyear Campaign" by T. D. Adler. The editorial was described here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-wikipedia-editor-says-website-engaged-in-multiyear-smear-campaign-against-mark-levin |
|
|
--] (]) 04:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
In 2019, the PA legislation changed voting rules. I have been told that it included the ability of the Governor to make changes in special circumstances. You have told us that the voting regulations could only be changed with an amendment to the state constitution. Both cannot be correct, which one is right? 2604:2D80:D111:6300:D480:28AB:EE04:BFF5 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Please change the IPA of Mark Levin's name to "/ləˈvɛn/" (second vowel pronounced as the E in DRESS) as this is how he, the narrator in his show's intro, and everyone I've heard all pronounce his name. I've never heard it pronounced with /ɪ/ (like the I in KIT) 71.114.80.190 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
