Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blog Links

First off, in compliance with Wikipedia policy, I've archived all discussion through June 1, 2006 as this Talk page was becoming too long and unwieldly. The last active Talk discussion was dated June 1, 2006, so this seemed reasonable.

Regarding the Blog links at the bottom of the article: Rather than engaging in an insert/delete edit war, I suggest we discuss them here. Consistent with other radio/media personality articles on the site, I agree we should include samples of both praise/support and criticism/anti opinion. I do think, however, that the links must be -relevant- to what we're discussing.

With the exception of the link to Levin's own blog and a link to the legal foundation he runs, we have had the following on this page for some time:

• Link to 'Mark Levin Fan' site, which is pro-levin and includes commentary on the show and clips.

• Link to Lithwick's critique of Levin's 'Men in Black' book, which is a good criticism of Levin's legal philosophy, as evidenced in his book and on his show.

Looking through the edit history, these appear to have been included for at least the past year, so I assume consensus on those.

Two recent additions:

• Link to a blog site criticizing a Levin guest stint on the Sean Hannity show from Christmas, 2004. I've retitled this, as it was originally added by an anonymous user as a criticism of the Mark Levin show, which is misleading. Otherwise, it seems fine to keep, if not a tad minor/irrelevant.

• Link to a Media Matters release put out in response to Levin mentioning them on air as a 'Lib outfit' that he's going to keep an eye on (I'm paraphrasing here). The entie Media Matters release consists of Levin's on-air quote and a Media Matters discussion of their tax status, funding, mission, lack of affiliation with Kerry/Edwards '04, and a link to their site inviting readers to come take a look.

The last one seems a bit out of place in a Wikipedia article on Mark Levin. It's more of a description of Media Matters than anything else and it doesn't add anything to the Levin article by its inclusion. Nor does deleting it 'censor' or exclude anything unflattering about Levin himself. The 'Levin-isms' and description of his show format make it pretty clear what his feelings on Liberals/Progressives are.

My personal opinion, based on looking at other entries on Wikipedia, is that external links should be relevant and address the subject of the article. On that basis, I think the existing two consensus links, plus the critique of his guest stint on Hannity, are relevant. The Media Matters press release, which doesn't address Levin or his show or represent a 'dispute', should not be included.

In the interests of consensus, I'm interested in thoughts and comments on what the right balance of links at the bottom would be.FLeeLevin 12:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are misstating the nature of the Media Matters link. It is not a press release. It is the exact same article format of hundreds of articles on the Media Matters site. It is, specificially, an account of Levin's charges against MM on his radio show, complete with an audio link to what Levin said, and a response from Media Matters defending it against those charges (thus, "their tax status, funding, mission, lack of affiliation with Kerry/Edwards '04," etc.)

The link is relevant and addresses the article subject appropriately enough to be included. Based on your username, and the fact that your entire edit history has been devoted exclusively to tamping down criticism on Levin's page, I have no reason to assume you are editing in good faith. I am restoring the link. Eleemosynary 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no audio link on the Media Matters page and it only describes one quote of Levin's from 2004 where he mentioned Brock's group. It was originally presented on this page by an anonymous editor as an account of Levin's "dispute" with Media Matters, which hardly seems the case. If anything, they appear to have enjoyed the free advertising from one mention on Levin's show. So I question the notability and relevance of including this link. Are we to open up all media personality pages to inclusion of every single blog or media watchdog mention, regardless of notability? My understanding is that these were encyclopedia entires, not clearinghouses for every pro/anti link in existence. If you insist on belaboring this point (I have no interest in joining one of your revert wars), let's at least describe the link for what it is (which you've attempted to do, and I've added to). I would also like to hear what other editors think.

As for my posting history and user neame, I wask that you please refrain from personal attacks and assuming bad faith. I've taken an interest in improving this article, which has included reverting Levin-isms above the consensus limit of 5 and also arguing for inclusion of the Lithwick critique. Finally, I've actually tried to take this dispute to the article Talk Page (which incidently was an overly long mess of outdated flames and cheap shots) in order to be constructive and avoid a revert war. I don't think I'm deserving of such a cheap shot, so I ask that you please refrain in the future.FLeeLevin 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an audio link of Levin on the linked page. Click it, and you will hear Levin talking about Media Matters. You continue to misstate the nature of the Media Matters page. And you continue to attack the Media Matters page as if you have a dog in the hunt. Your "free advertising" comment is indicative of that.

You have given, by virtue of your edit history, clear reasons to assume bad faith. Saying as much is not a personal attack. Although you have not reverted consensus that existed on the page prior to your registering as "FLeeLevin" (a moniker which Levin himself occasionally uses), you have removed sourced criticisms of Levin, dismissing them as "unremarkable" and "press releases." To wit, you referred to bestselling author Glenn Greenwald's blog, which criticized Levin, as "unremarkable" and then removed the reference without further comment. It is not a "cheap shot" to assume bad faith in this instance. Your neutrality tag is out of place. I'll be restoring Greenwald's link. Eleemosynary 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Media Matters" is a sufficiently notable group that their criticsm of Levin deserves mention. A quick check of their website indicates that they have posted several pieces about him. However I'm not sure that the one we link to is the most comprehensive. -Will Beback 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I'm open to linking to the most comprehensive article they have on Levin. Eleemosynary 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming Media Matters is not notable. I'm claiming that the particular article linked has little relevance to the subject matter of this article. It spends more time discussing Media Matters than it does Levin and offers no substantive comment or critique of Levin (the subject of this article). I'm also curious on your opinion of whether Wikipedia is meant to be a clearinghouse of all blog mentions of a media personality, or is there a relevance criteria that should be used? We've limited the "Levin-isms" by consensus to 5, should we not have a similar quota on pro/con Levin blog links and at least make sure the ones we include are relevant? Finally, as an administrator, I ask that you review the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith made against me by another user. I will not respond in kind, however this page should not be held hostage to such belligerent behavior. I thought this was a communal effort.FLeeLevin 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is part of a set of related projects, including Wikibooks, Wikimedia, Wikicommons, etc. One, Wikiquotes, is the designated repository for quotations. So when we limit the number of quotations in this article, it is only in deference to our sister project. Separately, NPOV requires that all notable viewpoints be included, so even negative views must be included. -Will Beback 09:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No argument on whether or not "negative views" should be included. I'm questioning if *every* negative mention of Levinon every blog needs to be characteried on this page. As you've said yourself, the Media Matters link under discussion is probably not the best example of one to include.FLeeLevin 11:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mark_Levin talk page comments (copied from Eleemosynary's Talk Page)

Please try to keep things civil on the Mark Levin page. I have no beef with you and you have no basis to make accusations for an editor not making good faith edits. Our interactions so far on that page have been civil and I think what we need there is consensus, not more of the revert wars that seem to be the norm on that article. Thank you.FLeeLevin 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I indeed have several bases on which to categorically state you are making (albeit subtle) bad faith edits on the Mark Levin page. Your edit history is confined to tamping down criticism of Levin, and dismissing sources that criticize him as "unremarkable blogs" and "press releases." Your two non-Levin edits (as of yesterday) were to tamp down criticism of Bob Grant, a former WABC personality, and WABC. Wikipedia has several editors who seem extremely interested solely in burnishing the reputations of WABC radio personalities, and are probably employees of the station, or of PR firms the station employs. I have reason to believe you're one of them. Eleemosynary 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this time that you copied this item here from your talk page. I blanked it as you had originally included it here as if I had posted it myself. I ask again that you please remain civil and assume good faith. I have made numerous edits to help improve the Levin article (including reverting vandalism and violations of the consensus that only 5 "Levin-isms" at a time be included). I would be fine with a Media Matters link in this article, assuming it was of relevance (and one other editor, above, agrees on this not being the best example to include). I also stand by my question on whether this article need be a clearinghouse for every single mention of Levin in a blog, regardless of relevance. Or should we employ some standard (as used on many other articles) where representative, relevant items are included. My edit to the WABC page that you keep bringing up was to revert blatant POV (I invite any other editors to take a look for themselves). I have never edited Bob Grant's article, so I don't know what you are talking about there. I don't see any edit to that article in my history. Regardless, I find your beligerance and repeated unsubstantiated accusations that I work for WABC or a PR firm to be insulting and against Wikipedia rules. Please refrain from this. I'm here to participate in this communal effort and to help this particular article rise above the flames, revert wars and partisan hostage holding it has been subject to. I have no other skin in the game outside of an interest in the subject of the article and and won't respond in kind to the style of combatativeness that you are employingFLeeLevin 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You made two edits on the WABC page. One tamped down criticism of Grant. I incorrectly stated you had edited his page.

However, I stand by the rest of my statements. You have been concerned solely with unilaterally removing criticism of Levin, and have stated blatant falsehoods about the Media Matters page. I don't buy a word you're saying about wanting to participate in a "communal effort." Based on your edit history, the odds are you are a deliberate POV advocate for Levin, and are trying to "game the system" by doing the typical "please obey Wikipedia rules" dodge. It won't wash. I can't prove you work for WABC or a PR Firm, but that's certainly the appearance your edit history gives.Eleemosynary 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's mediate this beef

Hello. I am Alexander. I will be your host tonight. My goal is to get you two to stop fighting and to settle your differences after the fashion of civilized people. First I must disclose my relevant biases: I am a WABC listener, but I enjoy only Laura, Kuby, Rush, and Gambling, in that order. Mark irritates me. I am generally a conservative, but can't stand Mark's nativist rhetoric. I am a law student. I am Jewish. </disclosure>. I'll stay as neutral as I can be - and I think I can be.

Now, acceptable sources are generally governed by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources here on Wikipedia. Go ahead and read it. And let's discuss changes before we implement them - I will help you decide what's includable and how it should be included. Feel free to write down your positions on this page, broken down point by point if possible. I am logging off but will return in a couple of hours. Most importantly, remember - this is a collaborative project, not a vehicle for agenda pushing or political expression. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - important! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the page. Thanks for the disclaimers, particularly the one about how to handle bios of living persons. One clarification on my concern here. I'm not so much debating the reliability of sources here, Media Matters is clearly a well known outfit. I'm questioning the relevance of the link, which contains no substantive criticism of Levin, his ideology, or his show. Two of the other recent links criticize a 2004 guest sting on Hannity's show and a Levin blog entry on Iran. I'd even question the relevance of those two, but would err on the side of including them if others really want them, since they do at least speak to Levin's ideology. The Media Matters link does not and just seems extraneous.

I'm also interested in what the standards are for the number of links included in an external sources section. Should every single mention of Levin be included, or should we limit these to relevant, substantive mentions? The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page talks about not overwhelming a page with pro or anti information, giving a false impression of majority opinion. I could dig up a dozen positive mentions of Levin in the Blogosphere and include them here, but don't think they'd necessarily be relevant or add to the article. And they'd present an unbalanced view of opinion on Levin. My suggestion would be to liit to a couple pro and a couple con, and choose ones that are actually substantive (such as the Lithwick criticism of Levin's book, which is substantive and well written). Otherwise, we become a blog mention clearinghouse.

Finally, thank you for your good faith effort to intervene here. I wouldn't call this a "beef" on my part, however. I'm here editing in good faith and will not respond in kind to incivility, which doesn't help improve the article in question. Regarding my user name, I'm a listner and fan of the show (although I prefer Laura, myself). No other affiliation with Levin or WABC. Look forward to working with you on this.FLeeLevin 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FLeeLevin has changed his username at my urging, and per the username policy. His new identity is NYCTommy (talk • contribs), where all his talk messages and contributions have been transferred. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian - thank you for all your efforts to help improve this page and raise the tone of discourse. Not only have you been a more than effective voice of neutral reason, but you've also made some darn good copy edits to the article and cleaned it up quite well. Would it be too much to ask for you to keep this article and talk page on your "Watch" list for the time being, to prevent a slide back to the unsubstantiated edits and revert wars that have occurred in the past? Now that Levin's show is nation-wide, there are going to be POV pushers and vandals of all political stripes spending more time on this particlar article. Thanks for your help. NYCTommy 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is called "working the refs." Eleemosynary 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Others would call it good manners and civility. Have you read WP:CIV yet? NYCTommy 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I have. Long before you were ever registered here. Criticism is not the same as incivility. And effusiveness is not the same as civility. Eleemosynary 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So what are the issues?

Start by telling what portions of the article you wish to change, and to what, down to the actual text, and let's see if we can agree on these changes, one by one. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FLeeLevin's position

Thanks for stepping in here. For the most part, I think the current page is in decent shape, if not a little over-zealously trimmed back in previous edit wars - particularly sections on Levins prior experience and the format and content of his show. But what is left is factual, NPOV and verifiable. My biggest issue now is the "External Sources" section of the page, which has had three recent additions by anonymous editors that are all "anti" Levin and not all as relevant or notable as others. They've seemed like attempts to pad the article with "anti" sources. I've deleted and given reasons, others have added back, and I've suggested we discuss on this page (see first entry above) when all hell broke loose with accusations and incivility.

Let's look at the External Sources currently included. My understanding is these should relate to the subject of the article itself (Mark Levin). We have:

• a link to Levin's own blog at NRO (relevant to Levin, consensus has previously been to include),
• a link to the Legal Foundation Levin runs (relevant to Levin, consensus has previously been to include),
• a link to a Levin fan blog with show audio and articles on Levin (relevant to Levin, consensus has previously been to include),
• a link to an unfavorable review of Levin's book at Salon.com (relevant to Levin, consensus has been to include),
• a link to a Glen Greenwald blog post on the "crazed face of neo-conservatism", that mentions two Levin blog posts from July 2006 among criticism of other conservative pundit comments. I thought the source was reather unremarkable, however another editor has pointed out he is a best-selling author. (added by anon user recently, mixed consensus on including. Given the broad nature of Greenwald's commentary, I suggested in my edit comment that the editor cite it in the text as a specific criticism of Levin's philosophy, rather than have as an External Source)
  • Eleemosynary's response: FLeeLevin is incorrectly stating that "consensus" has been reached to include these links. Though the first three haven't been disputed, there was no "consensus" discussion on the Talk Page for them. I disagree that the Landmark Legal Foundation link has any place on the page, but I'm not going to fight for its removal. Regarding the Greenwald link, it is not "broad commentary," but addresses Levin in detailed paragraphs before going on to address other conservative authors. I'm fine if it's cited either as an article or an external source, but not if it's deleted and tagged as an "unremarkable blog."
• a link to an entry at "albionmonitor.com" criticizing a Levin guest hosting spot on the Sean Hannity show from 2004. (added by an anon user, mixed consensus on including. This seems a tad irrelevant/unnotable/unsubstantive, especially since it is not related to Levin's show and the article already notes how there are critics of his style and how he treats his "Lib" callers.)
  • Eleemosynary's response: This source could easily be removed.
• a link to a Media Matters release from 2004 in response to Levin accusing them of being a partisan organization that he would be keeping an eye on. Other than repeating Levin's 2004 quote, the rest of the release is a description of Media Matters, discussion on their funding, tax status, political affiliations and an invitation for readers to visit their site. No criticism, commentary or discussion of Levin. (added by an anon user, mixed consensus on including. Was originally presented as documenting MM's "dispute with Levin", which is not accurate. My opinion is there is nothing substantive or notable contained within the text that warrants inclusion in the Levin article).
  • Eleemosynary's response: Ah, here's the rub. It's not a "release," or a "press release," as FLeeLevin has claimed several times. It's an article, among hundreds of other articles, on an extremely heavily trafficked website, that addresses Levin's own words and links to audio of them. Do a search for "Mark Levin" on Media Matters and you'll find several other articles about Levin. The "funding and tax status" information which FLeeLevin claims makes the article unworthy of linking to directly addresses what Levin is accusing Media Matters of (that they're Kerry-Edwards shills, etc.). That's why that information is on the page. FLeeLevin's insistence that the page is a press release is disingenuous. The Media Matters page states Levin's position, links to audio of it, and rebuts it.

So of the above, we have consensus on the first 4 items and mixed views on the last three. The anonymous users who added the last three have not put forth any rationale or reasoning for including them and the editor who has put them back has stated his reasons, most of which have to do with accusations that I'm not editing in good faith, for putting them back.

My view is as stated above. Of the three "disputed items", I think the Greenwald link, as it is not specifically about Levin, is better cited in the body of the article as an example of criticism of Levin's "neocon" positions. I still maintain the "albionmonitor.com" link is irrelevant and unnotable, given the article already criticizes Levin's style, however it is at least solely devoted to Levin, if not very dated. The Media Matters link adds nothing to the article, does not represent a "dispute" with Levin, and offers no information that would add to a Wikipedia reader's understanding of the subject of this article. It should not be included.

I think we need relevance and substantiveness standards for including an external source in the article, otherwise this becomes a clearinghouse for including every pro and anti Levin link on the internet - and subject to oneupsmanship to balance out "pro" and "anti" sources - in direct violation of the policies you posted on biography standards for living persons. I can surf the conservative blogosphere right now and find a dozen "pro" Levin blog mentions of his show, book or blog. I could argue these "belong on the page" using the same thin rationale as used for the disputed "anti" links, however I wouldn't be improving the article or adding anything to a reader's understanding of Levin. I think we should strive for quality over quantity.FLeeLevin 23:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Eleemosynary's position

I'll keep this brief.

The link to the Media Matters article about Levin would be completely relevant on the page. At least one other editor on the Talk page has concurred with that opinion. Removing the link out of hand, repeatedly labeling it a "press release," and claiming the page has no audio link to Levin is bad faith editing, and smacks of spin.

• FLeeLevin's response: Can you give rationale for how this release from MM is "about Levin"? How does a reader of this Wikipedia article know anything more about Levin by nature of reading the MM release? It is one isolated levin quote *about MM*, and a detailed response to Levin that is *all about MM*. No commentary on Levin, no dispute, and nothing substantive *about Mark Levin*. I found the audio link you were talking about, on the upper riht hand side of the MM page, however it is a Levin quote talking about the FTC and does not seem to match to the quote MM is discussing. Secondly, the "one other editor" on thei Talk Page (Beback) does not concur on this specific MM release. He stated above that this is probably not the best example to include. If there is an MM release that deals substantively with Levin as a broadcaster or a legal pundit, I would also support including that here. (See Sean Hannity page for an example of a substantive MM release). Finally, I will ask you again to please stop the accusations of bad faith and spin here. This entire situation is being mediated on the talk page civilly, which is an exception to the rule given the revert wars and flames that have characterized this page's history. Why do you persist with accusations? Let's resolve this an improve the article, please.FLeeLevin 12:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Asked and answered. I have given plenty of "rationale" for the Media Matters link already on this page. You insist it's not relevant; I say it is, based on what appears on the page. I referenced Will Beback as approving of Media Matters, though perhaps recommending another one of its Levin's pages. I've already stated I'd be fine if a different Levin article on MM was linked to.

Nevertheless the current link addresses Levin directly, and is substantive, if not an all-emcompassing biography of Levin.

I'm not going to stop pointing to what I believe is "bad faith" on your part, because I don't believe you're unintelligent or incapable of cogency. I believe you're sticking to your position regardless of fact-supported counterargument. Pointing to that as "bad faith" is not uncivil. Calling you a partisan liar would be uncivil, and that's why I haven't done that. Eleemosynary 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think you've answered why the current MM link "belongs on the page" as you say, for any reason other than including a single quote of Levin's about MM. No commentary on how this represents a "dispute" or how there is any substantive, media watchdog-esque criticism of Levin himself (the subject of this article). In the interests of coming to something acceptable on this, and allowing for Beback's comment that the current link is not the best example of a MM release to include, I propose we follow the precedent set on the Sean Hannity website, where they include a link to the Hannity "topic" page, which shows links and titles of all MM articles on Hannity. (see here: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/seanhannity ). I propose we include the same page for Levin. (see here: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/markrlevin ). This would have the effect of including a listing of *all* MM criticisms of Levin, including the one that two editors have called not relevant and you have insisted is very important. I will make the cahnge, using the same language as on the Hannity page currently. Please revert if you are uncomfortable with this.NYCTommy 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have answered this question several times. You have chosen to disregard my responses, and then invent new arguments when your original ones have been countered. It's tiresome hairsplitting at this point. Eleemosynary 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the solution I posed? Have you checked it out yet? I think this comprehensively covers MM's views on Levin and also includes the link that you are adamantly attached to. Do we have consensus on this at least?NYCTommy 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, I ask for the last time that you stop with the accusations of "bad faith" on my part. I have answered every false, wild, unsubstantiated accusation regarding my supposed connections to a radio station or PR firm. I have willingly sought out, participated in and abided by having a neutral party mediate the issues on the explosion of anonymous blog link additions. I have been fine with the compromises reached so far on this page, even those that include information that is "negative" about the subject. In fact it was *I* who suggested most of these compromises and took action to find consensus. I am also the one who brought this page out of its revert/flame war norm and tried to settle something on a talk page. You have no basis to continue targetting me personally as rationale for effectively holding this page hostage and reverting every change or improvement I attempt to make. Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIV. I will ask for some official administrator opinion on the matter if this pattern persists. Best regards.NYCTommy 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As a (temporarily resigned) official administrator, let me tell you: it's not so bad. You're not in bad faith, but you don't need to fling accusations either. - CrazyRussian

After a full and complete review of FLeeLevin aka NYCTommy's edit history, his overblown protestations on this page, and his fulsome attempts to "work the ref" in this dispute, I am now more convinced than ever that he is a paid employee of Levin, Levin's legal foundation, a company associated with Levin, or WABC. I consider his edits and replies suspect, subtle bad faith, and geared toward tamping down any criticism of Levin. "Assume good faith" does not mean "suspend all disbelief." Eleemosynary 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe what you want. I've acted in good faith and had an administrator say as much, above. I'm going to ignore your accusations and rantings. Any administrator or editor reviewing the conduct here will see who has actively worked to improve the article and build consensus and who has engaged in a bitter pattern of incivility and reversions. I have no beef with you and it is sad to see you launching some personal vendetta directed at me.NYCTommy 20:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal vendetta here. Just putting 2 and 2 together. Since this dispute began to be mediated, you have indeed been editing in better faith. Here's hoping it continues. Eleemosynary 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

talk/email 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Dismissing the Glenn Greenwald link out of hand as an "unremarkable blog" is bad faith editing, as well.

Why? - CrazyRussiantalk/email 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's stating a fact not in evidence, then acting as if that fact were proven. Bad faith. Eleemosynary 05:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you've pointed out Greenwalds status as an author (I was not familiar with him previous) I have no longer claimed this was an unremarkable source. I still think it would be better as a citation to the source text, rather than an external source link.FLeeLevin 12:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The link criticizing Levin's substitute broadcasting of Hannity's show could easily be removed. Eleemosynary 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. One down, two to go. Thanks, E. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and am removing the link. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

FLL, in your reading of WP:RS, do you find Greenwald a reputable source or not, and why? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The RS page is an interesting read. It seems to frown on blogs in general as "reliable sources", however makes an exception for noted authors. I dispute the characterization above that I'm still calling this an "unremarkable blog". Once it was pointed out to me that Greenwald is an author, I've not pushed that argument. Given he is an author and the fact that the article itself is on "the crazed face of neo-conservatism" and not Levin himself, I would again argue that this should be a citation against a comment about Levin's neo-con positions in the body of the article, as opposed to one of the External Sources. As Eleemosynary appears to agree, I will make an attempt to do this. Feel free to revert if I am overstepping.FLeeLevin 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

E, are ok with letting FLL try his hand at this? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing it, but sure, why not? Eleemosynary 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you reviewed it yet? If so, what do you think. If anything, the link is even more prominent now (as a reference) and I've also added some text covering Levin's various ideological positions, including his strong advocacy of a neoconservative response to Iran (criticism of which is supported by the Greenwald blog). If you can put aside talking about me for a moment, I'd appreciate some comments on what you think of the article at this point.NYCTommy 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is good. The sentence that references the link is an opaque treatment of the issue. It describes him as on the receiving end of criticism with many other "conservatives," and only addresses the criticism in terms of Iran. What Greenwald is saying (and as Andrew Sullivan has said as well) is that Levin supports a "kill first, ask questions later" policy regarding Muslim citizens of any country the current administration deems "evil" and also strongly (even gleefully) advocates the torture of prisoners of war. There's also a question as to whether Levin should be described as a "conservative" at all. William Buckley, the father of American conservatism, has already called Iraq a lost war and that acknowledging the "kernel of defeat" is necessary for righting the country. George Will has said the PNAC "neoconservative" policy to remake the Middle East (of which Levin is an advocate) is anathema to conservativism. By what standard, then, can Levin correctly be described as "conservative?" Just because he says he is?

We can probably change "conservatives" to "neoconservatives", in terms of definining who was heavily criticized in july re: Iran. No issue on my part with that if you'd like to change. However beyond that, and outside of Iraq and foreign policy, I think "conservative" is the best label to define Levin's other views on social and policy issues. He's a self idenified conservative, but was also a member of the Reagan justice department and active in conservative pundit circles (NRO, Rush, Hannity shows, etc.) Yes he disagrees with mainstream (or paleo) conservatives on foreign policy, but outside of that he was highly critical of the administration's "compassionate conservative" stances on things like immigration reform, has been exremely critical on issues of excessive government spending and the expansion of the federal government under Bush II and has also been pretty openly disdainful of the more libertarian members of the party on issues like abortion or gay marriage. So I think the current mix of originalist on the Constitution, conservative on most issues and neoconservative on foreign policy fits well. But by all means, change the bit about the group being criticized by Greenwald, et al.NYCTommy 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And then there's this sentence: "Unlike other right-wing talk radio hosts, he also frequently covers legal and judicial issues in great detail, leveraging his experiences in the Reagan Justice Department and his subsequent legal career." This is straight PR, and makes Levin sound like an avuncular guest at a C-Span roundtable. Levin's listeners, of which I assume we all are, know that he baits, rants, and skews. (And, yes, there are liberal talk show hosts--Mike Malloy, for example--who do the same thing.) "Great detail" implies Levin covers every side of an issue. Hardly. Oftentimes he'll frame an issue in the most one-sided and simplistic of terms, a common talk radio technique. And the "leveraging his experiences" stuff is resume padding. He doesn't "leverage his experiences" on the radio show. He says whatever is on his mind, usually comes up with a puerile nickname for whatever Democrat he's attacking (see Levin's Wikiquote page for this) and riffs from there. Enough with the spin and PR. This sentence needs to be rewritten for accuracy. Eleemosynary 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I find his legal analysis style disingenuous (in that he should know better) and ... disingenuous. :) I'll remove that line. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, however I didn't add this line to comment so much on the quality or intellectual honesty of his analysis (which is open to debate), but more in terms of being an aspect of his show that is somewhat different from other right-wing talk fare. Levin has worked in government and has a law degree (unlike the Rush's, Savage's and Hannity's of the airwaves) and this certainly shows in terms of the issues he chooses to cover and the level of legal detail he chooses to go into. If the current sentence sounds too much like cheerleading, I'm open to changing it, but in terms of the description of his show's style and content I think we need some mention of the focus tending to be on legal issues and legal aspects of current events.NYCTommy 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just saw Crazyrussian's change re: the legal stuff. This looks acceptable to me and includes the point I was hoping to get across, whilst taking out the bits that both of you objected to. Full agreement.NYCTommy 02:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters

Final issue: Media Matters. Tommy changed the link to a more general page on Levin from MM. I think we all agree that Media Matters is an allowable source. Do you, Eleemosynary, agree with the changes? This is our last point of contention, correct? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the last point in terms of my original request for discussion at the top of the talk page. However I'm also interested if all other editors are OK with the changes made to the "legal" sentence and the "neocon" sentence introducing the Greenwald link. I'm glad everyone is now collaborating and discussing the article itself on the Talk page. I think things well beyond the three anon blog links have now been improved.NYCTommy 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Eleemosynary 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing comment

The mediation is completed. Thanks for your coöperation, and I hope you will continue likewise in the future. It was a pleasure to meet both of you, Eleemosynary and NYCTommy. See you around. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the religious identifer?

The article opens with his religion in the defining sentence. This is inconsistent with general wikipedia policy/ protocol. His religion is at the end in categories.

Good question. I think the label has been there for some time now and I don't recall anyone else ever bringing it up. If it goes against policy/protocol here, then it should certainy be removed and relegated to the categories. NYCTommy 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(Late note). It's generally a good idea to justify a category by mentioning it in the text of the article, especially in the matter of bios. If we categorize someone as a "conservative" or a "Ohioan" or a "Methodist" or a "Italian American" we usually try to work that into the bio. Partly it's so that the bio doesn't rely on easily-missed tags to convey basic facts. It's also so that we can fully describe and source the characteristic. Associations are complicated, especially in the case of Jewish people, a group that is both religious and ethnic. As with other groups, intermarriage and secularism introduce a range of gradations. Jewish people in particular have been the subject of special attention by a number of Wikipedia editors who seek to categorize people into clear racial categories. Typically those editors have added flat statements of religous/ethnic affiliation, while removing other ethnic and national descriptions. That's all to say that this isn't a simple issue.

Nonetheless, I suggest we make some mention of his ethnicity or religion if we're going to categorize him that way. If there's additional, verifiable detail then that's good too. This is a biography so we should include basic biographical information. -Will Beback 08:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points, all. I'm not aware of any specific sources that can be cited for this. It's clearly something he talks about a lot on his show, which is obviously impossible to cite. Maybe there is something that can be linked to on NRO to support it. As for where to put it, I agree with the person who started this thread, it seems a bit out of place in the first sentence. Perhaps it can either be worked into his background, or possibly into the section where his strong neocon views on the Mid East are discussed.NYCTommy