Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Criticism section no longer needed

Folks, the criticism section is no longer needed. I just edited the article a little. I found that criticism was built into the article. For example, when his books are discussed, there's a positive review, then there's a negative review.

Now, when I look back at the proposed criticism section, it looks like an unencyclopedic pile of mostly MMfA complaints, nags if you will, that do not seem appropriate, particularly in light of the criticism that is already existing in various parts of the article.

Does anyone really think it is encyclopedic that Mark Levin jokes about bouncing a coin off of Nancy Pelosi's face? Does anybody really think that would improve this article? I think that and other such things make this an awful article. Obama called someone a "jackass" and that made it into the media. Does anyone here think the Obama article should include that he called someone a jackass? Of course not. Same thing goes here.

The controversy section currently being considered for inclusion in this Wiki page is unencyclopedic. Criticism of Mark Levin is already built into the article as it exists now, so any claims that the article contains no criticism are simply false. The criticism is built right in without having to create a separate subsection. That's the right way to do it anyway, in many cases, and this may be one of those cases.

I say the criticism section as quoted above for consideration is no longer needed, let alone being unencyclopedic and poorly sourced. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add that User:BobMifune, who was the editor who posted or reverted much of the MMfA stuff, has been tagged as being a possible sockpuppet. That does not surprise me, given that he seemed to have a large amount of knowledge about WP procedures for someone whose edit history dates back only to August. See his his talk page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)

Sockpuppet...wow, that would explain a lot of things...Flyer190 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: It's official now. Mifune is permanently blocked as a sock of User:Eleemosynary. And good riddance, I might add. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me say this once to be very clear. Gamaliel is 100% innocent of charges of collusion with the sock puppet. Such charges are 100% mistaken and likely due to an obvious misunderstanding of Wiki policy. Gamaliel is an experienced editor who, while no one is ever perfect, has adhered to Wiki policy perfectly in this matter. I suggest dropping all current and future claims against Gamaliel in this matter.

Flyer190, I am happy you agree with me that the criticism section is no longer needed. Please consider what I said about Gamaliel. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion. Gamaliel is completely on the up and up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Given your testimonial, and in the interest of WP:CIVIL, I have withdrawn the question. Thx.Flyer190 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for saving me the trouble of getting indignant. :D Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. None of it was something you would normally find in an encyclopedia anyway. It was not compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or WP:ONUS. There was not a consensus for its revert, and the edit block placed on the page locked the disputed content in for a time, completely opposite the requirements of WP:BLP. That is apparently what exercised Mr. Levin, and he was right; that kind of thing is exactly what WP:BLP is supposed to prevent. That the supporters of that content kept trying to invert the requirements of WP:ONUS by demanding consensus for removal, rather than for inclusion, looked a lot like an attempt at POV-pushing. The lack of respect for WP:NPA wasn't very helpful either.Flyer190 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The content doesnt appear to abide by BLP or prove to be encyclopedic. As such, it ought to be excluded. LAEC's edits are acceptable and have improved the article. I still think we need to provide a more substantive opposing quote for Men in Black that speaks to the book rather than the subject himself. JSMan55 (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't going to come out of the Lithwick review. I have read the whole thing several times, and I cannot find a single quotation which summarizes her reaction to the book which is not written in a demeaning, dismissive, ad hominum style. Maybe there is another somewhere that is written by a thinking liberal?Flyer190 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I still question why any reviews, positive or negative, belong on this page. Perhaps for a wiki page on each book, reviews might belong...but even then, I have my misgivings. Someone writes a book...some people like it...some don't (particularly a partisan book). Hardly surprising, and hardly worthy of an encyclopedia, I think. Why should we put so much weight to opinions anyway? We're not promoting blogs here, we're presenting facts. I think we should just stick with book sale numbers and a brief, NPOV summary for each book on this page. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the reviewers are barely notable. Save the reviews for the book article page. --Tom (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned you were cutting out all criticism. I see now that you were even handed in cutting both one good and one bad review. And I tend to agreed about book reviews on pages of individuals instead of on pages of books where they belong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, i.e. best to simply have a list of books, an NPOV summary, and maybe the sales numbers. I never was in support of including these long 'tit for tat' reviews, especially with the direct quotes. At the time they were included, certain editors were adamantly opposed to the deletion or revision of the negative reviews; but at that time they were acting in opposition to the requirements of WP:BLP--i.e. they were demanding a consensus prior to removal, whereas the policy calls for a consensus prior to reinsertion. I vote for no reviews at all, and particularly no direct quotes.Flyer190 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess nobody reads talk page archives. We've discussed this to death years ago. A list of books, sales numbers, and a summary does not add up to an encyclopedia entry. That's merely the stuff of a promotional bio, not an encyclopedia article. Discussing the reception of works is part of the job of an encyclopedia article. For those who say it isn't simply aren't familiar with what an encyclopedia does. I took one of those quotes from an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You say that criticism is integrated into the article and that no one wants to strip out criticism, but here we are, discussing removing the only remaining criticism in the article. It's getting harder and harder to believe that some of the other editors here are acting in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, everyone, criticism has to be in this article somewhere. It must not be a puff piece. No, it does not have to be in the book review section, but certainly we can work together to put it in somewhere where it belongs. Decent criticism. Not MMfA complaints about bouncing quarters off Pelosi's face. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I could sign up to that, but IAW WP:BLP it should be in a narrative, not in the direct quote format. And what happended to the idea that disputed content was to stay down until revised and consensus obtained? It seems that we have suddenly gone back to the default is that the material stays up--opposite to WP:BLP and WP:ONUS.Flyer190 (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh..."assume good faith" thrown right out the window, eh, Gamaliel? If you're referring to me, in part, you must have missed the many times I stressed we should promote facts and not personal opinions, be they positive or negative.

I have never added a positive opinion, nor have I ever advocated adding positive opinions. You're free to incorrectly assume whatever you want about my motives, but I simply think Wikipedia is becoming a way to promote people's blogs. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least use sources from notable authors and maybe work them into the article? --Tom (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about criticism of the books, the show, or the man? Ericsean (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would include criticism of the man if it was notable, relevant, and not undue weight. I would include criticism of the book and show in their own seperate articles. --Tom (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A ludicrous straw man. This has nothing to do with blogs, you've always opposed including criticism from published book reviews from mainstream publications. Gamaliel (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A lie by omission is still a lie. I've opposed all opinions. And, I hardly consider Slate to be a "mainstream" publication anymore than I would consider The National Review to be a mainstream publication.

And a little advice...a straw-man means I try to make your argument for you. I didn't. I just said that Wikipedia is becoming a means to promote blogs, which is, for all intents and purposes, true. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The sky is blue. This is true. It still doesn't have anything to do with the matter of published reviews, just like your blog comment doesn't have anything to do with published reviews. Placing it at the end of your comment implies that I advocate using WP as "a way to promote people's blogs" and that you are arguing against this fictional advocacy. This is pretty much the definition of a straw man. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply. You inferred. Intent versus faulty interpretation. My criticism was of a trend I see in Wikipedia, not of you. I can speak for myself without your assistance in judging what I allegedly meant.

You have repeatedly questioned my good faith, and now you are trying to put words in my mouth. While this may not fall under the definition of "incivility", it's not exactly civil (just like when you said to me, "There's no need for the histrionics" a while back on this talk page). Please refrain from these sorts of behaviors. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of a trend that has no bearing on the discussion of published book reviews. If you don't want people to have a "faulty interpretation", then maybe you shouldn't string together unrelated thoughts in the same passage. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why are we including anything from Steve Almond? He has been discredited and is not notable?--Tom (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If that last question was intended to be a statement, then on what basis? Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge part of the criticism section with "The Mark Levin Show" section, and/or create a new "Quotes" section and add his contreversial remarks to it. Sole Soul (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Quotes section are frowned on. But quotes can be added to Wikiquote, then linked in the External Links section. See Judith Krug for an example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I just used info from the removed criticism section to add significant criticism from a reliable source. Hopefully this will go a long way toward reaching significant consensus on this issue.

Indeed the former criticism section with the laundry list of MMfA complaints was no longer needed, and it appears many editors agreed and, if I'm not mistaken, no one disagreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think it is always ideal that criticism be built into an article, rather than having a criticism section. Usually these sections come about because of a perceived lack of balance in an article. We should always move toward fully integrated articles. I'll also add that I have butted heads with Gamaliel more times than either of us can probably count, but he is a respectable editor and admin. We all have a lean to our world views. That's what makes us human. - Crockspot (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag

All, I removed (in a moment) the NPOV tag. It was placed on Oct 6 by 12george1. 12george1 never gave reasons for the placement of the tag as required in the tag itself: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2009)". 12george1 never started a discussion on the reasons for his placement of the tag, so there was no way to address the concerns. Indeed, 12george1 hardly edits ere at all. No tag then or now directly addressed the reasons for the placement of the tag. Further, thanks in large part to the permanent banning of a single disruptive sock puppet, the article has significantly advanced beyond concerns over a laundry list of MMfA claims. The article, as it stands now, seems to have garnered quite a bit of consensus on quite a number of issues. Therefore, given all of the above, I am removing the NPOV tag.

If anyone wishes to reapply the tag, please do so, only give specific reasons why in this Talk section. Thanks, everyone.

While I am writing, there are still a few people bickering over personal issues instead of Wikipedia issues. The sock puppet that stirred up a lot of trouble is gone now but he set a bad example of attacking and filing complaints. Let's all make an effort to break with the past and work cooperatively. No, we won't all agree all the time, but we can be wiki friendly and make things better for Wikipedia and for ourselves.

I officially thank a number of Wikipedia admins who have been instrumental in getting this article back on track. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Take an Attaboy out of petty cash

Just a moment to say thank you to those who have slaved over this article for the past several days to make it more even-handed, and to keep it from being a WP:COATRACK for Levin's opponents to publicize every little beef they have with him. It's much more encyclopedic in tone now. Great work, folks. on both sides of the political aisle. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark McKinnon

I don't want to get involved on the Mark McKinnon page, but the last paragraph there is about Mark Levin and it does not look encyclopedic, neither is it written well in the first place. Actually, the whole thing is poorly written. If anyone wants to take a stab at it, go for it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotes they had in that section weren't from McKinnon, they were from David Frum. Considering that, removing the section was a no-brainer. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've removed the image of Levin from the infobox, since it is extremely unflattering, makes him look incredibly hung over, and portrays him in an unnecessarily negative light. Just because we have a free image of him, it doesn't mean that we need to use it. Perhaps we can look at obtaining a much higher quality free image to use instead. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Lankevil, I've reverted your good faith edit to restore the picture - this issue has been discussed previously (see above). I don't think that anyone would have a problem with adding a higher quality picture to replace the one that's there, it's just that a higher quality picture without copyright issues hasn't shown up yet. Since Mr. Levin has taken an active interest in his Wikipedia article, perhaps he'd be willing to provide a better picture of himself along with permission to use it. BigTex71 (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your good faith edit. It's not a matter of "we need to get a better picture to replace this one", it's a matter of "the picture we have, although free, has the potential to cause unnecessary harm and embarassment to a living person, adds very little to the article, and in the spirit of the WP:BLP policy we're probably better off without it". I agree it would be fantastic if Mr Levin were to release a better photograph of himself with all of the necessary licencing permission, but licencing isn't the issue here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Agree with BigTex71 and with Lankiveil. I got Felice Picano's picture added just by asking him then jumping a few minor but required/necessary hurdles. The comment on the picture says, "This comes to me direct from Felice Picano who provided it knowing Wikimedia Commons standards and specifically asking me to place this picture into the public domain via Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Among other things, he wrote me, 'This pic I commissioned from a professional photographer and own the rights to.'" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just sent a request to marklevin.show@citcomm.com. Let's see if anything results from that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

No response yet, FYI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No response yet, FYI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No response yet, FYI. I guess I'll give up at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Book cover speedy deletion

I noticed the book cover was headed for speedy deletion. Hopefully I saved it from that fate by adding this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Other Works

I have edited out the last part of the Other Works section. None of it is sourced, and claiming that Levin 'ridiculed' the President of the United States without citing any sources is not in compliance with WP:BLP. The first part is less contentious, so I just added a citation needed tag. The 'ridiculed' part can go back in once there are citations provided and there is a consensus for its reinsertion. See the notice at the top of this page on WP:BLP.Flyer190 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for replacing "ridiculed" with "criticized". I would guess that Liberty and Tyranny contains examples of Republican-targeted criticism, but I don't have the book yet. Perhaps someone with access to the book can find a source there. After all, citing someone's own opinion is perfectly appropriate for their own wikipage.

If we're still seeking sources for the "accolades" mentioned in the last paragraph of the Mark Levin Show section, I know Hannity and Limbaugh speak highly of Levin, but good luck finding a linkable source. Even still, I think his audience of five and a half million speaks volumes about how well received he is in some circles. No real point in name-dropping to make the obvious point.

I think a better idea would be just to drop "Along with accolades", as well as the "significant" from the "garnered significant criticism" line. "Significant" could make people think it's criticism that had a negative effect on Levin's career (e.g., some of Ann Coulter's comments drew enough criticism to get her columns yanked, criticism of Randi Rhoades got her fired from Air America, and criticisms of Glenn Beck and Michael Savage lost them advertisers). Frum's criticisms haven't hurt Levin in any way that I can discern.

Anyone oppose those minor changes? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

'criticized' is certainly more NPOV than 'ridiculed.' However, neither statement is appropriate for inclusion without the required reference(s). Under WP:BLP, such statements about living persons must stay out of the article until properly referenced, and a consensus is obtained for the reinsertion. There is, at this point, not a consensus. With regard to the first sentence, I think the whole section ought to go until those advocating its inclusion provide the appropriate third-party references. The bit on Levin's contributing to NR looks a little bit like original research, but maybe there is a reference. "Significant" is a value judgment, which is unsupported and probably unsupportable, and is thus not encyclopedic. It would be better to use just 'criticized', provide the links, and let the reader make their own value judgments.Flyer190 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

CarbonX has graciously provided the refernce for the other works section. I have edited it slightly to remove 'currently' and replace it 'as of <date>' so that the section will not become out of date if those facts should change.Flyer190 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Insertions without Consensus

OK, we still have a few lurkers running around who are re-inserting deleted material without discussion, and without first obtaining consensus per WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Jimintheatl, why don't you make your case here, as you are supposed to, instead of reverting other editors deletions without consensus? I have removed 'significant' yet again. It stays out until someone can convince the rest of us that it is appropriate content.Flyer190 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I added "significant." I did so on the basis that criticism from a presidential speechwriter is significant criticism, at least in my, uh, POV, but I think we can all agree getting criticism from a presidential speech writer is significant. Then someone removed the word. Then Jimintheatl restored it. Setting aside the word itself, it is unfair to single out Jimintheatl in this instance. I believe the word accurately describes criticism from a presidential speechwriter. Can anyone argue it is insignificant?

And no consensus is needed for every little change, unless consensus becomes needed due to some disagreement and the like. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinion on the potential significance of the criticism. You may even be correct. But that judgment of significance does not emminate from any cited reference. It is a value judgment, which cannot be measured or validated. Validation is a higher value in Wikipedia than is truth, especially in WP:BLP. And, as a value judgment, it is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. As it happens, I agree with you that Levin's show has attracted 'significant' criticism, but I do not accept the premise that significance is established by Frum's involvement. And, since neither position can be tested against any objective standard, it is not encyclopedic.Flyer190 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the need for consensus, the standard is not whether it is a 'little change,' but rather it is that the content--regardless of size--is disputed. WP:ONUS and BLP require that disputed content not be reinserted without first the establishment of a consensus for its inclusion. My problem with the editor in this case is not that the word significant is or is not justified, but rather that the editor reinserted disputed material without any attempt to gain consensus first. That is a violation of WP:ONUS, and it is a recurring pattern with certain editors on this page, and was central to the problems that were fought out here regarding the 'criticisms' section. Those editors supporting its inclusion were demanding consensus for its removal, rather than for its reinsertion. The editor in question has violated that WP principle on this page several times, and if you look at his talk page you will see a long history of problems associated with disruptive editing.Flyer190 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Inciting Violence

What do the rest of you think about this... the second part of the Frum quote accuses Levin of inciting violence. While the reference certainly seems to establish that Frum said it, I do not think repeating this accusation is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Frum has stated as a fact something for which he has not a shred of evidence, and is quite defamatory towards the subject of the article. Just because Frum thinks its ok to smear Levin, doesn't mean it has to be repeated here. I say we delete that part. What say the rest of you?Flyer190 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. I don't know, maybe someone better at Wiki policy can chime in. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Frum and Levin have an ongoing war of words that continues on Levin's radio show, and on both of their websites. WP:BLP states that we should try to avoid using direct quotes of two parties engaged in a 'heated dispute.' Theirs looks pretty heated to me, especially if it has risen to the point of Frum accusing Levin (and others) of inciting violence. To my knowledge, no credible claim has ever been made that Levin has 'incited violence.' This borders on libel, and is not in compliance with WP:BLP. It, and perhaps some of the others (not the Media Matters stuff), could be properly included if paraphrased in a neutral, narrative tone, such as "...garnered criticsim. Various detractors have accused Levin of factual errors, distortions, and overheated rhetoric (cite refernces heree)." How would you feel about including it in that manner? I do not think it should stay the way it is...Flyer190 (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Wiki expert. I'm just another editor like you. I am not a BLP expert either. If what you say is true, then you have have Wiki policy support to remove any violation of BLP policy. I will support that. As to what you propose to add, recall that not all additions need consensus, Wiki policy is to Be Bold, and Wiki policy also says to ignore the rules! Sounds funny, but it's an actual policy. So why don't you go ahead and make the changes you think would be best. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more Frum's entire criticism should be removed. No, I'm not trying to sugar-coat this page or scrub it of any reasonable criticism. However, Frum's statements are applied to a large number of conservative pundits, politicians, and personalities (Limbaugh, Levin, Palin, Hannity, Beck, Cornyn, Jonah Goldberg, Malkin, Ginrich). His words are not directed specifically at Levin. He mentions Levin very briefly as part of a laundry list of right-wing personalities, and levels his near-libelous claims at the group as a whole. The criticism isn't all that Levin-specific, so I can't help but think it's way out of place on Levin's page.

What I propose as a compromise is that we remove Frum's comment (justified by what I point out in the above paragraph), and replace it with a line like, "Mark Levin has garnered criticism from Media Matters, Mark McKinnon, and David Frum," and add citations to Media Matters' page on Levin, and whatever columns McKinnon and Frum maybe have wrote specifically about Levin (if they can be found). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with respect to Media Matters. It is not encyclopedic except for information about itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

LaEC, I'm no fan of MMfA. I am not advocating we quote Media Matters for this article, nor insert their opinions in it. "Media Matters has criticized Levin," is indeed a factual statement that no one would refute. Levin has address MMfA directly on his program, and has criticized them...even if he hasn't responded to specific criticism from them.

It's perfectly permissible to feature Levin's own opinions on his bio page, so we could mention MMfA has criticized him without going into detail, give a source link, and include Levin's reaction to it.

But about the Frum comment...do we agree that his criticism isn't Levin specific, and therefore unworthy of inclusion on the Levin page? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and Flyer190's point about BLP violations is a somewhat stronger reason. About MMfA, it criticizes everyone whom it opposes. Should MMfA be in every article of every person it opposes even though the source is not intrinsically encyclopedic except for information about itself? I think not. We are building an encyclopedic article, not a collection of insignificant factoids. But remember, I'm just one editor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MMfA is merely a front organization for George Soros, and seems to receive undue weight on many articles here at WP. I suspect that the organization has people who actively work to get itself mentioned or cited in as many articles as possible, particularly those conservatives it opposes. There is nothing it says that can be considered reliable or encyclopedic. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always maintained that MMfA doesn't matter, that their criticism is predictable and planned, so therefore not noteworthy. However, we seem to be under some asinine directive to provide "balance" to this article. After all, facts like book sales and audience size are positive, so we're supposed to put in critical opinions to balance out the facts. As I said, asinine.

But, Levin did address MMfA multiple times on his show, and has criticized their funding, tax exempt status, and methods. An argument could be made that this makes MMfA relevant to Levin's show.

If you really want to see undue weight, take a gander at John Gibson. I fought for many months to keep MMfA drones from dictating the content of the page, so they took to citing Olbermann and other liberal pundits to attempt to keep the criticism in. I was basically outnumbered, so I walked away from it. As it stands now, MMfA fueled criticism accounts for roughly 3/4 of the entire bio page on Gibson. So yes, I also agree that MMfA is cited far too often on Wikipedia. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Many people here now have experience in how to work as a community in following Wiki policies to clean up articles from unencyclopedic material, including the MMfA predominance. How about if we all help Ynot4tony2 out to clean up another page. Here's a start.

And Levin's mentioning of MMfA is insignificant. He mentions much better things much more often, and that does not make them encyclopedic either. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin Show "criticism"

This comment: "Levin's show has garnered criticism. For example, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has criticized Levin's approach as an example of an "increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters," and he has accused him and other broadcasters of talk that "invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence."[10]"

...appears to be a sly attempt to re-insert parts of the removed "criticism" section under a different heading in violation of Wikipedia policy. Since this article should be presented NPOV, this "criticism" doesn't belong, or at the very worst should be balanced with an equally weighted section of praise for the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvenue (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's proof I have been evenhanded on this page. I added that "sly attempt to re-insert parts of the removed 'criticism' section." I did so based on consensus achieved after months of battles here, mainly whipped up by a newbie who was actually another user hiding behind a new name. That newbie's been banned permanently, and people have been generally getting along now. A huge, ugly, unencyclopedic criticism section was removed and replaced with some decent, so to speak, criticism.

Be that as it may, it appears from the above section that the quote you want removed is not so decent after all, so it may be going away soon.

By the way, I attempted to add balance, but some editor deleted my attempt at balance. Perhaps you may wish to restore it and add appropriate references. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed. Criticism/controversies should have some standard to be considered noteworthy and therefore worth inclusion. I say that standard should include coverage in mainstream news (not special commentary or the random op-ed, but actual new stories and news reports), or some sort of consequence to the alleged controversy. The David Frums and the David Brocks of the world can criticize Levin all they want, but for all their efforts Levin's audience hasn't noticeably shrunk, nor have advertisers pulled their ads. In spite of MMfA criticizing Levin for being anti-Semitic, the ADL has never rebuked him like they have Keith Olbermann. 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony2 (talk • contribs)

As controversial as Levin is, it should not be difficult for us to find any number or criticisms of his show in reliable sources. MMfA is not a reliable source by any WP definition, and should not even be included as a link. Surely within the NYT, WaPo, LATimes, SFExaminer, Newsweek, etc. liberal sphere there should be some criticisms which could be paraphrased and included without violating BLP and reliable sources. The Frum quote comes from The Week, which is an online magazine with no print edition that I can find. 'Online magazine' seems to me to be a euphemism for 'website' and thus not really a reliable source.Flyer190 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There, I have removed the Frum quote. Let's see if we can't come up with some more solid (and less ad hominum) references from one or more of his detractors.Flyer190 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Frum is a notable commentator and there's nothing ad hominem about the quote. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, please address the legitimate concern that Frum's quote isn't Levin specific. As has been pointed out above, the quote is a broad brush meant to paint ten or so conservatives with criticism. Do you really think that's relevant to a page on Mark Levin? That Frum lumped him in with nearly a dozen pundits and politicians in his rant? Feel free to read the Frum opinion piece if you are skeptical. He mentions Levin a single time, and says a total of 15 words about him specifically. The only appropriate place for the Frum quote is on Frum's page, is it's too unfocused to be considered notable Levin criticism.

By all means, feel free to find some relevant, notable criticism specific to Levin to add to this page. The Frum passage isn't it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is really a concern, then I will be glad to supplement the Frum quote with others where he also criticizes Levin. Perhaps we could consolidate all the quotes into a neutral description (Flyer190 keeps wanting to yank quotes out on that basis anyway) if this crowd was capable of agreeing on a wording without coming to blows. Forgive me for being skeptical, but this is about the tenth rationale for removing the quote I've read on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is out of place for the reasons I stated. You still fail to address the legitimate concern I raised, and instead, once again, question my motives. It's not my fault some editor picked a faulty quote, but your lack of civility is your own fault. Enough already. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I addressed the concern directly, it's not my fault you skipped to the end of my comments and didn't read that part. If you want me to take the concerns on this page seriously, then the editors on this page need to take this website seriously and stop throwing every alphabet soup policy at a quote they don't like. Pick a rationale and stick with it and then we can discuss that, but here the discussion never ends because if one policy doesn't work to get the deletion done, we just move on to another one, just as you have below. Gamaliel (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"If that is really a concern," doesn't address the concern in the least bit. It's just patronizing. And why shouldn't we make every reasonable argument about the invalidity of the Frum quote? The deeper I dig in the Frum piece and his sources, the more evidence I find to deem the quote unworthy of inclusion. And again, "throwing every alphabet soup policy at a quote they don't like" is questioning motives. Again. Stop with the snide nonsense. I've asked you respectfully many times already. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There's even more reason to remove the Frum criticism. His article, as pointed out, says a total of fifteen words about Levin, including a "quote". First of all, he leaves off the "politically" caveat from Levin's statement. Second, the quote is not even precise, although it is in quotation marks implying it is an exact quote. Levin says, "...the President is at war with the American people, politically. He's literally at war with the citizens of this country in a political sense." Levin never actually says, "literally at war with the American people." Since Frum does not even precisely quote Levin, and intentionally leaves out the "in a political sense" descriptor, Frum article isn't worth citing.

Do we need any more reason to discount the Frum piece? It misquotes, commits a lie by omission, isn't Levin specific, and contains unfounded accusations bordering on libel. Can anyone refute my problems with Frum's criticism with a little more substance than snide comments about my alleged motives? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the Frum quote as it appears we have reached consensus that it is inappropriate. Malvenue (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe that any such consensus has been reached. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been no arguments on this topic defending the use of David Frum's "criticism" in weeks. In fact all the the most recent comments have stated that the "criticism" statement in question is inappropriate. If you can state why Mr. Frum has any standing to be a citable source (other than writing an article criticizing a large number of conservatives in a left-sypathetic magazine), then I invite you to do so. The consensus stands that the statement is inappropriate to any fair-minded reading of the comments here. Or is your argument that any criticism of anyone, no matter how trivial or baseless should be included in any article on Wikipedia? Malvenue (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is quite astonishing. In the real world there is no argument that Frum is not a notable commentator, regardless of whether or not one agrees with him, and for the record I often do not. In the walled garden that is this talk page, Frum somehow magically becomes an unreliable and untenable source. What you want to "conclude" is irrelevant. Frum is notable and eligible by all reasonable interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You do seem quite obsessed with this quote. I count numerous people giving valid reasons for this quote to be removed as inappropriate and yet I see only you continuing to insist it is. That's pretty much the definition of a concensus in my book. Mr. Frum's quote hardly supports the NPOV, is not specific to the subject of the article, and is too broadly based to be used even if your point was valid. It seems almost as if you have an axe to grind here. Malvenue (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing here to answer that isn't personal. If you have something that actually approaches a policy-based rationale that isn't an excuse for stripping the article of all unflattering views regarding Levin, feel free to offer it. Gamaliel (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there ANYONE here that agrees with Gamaliel that has participated before this date? If not, consensus has been reached and the quote is inappropriate.Malvenue (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was the one who wrote the current version of that paragraph, why don't you ask him? And you don't get to declare a consensus that overrides basic Wikipedia policy. NPOV is not met by stripping out dissenting views from mainstream sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Gamaliel. I added it initially. Now it is possible that I could have been wrong, and some of the recent arguments have swayed me that I may indeed have been wrong, but, that said, you just can't remove the whole thing and not replace it with something encyclopedic. I mean you can, I just personally do not think that would be proper. Yes, the Frum quote suffers from a number of problems. Yes, it could be removed in the right circumstances. But just removing it and not adding something encyclopedic in its place has the appearance of POV editing, and, in my opinion, we must avoid that. So my recommendation is to find some legitimate (and even compelling ;) ) criticism that is also encyclopedic, add that, then remove Frum. Anyway, that's my opinion, but I'm just one editor of many. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Malvenue.208.254.207.141 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate a though I proposed some weeks earlier. Perhaps it would be more encyclopedic to state GENERALLY what the criticisms and WHO MADE THEM. The exact quotes themselves, in my opinion, is a little over the line as it relates to NPOV. However, as I stated as my opinion before, and I believe Gamaliel and others agreed, the fact that positive and negative criticisms exist is valid. Ericsean (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some of Levin's thoughts on Frum in the interests of fairness and balance to support the NPOV. I still feel the Frum and/or criticism is inappropriate and by definition biased as it does not support the notoriety of the subject whatever however if Frum is allowed to criticize Levin in his own biographical article, it is only fair for "Levin" to reciprocate in the same article in order to place Frum's comment (quoted or not) in context.Malvenue (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That sort of 'tit for tat' makes no sense and has no basis in policy. This article is about Levin and views of Levin, not Frum. If you think Levin's lengthy thoughts on Frum are worthy of being preserved in wikipedia, you are welcome to discuss that with the editors on Talk:David Frum. Gamaliel (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice it took you no time at all to delete the added section in its entirety, something you have criticized others for doing. Malvenue (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I have deleted it? It's clear that this insertion of a two paragraph screed against Frum is a retaliatory edit and not a serious one. You should have a look at WP:POINT before you edit again, if you are indeed here to edit Wikipedia in a serious manner and not merely be a disruption. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I'm not sure I understand. Is it the length, or the content, or the fact that it is Levin's response to criticism that you are objecting too. As you were deleting the paragraph, I was revising it so that it was talking about Levin's response. Is that inappropriate? I would think that it is valid to post something about how Levin responds to his critics. Am I wrong?Ericsean (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When a serious edit is made, I will take it seriously and discuss it here. Insertion of a two paragraph screed makes no sense under any interpretation of WP norms and policies. It's clear that this edit was made with malicious and retaliatory intent and it is ludicrous for you to suggest others take it seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, is this serious enough for you? Please don't call my attempts at finding a middle ground ludicrous. With all best regards, Ericsean (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, while unlike Malvenue, I'm sure you have the best interests of this article in mind, it is ludicrous to take that bad faith edit seriously. If you want to, be my guest. While you are it, you might want to have a look at the damage he did on David Frum. Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Gamaliel, I merely inserted the same sort of criticism you've inserted here for exactly the same reason! It seems "damage" and "attacks" are only in the second person. "Edits" seem to only occur in the first person with you. This is not a personal attack, it is merely a statement of fact. You wish there to be criticism of Mr. Levin on his page and will brook no other opinion, even objecting to the words of Mr. Levin himself! But add the same sort of criticism to Mr. Frum's page and suddenly it's "damage". I do smell hypocrisy here... Malvenue (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. A two paragraph screed is hardly the same thing as a sentence of criticism. To equate the two is absurd and you must think everyone here remarkably stupid to think that they would believe that they are equivalent. The former is hardly appropriate by any WP standard, but then it's clear you don't take those standards seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Gamaliel, personal attacks are against the rules here. You should know better! Malvenue (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone once said, "This is not a personal attack, it is merely a statement of fact." Gamaliel (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Touche'. However you should know I cut down the referenced article to the most pertinent points. I omitted, for instance, the fact that Frum had his 15 year old son call into Levin's show to debate him when Frum declined to do so himself. This is your "objective source for criticism". Malvenue (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you think you are making here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading what others write. You've managed to ignore all compendium of reasons that the criticism is inappropriate so far. It might enlighten you. Malvenue (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't get snippy with me because you are incoherent. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused Gamaliel, am I incoherent or is Malvenue? Ericsean (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to Malvenue's statement. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice revision of my quoted section, Ericsean. You did a much better job than I did getting the point across in a concise manner. Thank you. Malvenue (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted editorializing

Deleted "left-leaning" characterization of a Slate writer who was critical of MEN IN BLACK. This because, 1) it is simple editorializing, and (2) no corresponding "right-leaning" was used to characterize a writer who praised the book.JTGILLICK (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RFCU needed

Having read all the way to the end of this discussion page, all I can say is what the hell is wrong with you people? Mom, Dad, stop fighting. Too much time on your hands. Esp. Gamaliel, and several others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.229.196 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia, when I need to know the answer to a question.

Neutrality question?

Why was this Neutrality tag attached to the article? I thought we had gone over this with a fine tooth comb and had reached consensus on most of it. Most importantly, where did anyone mention why this was done on the talk page. The last entry I can see on the talk page is from October but the tag is from November. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CLUE ME IN HERE? Ericsean (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag but I suspect the addition of the skewed criticism from David Frum (hardly an objective source!) as discussed above motivated whomever added the tag. Malvenue (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frum is a reliable source for Frum's opinions on Levin. This is pretty standard WP stuff here that people aren't managing to grasp. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frum's opinions are not an objective source and therein lies the problem. Malvenue (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What FRUM says is not news, it is just one mans opinion; when was the last time you read an encyclopedia filled with quotes from select political commentators? Critisisms have NO PLACE here unless they are well founded NEWS. "Mark Levin is a poo-poo head" is not, in fact, news, even if the PotUS says it:~~RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.70.176 (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it because of ongoing efforts to strip out criticism of the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Ericsean (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. Gamaliel sees efforts to "strip criticism out of the article" whereas others see attempts to insert gratuitous crticism from unreliable sources. One can ALWAYS find crticism from one's enemies and Frum and Levin are most definately enemies. Malvenue (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep coming up with arbitrary reasons to "disqualify" Frum (Enemies! His teenage son calls Levin on the radio!) but in the real world Frum is a notable commentator. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you do not have the final say on what is "the real world". You have yet to demonstrate a single reason for including this criticism (that I can see, anyway), the overwhelming consensus of opinion on this page is against you, yet you claim to be the only person representing "the real world". You are happy to impose your own opinions on everyone else yet you ignore the blatant consensus when it presents itself. It has become intuitively obvious to the least casual observer that you are infact biased yourself. Malvenue (talk)01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When you have an view that represents the real world, feel free to offer it. Until then, you have yet to demonstrate anything other than your personal animus towards Frum. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms Redux

Who just deleted my attempt at finding a middle ground between those who want criticisms of Levin included and those who feel that there should be responses to the criticisms? I don't mind if someone thinks my revision was out of place, but at least say why on the talk page. I've been trying to find a middle ground here that includes as much information as people feel should be included, but that is still fair to Mr. Levin. Can someone tell me what was wrong with it and why? Why was it deleted without even an attempt at consensus? Ericsean (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was Blaxthos: "Reverted to revision 325103562 by Gamaliel; intent of this is clearly to try and neutralize criticism."Malvenue (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Has Blaxthos even commented on this page before? Does anyone else have an opinion on my revision? I'm trying to reach consensus. Ericsean (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is your change is better than mine and more up to the task. IMO the criticism shouldn't be there in the first place as many other editors have stated and given reason why however the one person is insistent upon it staying without giving any supporting reasons. Malvenue (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, I do believe that criticism can be encyclopedic. However, it needs to be from reputable sources (which I believe Mr. Frum is), generalized no further than the person making the criticism, and should be balanced by response or by positive opinions. If only criticism is allowed to be included it, to me, is an obvious violation of NPoV. Ericsean (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You and I (and apparently virtually everyone else here) are in agreement, though I do not agree the criticism in this case contributes to the notability of the subject as required by the BLP. Either way, if such unwarranted criticism has to be included, let it be balanced as per the NPOV with the subject's own opinion on his critic.Malvenue (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about Frum, it's about Levin, so I've removed the offending material. Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since you reject the attempts at compromise I am removing latest revert on the basis that your Frum quote is a blatant BLP violation. Please read WP:BLP and WP:COAT. One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. If you're going to say this is a significant criticism of him that is worth mentioning in his bio, you have to find adequate sources to back that up. Malvenue (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A BLP violation? This from the person that dumped in a two paragraph attack on a living person into the article!

This article is already the compromise of the compromise. All non-Frum, non-book criticism has been stripped due to efforts of editors like you, and when it comes to the last bit of criticism you don't like, you respond by inserting a two paragraph screed that proves that you are only trying to tilt the "compromise" in your favor. You are clearly not dealing in good faith here. Gamaliel (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the editor that removed the proposed compromise without consensus, so I go back to my original argument. Comply with WP:BLP and WP:COAT and find legitimate indepentant neutral third party sources for your statement and demonstrate how it contributes to the subject's notability or flat-out leave it out of the article. You cannot simply quote or paraphrase a detractor as evidence of criticism and stay within the confines of WP:BLP and WP:COAT. Malvenue (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You have also broken the 3RR as well. Please take this opportunity to revert yourself prior to a 3RR report. Gamaliel (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Malvenue (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If I have broken the rule as well, please provide links to back up your accusation. Gamaliel (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrate the basis for your statement contributing to the subject's notability and show how your source is a neutral, third party, independant one. We're still waiting. Malvenue (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as soon as you retract your false accusations and your bad faith edit of a text dump attacking Frum. Gamaliel (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You do so love to dodge the issue. Demonstrate the basis for your statement contributing to the subject's notability and show how your source is a neutral, third party, independant one. We're still waiting. Oh you can't? Hence the violation of WP:BLP and WP:COAT. Malvenue (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• LOOK EVERYONE I have seen David Frum on media outlets several time. By nature of the fact that he is considered a reputable pundit by some media organizations, mostly MSNBC, he should be given some credit. However, it is also my opinion that the man is barely lucid and many of his opinions are contrary to fact as seen through political polls. Primarily, he constantly claims that the rank and file of the Republican party is to the left of where polls I have seen show that it is Republican base is. In addition, he is quite chauvinistic in the what he believes the typical Republican to be. However, no matter how bad he might be, he does what political commentators do. For that reason only he is a reputable source for HIS OPINION. However, to say that the criticism is so valid that there is no place a response is simply folly. One pundit can say anything and that does not makes it right. Therefore, criticism needs to be put into context. Ericsean (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Ericsean, but your opinion about a critic's "lucidity" is hardly relevant to this article (and seem to only validate the contention that the intent here is less than encyclopedic). Likewise, your repeated attempts to insert text that seems to mirror your opinion regarding the alignment of the Republican base is wholly inappropriate. I think it's pretty clear that your ultimate goal is to try and neutralize any criticism of Mr. Levin. This particular article is not about Frum. You yourselves have recognized that his criticism is verifiable and covered in reliable sources; attempting to use this article as a vehicle to discredit a notable critic is a pretty far cry from an objective treatment of the subject. There is no doubt that the intent of such generic statements against Frum serve only to try and remove validity of those criticisms, and they obviously reflect the opinions of one or two brand new Wikipedia editors who seem more concerned with servicing that singular agenda then they are with giving a reasonable and rounded coverage of the subject. I suggest you guys stop with the coatracking and attempts to whitewash admittedly valid criticism, as it is wholly inappropriate. This article is severely imbalanced already (as it lacks almost any mention of criticism at all), and the leveled attacks on any remaining critics, to which you guys seem quite inclined, are violations of WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, WP:COAT, and clearly constitute undue weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Frum quote is a blatant BLP violation. Please read WP:BLP and WP:COAT. One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. If you're going to say this is a significant criticism of him that is worth mentioning in his bio, you have to find adequate sources to back that up.Malvenue (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, wow! Can you read! I have been on here for weeks trying to find middle ground. You accuse me of trying to 'neutralize criticism' of Mr. Levin. The fact is that this is not a forum for criticism for of Mr. Levin. Some thing is encyclopedic if it talks about the criticism. It is not if it is only a list of criticisms of Mr. Levin. If you look at the history of my suggestions, I even suggested that Media Matters could be included as an example of the types of groups that have criticized Levin. The two rules I have suggested people follow are to 1) talk about the types of groups/individuals making the criticism, and 2) talk about the types of criticisms. I also believe that criticism should be put in perspective. Otherwise, it gives undue weight to the criticizer. If a criticism section is just a list of individuals' criticism of Levin it is creating a section that is a soapbox aging him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox). But talking ABOUT the critics and criticism, and talking ABOUT the responses is perfectly biases.

Balxthos, I do not like having my motives impinged. You claim that because I am trying to make this a balanced article I am a Republican stooge. I said that Frum should be included even though I think he is barely lucid. Do I think he is reputable? No. Do I think he should considered so for the purpose of this article? Yes.

Balxthos, in attacking my motives, you do reveal your own. You say that I am trying to neutralize criticism of Levin. Well if I am trying to neutralize it, someone is trying to do it. Thus, that would mean that someone is using Wikipedia as a tool to criticize Mr. Levin. From what I gather, you are a johnny-come-lately to this discussion, coming in simply to make sure that the article criticized Mr. Levin. Thus, you are completely violating the spirit of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not a sopabox. I just took a look at that User Contribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blaxthos), and it is quite obvious where you are coming from. If you are going to accuse those of us working in good faith as being biased, please take the wooden plank out of your eye first. Ericsean (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am removing latest revert on the basis that your Frum quote is a blatant BLP violation. Please read WP:BLP and WP:COAT. One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. If you're going to say this is a significant criticism of him that is worth mentioning in his bio, you have to find adequate sources to back that up.Malvenue (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Malvenue has a point from my reading of the 'criticism and praise' section of the BLP page. Here is the actual text:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

My reading of this would exclude From because he is the person directly making the criticism. In other words, he is the primary source. A secondary source would be something like a talk radio trade magazine that would talk about criticisms of Levin's show. Thinking more about this, if we try to make connections between various people criticizing Levin, it might be akin to origional research. Ericsean (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reading differs from standard Wikipedia practice, sorry. No one would interpret this as anything approaching original research. Gamaliel (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Sorry for the inadvertent red herring there. I did use the work 'akin' not that it specifically was origional research. Specifically, it could be considered origional synthesis. However you did not address my main point which is if the policy states that secondary sources should be used and Frum is a primary source, why is it appropriate to use Frum. Ericsean (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the correct interpretation of the guideline, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it impossible to take this claim seriously from a person who so recently committed an egregious BLP violation himself. Gamaliel (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What violation did I make Gamaliel? This is the second time you have just put out a random insult to me. If you are going to call me out for something, please have the basic respect to tell me exactly what you are accusing me of. Ericsean (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the second time you have mistaken a response to Malvenue as an insult directed towards you. My comment was a response to Malvenue, not you. Standard Wikipedia practice is to indent responses by adding a colon to the number of colons in the comment you are responding to. If it was a response to you it would be further to the right than your comment. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not yet justified why this criticism is in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:COAT, in other words is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. In fact you have been directed to do that several times and have studiously ignored same. You really need to read WP:BLP and WP:COAT and understand and comply with them before attempting to insert biased material once again. Try addressing the issue instead of engaging in personal attacks.Malvenue (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about rules you just discovered yesterday and don't lecture me about personal attacks when you have yet to retract the attacks and accusations leveled against me. It's standard Wikipedia practice to report notable criticism, and despite all the bile thrown at Frum on this page, no one has made a coherent case that Frum is not a notable commentator. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The timing of when I "learned a rule" has nothing to do with the rule says, correct? The rules existed before you and I ever came here and will probably exist after you and I leave. The point is the rule is what it is, and we all need to abide by it. That aside, if you feel I have attacked you in some way then I apologize, something which you appear to have failed to do as well. However, I have explained on numerous occasions

"One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. If you're going to say this is a significant criticism of him that is worth mentioning in his bio, you have to find adequate sources to back that up".

You have refrained from doing so over the course of several weeks now. In addition Ericsean explained to you

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

You cannot claim "no one has made a coherent case that Frum is not a notable commentator" when the argument has been made repeatedly to you and you have yet to respond other than to say "yes he is". Either explain why Frum is a disinterested neutral third party or find such a source and establish that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. It's immediately apparent that he is not a reputable source regarding Mark Levin to any objective observer.Malvenue (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to you it is "immediately apparent", but from this perspective it's an incoherent mishmash of anti-Frum complaints that add up to nothing resembling a coherent argument. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Since every edit to this page in the past week has been part of an edit war, I have protected it for the next week. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the suggestion to merge part of the critisim section into the show section. But it is obvious to me now that the "pro-Levin" editors do not tolerate any critisism to Mark Levin. Sole Soul (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sole, perhaps it is that the anti-Levin editors are trying to bully people into including criticisms of Levin in a way that they are not found on articles about other talk radio hosts. A few weeks I did a review of several pages that you can find pretty far up the page. Ericsean (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, that's an egregious violation of WP:AGF, an ad hominem generalization, and a facetious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS assertion all in one shot... Trifecta! This article is clearly unbalanced, especially given how much controversy the subject generates. I have to say that when I see a couple of brand new editors register and immediately and ferociously descend on one or two politically charged articles (especially going on a campaign to scrub out any and all negative content, as has been done here), then those editors are very likely not operating in good faith. It's pretty clear to me that the two editors in question here are not interested in following Wiki policies, and have the sole intent of removing critical content. The previously noted incident where said editor first asserted that negative content must be removed per WP:BLP, and then the same editor went and added a vehement personal attack of the critic to the article, is a prime example. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of violations of WP:AGF, an ad hominem generalization, and a facetious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well as WP:EQ to boot...Malvenue (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. Suffice to say, the lengths you have gone to exclude all critical commentary, coupled with your hypocritical cries of "BLP violation" at the same time that you added a grossly inappropriate attack (violating the very policy you cited) AND the seemingly single purpose for which you're here is ample evidence to conclude that you have but one goal -- exclude any viewpoint that is critical of the subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So in other words because in your own judgement someone is acting in bad faith you have no responsibility to abide by WP:AGF? That's pretty silly. The fact is I dont' see anyone here objecting to "all" criticism as you have repeatedly cited, but merely to the source and means of said criticism, and have given multiple reasons to support those points. You and your conspirator however have merely deleted any changes whatsoever to the biased criticism and have yet to give a single reason or attempt to reach a consensus other than your opponents "want to remove all criticism". The extended debate on this talk page demonstrates the untruth of those statements. I presume you will abide by WP policies in the future. Malvenue (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note today is the third day since the page has been protected that no on has come forward to explain or persuade or attempt to reach consensus on why the Frum criticism complies with WP:BLP. The overwhelming majority of comments by those attempting to insert the offending paragraph have been personal attacks and WP:AGF violations, despite repeated invitations to explain their reasoning that the offensive material complies with WP:BLP. Malvenue (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote, and generally speaking the opinions of administrators and veteran editors will be given more consideration than that of brand new editors who cry "policy violation" (improperly) whilst egregiously violating that same policy. The experienced editors have explained their positions several times, and need not repeat them ad infinitum. There is no point in continuing a discussion with single purpose editors who have demonstrated that their interest likes more in tendentious lawyering than an honest and objective treatment of the subject, so I think you'll find that most of us have given up trying convince you otherwise. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note today is the third day since the page has been protected that no on has come forward to explain or persuade or attempt to reach consensus on why the Frum criticism doesn't comply with WP:BLP. Sole Soul (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have obviously (deliberately?) overlooked the repeated comments by myself and others as to why the quote in question violates WP:BLP.Malvenue (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Malvenue, would you please not snap at people "(deliberately?)"? We are all friends working together to build an effective page. So he missed all the stuff in the past. He was only trying to elicit more comments to get the ball rolling. I see no harm there.

While I am writing, recall people writing on this page were really nasty just before one guy was banned permanently who happened to be the nastiest. Since then the page improved greatly and people worked together. This Frum controversy is small in comparison, but people are not being nice to each other again. Let's all treat each other as fellow Wikipedians and do our best to make for a pleasant editing experience for all. Alright? It doesn't hurt to say something nice or nothing at all if anyone is already taking the time to flame someone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to "snap" at him, that was not my intent. If it came across that way however then I apologize. I happen to agree with the rest of your sentiments however I see certain people taking it upon themselves to insert comments unilaterally without obtaining consensus, and when challenged to support their unilateral changes, simply ignoring those challenges. That's hardly building a consensus. Malvenue (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see how "But it is obvious to me now that the "pro-Levin" editors do not toleate any critisism to Mark Levin" is "only trying to elicit more comments to get the ball rolling". Perhaps you thought I was responding to something else because I intented incorrectly? Malvenue (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all are friends, except that nasty guy who can't defend himself now, as he is banned permenantly. And now everything is good, because there is no single critisism to Mr. Levin. I don't agree with you that the Frum controversy is a small thing, we absolutely shouldn't include it. Congratulations to you all. Sole Soul (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Malvenue: you are right, I did not see that statement.

Sole Soul: do not give up, please. There are people here who love Mark, who hate Mark, and who are just trying to make a good Wiki page no what what they thing of Mark. Seek assistance from the latter, if you would like, and don't let any particular editor rattle you. Always be polite and you will likely get more changes the way you wish than if you were otherwise. I'll have you know there are people watching this page to ensure, among other things, all criticism of Mark is not removed. They do not always comment. And they for sure stay out of the way if there's flame throwing going on. So you are not alone. As for me, the Frum thing is very weak and should be removed, but not until some better criticism is found. Go find that better criticism, add it, then remove Frum, and I'll bet that'll go a long way toward improving things further. Sole Soul, smile and soon you'll be Psyched Psyche. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited this article as far as I know, and I don't consider my self part of the dispute. I don't know mutch about the subject to write about him, but I got an impression from reading the debate here and I wrote my impression. By the way, I think you are the smartest "pro-Levin" editor here. Sole Soul (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the issue resides mainly in the belief that editors are "Pro-Levin" or "Anti-Levin", which is antithesis to WP:AGF. The assumption should be we are all pro-Wikipedia and working to create a reasonable article which is based on WP:NPOV. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree without malicious intent. It is when editors refuse to engage in the debate and support their arguments, making changes unilaterally without consensus that most antagonism arises. For instance, I see many reasons discussed here why the Frum quote is inappropriate and in violation of policy, however I see virtually nothing to support the opposite opinion. Yet those who cling obstinately to the position that it belongs have demonstrated little explanation supporting that position despite being repeated requests. The responses I've seen have mostly been ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation of motives, claims of bad faith editing, red herring assaults such as criticizing others' novelty to WP, etc. It is this failure to engage in debate, which is the basis of reaching consent, that is the root of the disagreements here. In short, they appear guilty of that which they complain about the most. It would be better to simply defend their positions instead of prolonging the arguments. Malvenue (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I say "Pro-Levin" to simplify the situation, thats why I put it between quotation marks. I don't think anybody would deny that there are mainly two parties in this dispute, regardless of their motivations. Sole Soul (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand but I believe the misrepresentation to be unintentionally deceiving. The terms imply the parties are not following NPOV, which I believe both sides are attempting to achieve. 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvenue (talk • contribs)

Suggest other terms. Note: Saying someone is not following NPOV does not equal saying he is not attempting to achieve NPOV. Sole Soul (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would simply suggest referring to those who feel the quotation is appropriate and those who do not. There is no need to give people labels that imply bias here. Or are you suggesting you and your cohort are "anti-Levin"? Malvenue (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not simply one quotation. I feel it's the idea of criticizing him. The other party is not totally innocent but at least they have accepted major concessions. Sole Soul (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well please do not include me in that group. I personally feel it would be silly to claim someone has no basis for criticism. We are all imperfect after all. I simply feel the criticism should abide by WP policy, be neutral and disinterested as is required, and properly sourced. Mr. Frum is not a reliable source for criticism about Mr. Levin as Mr. Frum has NEVER had anything fair to say about the subject in question. As has been pointed out it shouldn't be hard to find legitimate sources of criticism if one were to simply do a little legwork. Thank you for your most recent comment. Malvenue (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm wrong. Thnk you. Sole Soul (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Things are getting heated again here, and there seems to be no way to reach consensus about how to address criticism of Levin. I propose mediation on the following questions:

1. Is David Frum a reputable source?

2. Is Frum notable enough for his criticism to be important?

3. Is the article cited a secondary source, as stated in the BLP policy?

4. Is the text currently about the criticism or is it repeating the criticism?

5. Is the text in an appropriate place?

6. Is it appropriate to talk about Mr. Levin's response to Frum?

Would people be willing to set passions aside and get a dispassionate opinion on this? P.S. I'm leaving today for my wedding, so I might not be able to respond to anyone's questions. Best, Ericsean (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now we don't expect to hear from you until after your honeymoon. The article can wait. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've decided to work with us regarding suggested compromises rather than simply deleting them in their entirety.Malvenue (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you haven't changed at bit. Keep up the good work. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? That sounds like sarcasm, hardly an attempt to reach consensus. Speaking of which, it's been over a week now and I was wondering if you were ever going to explain or persuade or attempt to reach consensus on why the Frum criticism complies with WP:BLP as required by WP:TPG and WP:CONS? Malvenue (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have, repeatedly. I'm sorry you aren't listening (WP:HEAR) and are resorting to policy shopping (WP:SHOPPING) to get your way. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point to exactly where you have attempted to build consensus and defended your claim that his quote is a non-biased neutral criticism. All I have seen from you have been personal attacks and criticism of other editors without a single instance of actually attempting to build consensus by discussion. You cannot claim Frum's quotation is a neutral non-biased source simply by claiming "it is". WP:BLP clearly states "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability". I have been insisting you do so for days and you have obstinately refused. Saying "I've done so, you aren't listening" is insufficient. I suggest you abide by WP policy. Malvenue (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well, let me attempt to explain this yet again. When a notable commentator has views about Levin and makes note of them in a cover article in a major news publication, that is certainly a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" and more than sufficient to take note of it here, and this is standard Wikipedia practice, regardless of your attempts to unnaturally stretch WP policy to cover this situation. Is it "non-biased" and "neutral"? I don't know and I don't care, but this is not the standard. You could claim that any criticism is biased and not-neutral, and that certainly is not a reasonable rationale for removing it, because then all WP articles would be scrubbed free of dissenting viewpoints, something clearly prohibited by the policies you claim to be upholding. It is notable and significant and we should record it in a neutral manner, as I have been saying all along, despite your attempts to obfuscate it with false claims about my actions and your new-found religion about the BLP policy. But I'm glad you've finally decided to find that religion after so recently egregiously violating BLP yourself. Welcome aboard! Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While I welcome you finally attempting to explain your position after several requests over 2 weeks now, the tone of your rather sarcastic reply does not comply with WP:EQ and I would urge you to stop repeatedly violating this policy. As for your statement "Is it "non-biased" and "neutral"? I don't know and I don't care, but this is not the standard" nothing could be further from the truth. One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. If you're going to say this is a significant criticism of him that is worth mentioning in his bio, you have to find adequate sources to back that up.

Let's see where we actually agree and work from there. You claim Frum is a notable source. I would agree with you (surprised?). The standard however is not whether the source is notable, but whether the quote supports the notability of the subject. It does not. He is also not a reliable source whereas the subject Mark Levin is concerned as they have both engaged in an on-going war of words and could not be considered reliable sources about each other. You must find a neutral, third-party source for criticism that does not have a stake in said criticism. As others have pointed out, this should not be hard for you to do with a little effort. Either way it is obvious there is no consensus on the use of this quote (see WP:CONS) therefore it should not be used, certainly not unilaterally on your part.

Additionally, I agree with you that articles should not be "scrubbed free of criticism". I merely insist that the criticism comply with WP:BLP. You must find a neutral third-party source to use for criticism because just as you claimed yourself, one could ALWAYS find criticism from one's critics for use in the article. Frum is not a neutral third-party source, he is extremely biased regarding Levin.

In conclusion, I suggest you refrain from your failures to observe WP:AGF and your sarcastic personal insults in violation of WP:EQ. I have refrained from lodging a complaint against you to date (something you immediately did as soon as I disagreed with you) but if you continue I will be forced to do so in the future. Malvenue (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you do not like my tone, but I am merely responding to your comments in the spirit they were offered. If you offer a different tone, I will respond differently. If you find this unsatisfactory, you are welcome to lodge a complaint in whatever manner you deem appropriate. If you wish, I can offer some suggestions about the manner in which you can lodge said complaint.

I imagine you will protest angelic innocence about this tone, but I doubt it will be taken seriously since your comments open with a bald-faced lie. I have repeatedly explained my position and it has remained constant. Where we differ is in your interpretation of BLP. Mine is backed up by how BLP is actually used in this encyclopedia. You pile supposition upon supposition to find subclause after subclause to stretch to apply to Frum, whereas my position is quite simple.

And I must address another one of your false accusations. This is hardly "unilateral" action on my part. A significant number of users support including Frum. This has been whittled down by compromise to the point where Frum isn't even quoted. By removing it wholesale (after, of course, petulantly responding by inserting a two paragraph screed attacking Frum) you are the one acting against consensus and acting unilaterally. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave up in frustration, because it seems like Malvenue refuses to hear anything anyone says, and just turns the volume up to eleven. Malvenue, you're just plain wrong. Everything Gamaliel has said is accurate -- when a brand new editor finds that veteran editors and administrators stand against a nuanced interpretation of policy, he should probably consider that he is mistaken. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Excepting of course that others agree with my interpretation as well. Please state the date you both explained why the quote was appropriate. I'd wager money it hasn't been within the past two weeks other than to flatly state in your own opinon of course "it is". Malvenue (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time with your vendetta against me and use this space to explain why others should support your unilateral actions. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record I do not have a "vendetta" against you. I disagree with your incorrect analysis and have been attempting to explain same. You have responded with a continuing series of personal attacks and red herring complaints (as this post apparently is as well). As for me explaining my points, I direct you to the comments posted most recently at 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC), 20:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC), 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC), 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC), 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC), and 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC) to name a few where I demonstrated the inappropriateness of your quote and challenge you to back your point of view (which until today you completely refused to do). I have bent over backwards to reach a consensus of opinion with you and your cohorts only to be met with insults, baseless complaints and obfuscation. In fact I've been met with everything EXCEPT your reasons why you felt the quote was appropriate... until today. I have repeatedly asked you to cease and desist your nastiness and attempt to work towards a compromise or consensus and you have flatly refused YET you claim the moral highground as the "more experienced editor". I don't think you've been acting in a way that demonstrates that and your latest post is yet another example of your hostility and failure to abide by WP:AGF. I once again urge you to begin to comply with WP:EQ or I shall have to take the appropriate action. Malvenue (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bent over backwards? Surely you can't be serious. You keep claiming that I'm somehow refusing to discuss my edits when I've been discussing them all along and blame me for this situation when it's your unilateral edit warring, BLP violations, and 3RR violations get the article locked, and you have the gall to complain about me and my tone in response to your lies and attacks? I admit to hardly responding like St. Francis in the face of your contempt for Wikipedia and your behavior both towards me and this article, but I have, despite your fraudulent claims, repeatedly discussed this article and edits to it with nearly a dozen editors here without any problems and requested assistance on the appropriate noticeboard, all appropriate Wikipedia actions. The only thing I haven't done is to pretend that your behavior is appropriate. Obviously you feel this is unsatisfactory, so feel free to take whatever action you think is appropriate, perhaps it will be the first of your actions that actually is appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a warning against personal attacks on your talk page. You've earned it. Malvenue (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel I have already addressed these but I will answer the issues directly:

1. Is David Frum a reputable source?

Yes (surprise!) For the things he is an expert on, for his own point of view, he is a "reputable source". He is however mostly an opinionated source. His criticism is his opinion, not statements of fact.

2. Is Frum notable enough for his criticism to be important?

The WP:BLP standard is "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

It has not been established that Frum's quote contributes to the notability of Mark Levin. Given the war of words that has existed between these two for some time, it's intuitively obvious Frum cannot be considered a non-biased reliable source about Mark Levin on anything.

3. Is the article cited a secondary source, as stated in the BLP policy?

Frum is not a reliable secondary source as I stated above.

4. Is the text currently about the criticism or is it repeating the criticism?

It is primary source criticism, it is not about the criticism as WP:BLP requires.

5. Is the text in an appropriate place?

By definition the quote is inappropriate, therefore it is not.

6. Is it appropriate to talk about Mr. Levin's response to Frum?

The quotation violates WP:NPOV therefore it should not be included. If it is however it is only fair to include Levin's comments on Frum to restore balance and neutrality of the article.

The bottom line here is that while Frum might be a source of note, he cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a reliable source regarding Mark Levin. Malvenue (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If we removed all content from Wikipedia that a single editor doesn't like, this would be a pretty empty place. — goethean ॐ 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however if you look up you'll see a number of people agreeing that the quotation is not appropriate. Consensus has not been reached, hence the latest attempt at mediation. Malvenue (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has actually been that the systematic removal of all criticism is inappropriate and leaves the article severely imbalanced. Malvenue, what criticisms do you believe are proper for the article? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that claim of consensus is false, although I understand why you might think so coming so late to this discussion. I believe any criticism that is a non-biased secondary source from a neutral third party is appropriate. In other words, a source that complies with WP:BLP. Malvenue (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of what you believe are acceptable criticisms? It would certainly help demonstrate that your primary interest is improving this article, rather than using all your energy to excise any negative information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make baseless accusations against me in violation of WP:AGF. I have repeatedly stated that fair non-biased criticism from reliable sources that follow WP:BLP would be acceptable. At one point I even agreed to a compromise including the Frum libel which included a paraphrase of Levin's views on Frum written by Ericsean. That compromise was deleted in its entirety by Gamaliel. While I would think it's not my place to provide examples, since you asked in good faith consider this

"Palin received criticism for allowing construction of a 3-mile access road, built with $25 million in Federal transportation funds set aside as part of the original bridge project, to continue. A spokesman for Alaska's Department of Transportation made a statement that it was within Palin's power to cancel the road project, but also noted that the state was still considering cheaper designs to complete the bridge project, and that in any case the road would open up the surrounding lands for development." from Sarah Palin

Here we have a valid criticism neutrally voiced and secondarily sourced. Please note I picked the subject in question deliberately to demonstrate WP:NPOV. Malvenue (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point -- Can you please provide some examples of what you believe are acceptable criticisms for this article? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I really don't think I can. I've provided you with an example of a neutrally voiced and secondarily sourced criticism which should be sufficient to answer your question. Malvenue (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand my question -- I think it's pretty obvious that your sole intent has been to either (1) remove all negative information, or (2) discredit anyone critical of Mr. Levin. Uninvolved editors have already stated that excising all criticism is a violation of WP:NPOV and leaves the article critically unbalanced. You seem completely unwilling to hear what other editors are telling you, so I've requested that you make a suggestion of criticism that would both honor the consensus for balance and be acceptable to you. You've refused to compromise with any criticism, which I believe is only further indication that your edits are in bad faith. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The only examples of bad faith around here are you and your co-conspirators attacking me for attemping to keep this page within WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It's not my job to provide you with examples of criticism even though I have done so. I have repeated the standards by which criticism in WP:BLP must be presented and challenged you to do so. After several weeks of this Gamaliel has finally at least attempted to do so. Where's your contributions other than insults and assumptions of bad faith, even after I attempted to answer your question re: "acceptable" criticism? Malvenue (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And where are your valid contributions (as opposed to anti-Frum screeds), other than complaining about others and how everyone is oh so mean to you? Glass houses and all that. Gamaliel (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you forgotten "talk about the content, not the editors"? You should review the Wikiquette alert page under the heading with your name on it. Malvenue (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you have forgotten the part of the Wikiquette discussion where you approach to this article was soundly rejected and you were told "If you would stop, then the edit war would automatically stop." Gamaliel (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the section where it was suggested we answer the questions posed by Ericsean and work towards a consensus, you know - the part you have completely ignored and simply continued your endless sarcastic insults and violations of WP:EQ - then no, I haven't forgotten it at all. Apparently however, you have and have no intention of remembering. I have attempted to work a compromise and you simply delete anything that doesn't jive with your opinion. That's bad faith editting, something I'm surprised an administrator like you would engage in. It's too bad you can't live up to the rules you supposedly enforce. Malvenue (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All I'm guilty of is responding with sarcasm to your policy violations, false accusations, personal insults, and now threats posted on my user page. Your behavior, however, is beyond the pale. This is the second time you've made a blatantly retaliatory edit. The first time was the insertion of a BLP/NPOV-violating two paragraph anti-Frum screed, which you bizarrely continue to insist was an appropriate edit. Now you have removed sourced material to retaliate because I removed your edit. The material you removed met your standards, the standards that no one besides you believes apply, but you removed it anyway. The material I removed doesn't even meet the standards you laid out here, so not only are you guilty of petulant retaliation, you are guilty of hypocrisy. Nowhere on Wikipedia are Newsbusters and Nat Rev blogs considered, as per your standards, neutral and reliable third party sources. If you wish to loosen the Malvenue standards, then we should replace much of the material you and the other Levinites have excised from the article. But apparently the Malvenue standards only apply to when you are criticizing Levin, and not when you are criticizing Frum. I'm sure you will respond to this, as you always do, with a personal attack and an indignant protest that some foul Wiki editors are soiling the good name of Sir Malvenue by not *gasp* assuming good faith of the dear knight, but perhaps you will finally consider that the reason that editors are not assuming good faith in you is the fact that you keep engaging in these blatantly hypocritical retaliatory actions. Gamaliel (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow your own moving standards. You unilaterally insert volatile unbalanced criticism which overwhelms the section even though you know there is a dispute, so I provide a balancing statement citing appropriate secondary sources which you unilaterally revert without any attempt at discussion claiming the sources aren't valid. Never mind that David Frum actually has his own section on the National Review, since I used it, it must be ineligible in your eyes. Rather than attempt to discuss, attempt to reach compromise, attempt to do follow any WP policy I can find, you simply revert and reject it. That smacks of bad faith editing. If you feel sources like National Review are ineligible for sourcing (see: "WTF???") then obviously The Week, Newsweek, et al must be ineligible as well, for exactly the same reasons. I'm just following your own standards and waiting for you to eventually actually work with me to attempt compromise. You rejected any balancing statement, you've failed to answer any of the questions regaring attempts to mediate, you've simply engaged in insults and sarcasm without apology. In short, you've failed to abide by the own policies which you claim to uphold. See Hypocrisy for further information. I again suggest you attempt to follow proper policy and discuss and attempt to reach an acceptable resolution via WP:BRD, emphasis on the D. I'm sure you've heard of it. Malvenue (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of blather and accusations, but nowhere do you address the main point. You demanded neutral reliable secondary sources. My contributions supplied them, yours did not. In no sane world is the a National Review blog or a Newsbusters blog the equivalent o Newsweek. You are applying your personal standards to everyone else's edits but not your own. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Newsweek has stated they are no longer focusing on reporting news but have changed into an "issue-advocacy" periodical. Do try to keep up, will you please? Malvenue (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dodge + personal attack. Typical. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there was any question regarding his attitude, Malvenue has "balanced" the well-sourced criticism of Levin with an equal amount of poorly-sourced, substanceless vitriol from the subject of the article. Malvenue's addition has lowered the tone the article and should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While my initial citation code may have been faulty (and has since been corrected) the substance of the paragraph explains Levin's response to his critics and is well-sourced and done in the same tone as the previous paragraph being held up as a stellar example of "criticism" of the subject. WP:NPOV must be maintained and said critical paragraph pushes the article into the negative, overwhelming the section in which it was added. Balance must be maintained. Malvenue (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Now Malvenue has replaced the scare quotes around moderate, apparently attempting to start an edit war with me. His edit summary indicates that he is under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is written in order to gain the approval of right-wing extremists. His edit should be undone immediately. — goethean ॐ 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the quotes and gave my reasons for doing so, then invited you to make a better suggestion. Your response is to accuse me of inciting an edit war? That's a pretty blatant violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ. Malvenue (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting) discourages the use of scare quotes. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Have a better suggestion to get the point across? Malvenue (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are asking us to provide ways in which to insert your editorial opinion into the article? That's rich. — goethean ॐ 03:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So is anyone else ready to take this to ANI and seek a topic ban against Malvenue? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an underlying premise here that an article, to be legitimately NPOV, must reflect "criticism". Perhaps so (and, perhaps, moreso in articles with political overtones), but that also assumes (one would at least hope) that the nature of "criticisms" offered reflect something of substance noted by considerably more than one or two pundits who may be directly or tangentially related to "criticisms" of the subject at hand. Imus and Limbaugh immediately come to mind...and Bob Grant if you want to go further back. Given the current state of political stratification and no shortage of web entities designed specifically to both document and feed it, merely identifying an individual as "conservative" or "liberal" might arguably qualify as a "criticism" in and of itself.

As to Levin, he appears (if my web searching is representative) to have, thus far, managed to avoid controversy of any substance (other than being a rather formidable proponent of his views) that might rise to warranting documentation in this article...and, perhaps, therein lies the rub of this discussion.

Of the four cites supporting the Brooks and Frum entries, only one (that currently survives anyway) appears to offer anything even approaching something substantive or citeworthy...and the author of that Politco article appears to suggest (as I read it) that Frum's current animus with Levin may be motivated more by Frum's need and desire to stake his political turf as a ("The"?) "moderate-conservative" and, perhaps, thereby enhancing the gravitas of his fledgling website.

In short, I agree with many of Malvenue's views on the subject and believe them to be at least valid if not convincing and commend his fortitude in the defense of his argument. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an underlying premise here that an article, to be legitimately NPOV, must reflect "criticism".

No, the (quite obvious) premise is that the article should report on the responses to the subject's broadcasts and published works. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Malvenue on some basic points here. As the article is currently written we are allowing the opinion of Frum and Brooks to be stated. Brooks opinion is not even verifiable with the given citations, which is probably important if we are going to use a quote of Brooks. At the same time we will not allow Levin to respond to this opinion? To make things even more unbalanced is that Levin's opinion on both Brooks and Frum is nowhere to be found on either of those articles, which is interesting given that the two citations being used to show that Frum is a critic of Levin are actual articles that point to Levin being a critic of Frum. As such it is perfectly fine for Levin to present His opinion of Brooks and Frum. The question is should it go here or in their respective articles? Arzel (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is should it go here or in their respective articles?

Perhaps so, assuming WP:BLP issues are resolved for inclusion.

In the interim, and in light of the edit war currently underway (which, in itself btw, ignores the "controversial topic" Wikipedia guidelines), I believe the current incorporation of the material in question to be a violation of the provisions of WP:BLP and should be removed pending editorial consensus and/or resolution...

WP:BLP#Maintaining biographies of living persons...

Article improvement to a neutral, high-quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved.

Concur? Disagree? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree of course, as this is what I've been saying all along. Gamaliel, Blaxthos, and goethean have simply been ignoring said policy and reverting any changes they disagree with. Malvenue (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my position that Frum's observations on Levin are inherently and clearly biased and, under the provisions of WP:BLP, require significant sourcing from reliable "third-party" sources to justify their inclusion. I have not seen those sources presented (save for the Politico article) nor does it appear that any editor currently involved is prepared to do so. If such sources exist, I would appreciate direction to them.

Furthermore, WP:BLP mandates that related material in dispute be excised from the article until some resolution on this question of bias is reached...period. Attempting to attain NPOV in the presentation of material that I deem to to be in clear violation of WP:BLP is not an exercise I'm prepared to entertain. You apparently are...and any logical progression towards resolution of fundamental issues in dispute gets lost in a maelstrom of reverts, ill-will, ad hominems and bad faith epithets. I suggest you forget about Round 10 and concentrate on resolving Round 1. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that most (if not all?) editors might be willing to stipulate that Frum's observations on Levin, as an alleged representative/proponent/practitioner of contemporary "right-wing conservatism" that "courts violence", are inherently biased just as Levin's counter-observations on Frum and and his "moderate-conservative" mantle are inherently biased. Assuming that stipulation, debate ensues as to the propriety of including this "criticism" under WP:BLP#Criticism and praise..."If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources."

Barring the WP:BLP mandated provision of reliable "third-party sources" that might substantiate Frum's assertions, I believe a strong case is made (IMHO appropriately raised by Malvenue) for not including those comments here. An apparent inability of those editors supporting "inclusion" to provide those mandated WP:BLP sources is, I think, telling.

Assuming the mandates of WP:BLP might be met, it is more than appropriate under NPOV that Levin's a response to any included "criticism" be incorporated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion has always been that Frum is not a reliable source for criticism of Levin given their war of words. They are essentially mortal enemies and one can always seek out and find criticism from one's mortal enemies. It's simply unfair, biased and unbalanced to do so. I really don't see how this can even be debated, however I recognize that others may hold other opinions. Unlike certain other editors here I'm willing to respect the opinions of those with whom I may disagree.

Essentially I do not believe anything from Frum should be cited in an article on Mark Levin. It's like asking Al Capone's opinion of Elliot Ness and vice-versa. You're not going to get anything of value out of that conversation.

If a valid argument can be made to the contrary and if the opinion is that the quote should be included, then I would argue that in all fairness and in order to restore the WP:NPOV balance of the article, Levin's feelings on Frum must be included to give them context. That's a more than reasonable compromise in my opinion. Malvenue (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will be possible to convice other editors that the opinions of Frum and Brooks be removed completely. That said, in order to provide balance, Levin's response should be included. Furthermore, the quote attributed to Brooks, calling Levin a loon, is not verifiable. I know a source is cited, but unless it can actually be verified that he said it I say WP:PROVEIT. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The citation is the verification, Arzel. As explained previously, WP:V does not mandate that the source be available online for your viewing. Unless you're honestly contesting that the Brooks actually appeared on Meet The Press and actually said such, I suggest you assume good faith that the reference is valid. A quick consultation of the Oracle shows the beltway rags' and bloggers' radars are lit up over this incident, so I find it difficult to reasonably sustain any question of verifiability. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying he didn't say something like that, but if if an actual quotation is to be used there better damn well be a source that can be looked up that specifically states that this is what that person actually said verbatim. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It (Brooks) can be verified...and I've seen it. I'm just not particularly motivated to hunt down (again) what I believe to be nothing more substantial than a moment of hyperbolic snark in a Meet the Press round-robin discussion.

I don't think it will be possible to convice other editors that the opinions of Frum and Brooks be removed completely.

Respectfully, you have the cart before the horse. Under WP:BLP, "...the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." Furthermore, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude (emphasis mine) of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from." Were these "criticisms" something more than the product of some internecine sniping (almost bordering on libel by Frum...I mean "courting violence"?...good lord ) among pundits party to a pissing contest, surely some legitimate and reliable "third-party" sourcing would be out there. I didn't see any (save for the Politico article I previously referenced), though I did look. Perhaps the proponents can do better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are the David Frum & David Brooks quotes appropriate in the context of WP:BLP to Mark Levin's article?

Are the David Frum and David Brooks quotes referenced at [1] appropriate in the context of WP:BLP for the subject Mark Levin? Do they follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? And if so, should Levin's comments on Frum and Brooks referenced at [2] be included in the article to put the criticism in context and maintain balance? Malvenue (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The short answer: "yes" and "it depends". You may find my comments on this question, along with those of many other editors and administrators, in the sections above and in the archive. Forgive me if I don't feel motivated to repeat them ad infinitum here, as I doubt they'll be heard this time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Balance is a funny thing, that is, balance will not be achieved by the quotes of Frum and Brooks. Yes, they disapprove of Mark Levin, good for them. We understand they'll argue any points he's made in his book. So, it would appear we're dealing with a couple of editorialists. ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite ironically, Daniel Libit's "Politico" article, used as a cite to support the proposed Frum entry, contains enough material on the background and nature of Frum's "issues" to negate the need to even cite Levin for "balance". JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excepting of course the quotes used in the article standing alone throw the article into the negative voice in violation of WP:NPOV, almost as if they were cherry-picked to editorialize in the article. Makes you think, doesn't it? Hmmm.... Malvenue (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My point being, as I think you understand but, perhaps better made, is that the Libit article is a "one stop shop", if you will, for pro and con Frum criticism...and the "con" observations, I believe, are more than adequate to establish Frum's "bias" in the promulgation of his "criticism" being offered in this disputed edit.

Contrary to the rationale offered by Gamaliel in his most recent revert, I'd submit it is Frum's clear "bias", as a principal in this ideological pissing contest, that triggers the provisions of WP:BLP to provide more-than-minimal, reliable "third-party" support of his allegations...not Frum's status under WP:RS. Inclusion of this material prior to resolution of the issue of Frum's alleged "bias" is, IMHO, a clear violation of the provisions of WP:BLP...as I cited above.

Discussion of "balance" is also, IMHO, somewhat premature pending resolution of this question...(ed.)and attempts to "balance" edits which, I believe, are demonstrably in violation of WP:BLP should be avoided as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to entertain suggestions. Malvenue (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Malvenue's added content is inappropriate to a neutrally-written encyclopedia. Wikipedia has an interest in documenting the responses to Levin's broadcasts and publications. It does not have an interest in dwelling extensively on Levin's responses to these responses. Thus I have added the NPOV template to the section. — goethean ॐ 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"WP does not have an interest in housing the rants of a talk show blabber" - Careful, Goethean, your bias is showing! Malvenue (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's already a neutrality notice at the top of the article. As for your main point, this is an article about Mark Levin. His statements regarding his critics is entirely within the point of the article. In fact I'd go so far as to say they're important to the notability of the subject given the current feud between Mr. Levin and Frum/Brooks. Frankly I don't see the issue here. You guys are happy to slam the subject ("loon"? Really? That's an appropriate criticism?) but you absolutely refuse to concede that putting said criticism in the context of the subject's viewpoint is inappropriate for an article about the subject? Smacks of a double standard to me, but then again I don't think the quotes are appropriate anyway. If these quotes represent anything greater than the rantings of a small minority (which should not be represented according to WP:BLP it shouldn't be hard to find neutral third party criticisms in a similar vein. Unfortunately no one has come forward with any in the past 3+ weeks now this has been a controversy. Malvenue (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The double standard is yours. You are the one who wants to remove criticism of Levin based on one standard but do not want to apply the same standard to criticism of Frum. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your game-playing is rejected. You've made zero attempts to reach a reconciliation here. You're hardly in any place to judge my motives which is yet another violation of WP:AGF. Try actually working with people. You know, the way WP:BRD actually requires? Malvenue (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. I've gone along with almost every compromise on this page that has stripped the article of nearly all criticism. I've even gone along with your Malvenue rules that no one except yourself and fellow Levinites thinks apply, and when I find sources that meet your criteria, you respond by either removing them or by adding anti-Frum sources that don't even meet your own criteria, much less WP:RS. You're either making it up as you're going along here or you are hoping you can make enough noise so people won't notice your actions. Keep throwing out those acronyms, eventually you'll run out of them and you'll actually have to address something of substance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You're saying your only purpose throughout this entire debate is to ensure there is criticism in a subject's article? How in the world can that be represented as anything OTHER than editorializing??? Malvenue (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are making stuff up as you go along. Amazing. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your own words condemn you. Say, what do you think of my latest compromise proposal? I've posted it twice and this is the third or fourth proposal I've seen you have failed to comment on or work towards a consensus about. Malvenue (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, bullshit. I said no such thing. And I think your "compromise" proposal is more bullshitting since you haven't even addressed the issue of sources in your "compromise", which I have posed on this page repeatedly and you have dodged every time. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your latest WP:EQ violation notwithstanding, I didn't think there was any issue regarding sources since I cut down both your statement and mine while keeping the main points of both. Since I posted it on a talk page I didn't include the citations but my intent was to keep the ones relevant to the compromise paragraphs if a consensus was reached on the wording. In short, keep your citations, I'll keep mine and a compromise is therefore reached. I'm reminded of the poor man's definition of a compromise, "an agreement where both parties are equally miserable". What say YOU? Malvenue (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I say that you've dodged the issue of sources yet again. The Levin criticism has unimpeachable sources both according to WP policy and the special rules demanded by you. The Frum criticism is ineligible according to both WP policy and your special rules. So allowing in the latter while reducing the former isn't any sort of "compromise" at all, it's giving you everything. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a contest, nor should you treat it as one. It's about getting the article RIGHT in a neutral, encyclopedic way. If you were to give me "everything I wanted", I'd have you take your biased negatively-voiced paragraph out completely. I suggest you stop thinking of this as someone "winning" or "losing" and start trying to work towards a consensus or compromise. Malvenue (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a contest, nor do I treat it as one. Compromise on Wikipedia should be between editors who are acting in good faith. It would be nice if you were one of those editors. If you wish to be one of those editors, please address the points above. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your points repeatedly, you simply fail to either acknowlege this or simply disagree with my conclusions and therefore claim I "haven't addressed" your points. Malvenue (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please quote or link to where you addressed the issue of sources, specifically of how you can justify the differing treatment of sources regarding criticism of Levin versus criticism of Frum and how you justify deleting sources that meet the extra criteria you specified on this page and adding criticism that does not. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to work with you. When you delete Levin's comments on Frum, I assume you only mean to include Frum's comments and therefore violate the neutral voice of WP:NPOV. When you reinsert it, I add the Levin comments to maintain the neutral voice. I'm happy to compromise with you, I'm just waiting for you to make up your mind. I've proposed a compromise which allows your criticism, biased and in violation of WP:BLP as it is, and includes Levin's comments on Frum. I think that's a more than fair compromise and anyone not now personally invested in this argument would have to agree. Malvenue (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue at all, it just restates your "compromise", which as noted above is not a compromise at all. You have not explained why the rules should apply to criticism of Levin but not criticism of Frum. Nor have you explained why you wish to treat the sources differently and why it is unacceptable to quote mainstream critics of Levin without secondary sources but at the same time it is acceptable to include criticism of Frum by sourcing blogs and fringe publications. If you wish to abandon the special rules you set out for criticism, you should say so directly and that should also apply to criticism of Levin. You can't have it both ways. Should the rules apply to both or neither? Gamaliel (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I didn't get your point since the same standards do apply to both. I don't feel your sources are valid for the reasons I've stated time and again. I'm just willing to let it slide in the interests of reaching a compromise. Frum is not a reliable source re: Mark Levin as they are dire enemies. You seem to simply want biased criticism to go unanswered in the article thus introducing a negative tone in violation of WP:NPOV. I do not. In that respect our disagreement is quite simple. You want unanswered criticism and to silence the subject in his own article. That seems... strange to me. /shrug. What would you do to improve the compromise other than to just remove any objection to your criticism, which it seems so far has been your only response? Do you have another proposal? Or are you just going to call me some more names? Malvenue (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Only in your world does "I want the same standards to apply to all sources" mean "I want to silence the subject in his own article". Yet again you have dodged the issue, as you focus solely on Frum himself and ignore the secondary sources you yourself demanded. And if Levin and Frum are in fact dire enemies, why are you using Levin as a source for criticism of Frum, when you objected to using Frum as a source of criticism for Levin? You claim you want compromise, but that can't begin if you can't even answer basic questions about your edits and rely on slurs and accusations. Whatever happened to that famous champion of AGF? I am looking for a consistent standard to be applied to all sources, nothing more, and if I have to badger you to provide even the most basic response to a remarkably easy question, then I don't see how you can honestly say that you are attempting to forge a compromise here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to add someone once said "This is about Levin, not Frum". Malvenue (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your game-playing is rejected...yet another violation of WP:AGF.

Now that's what I call talking out of both sides of your mouth. — goethean ॐ 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you take a few moments to read WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BITE? I'm sure you'll find them fascinating. Malvenue (talk) 4:40 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Let's try this. If you insist on using criticism by David Frum as a reliable source for Mark Levin, you must include Levin's feelings towards Frum et al to provide context and balance. How would you feel about the following?

"Levin's show has garnered criticism from liberal Republicans such as David Frum and David Brooks who feel Levin and others have adopted an angry tone and posed a negative influence on both conservative politics and civil discourse.

Levin dismisses Frum and Brooks as "phony conservatives" who seek attention for their own aggrandizement and only serve as useful tools for liberal pundits who portray them as the real face of conservatism in order to make Levin and others look like extremists."

That seems eminently fair to both sides in my view. Malvenue (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Malvenue is a POV troll, plain and simple, and has repeatedly showed he will shop for whatever policy he thinks might work, then use nuanced interpretations to apply said policy only when it benefits his viewpoint. He refuses to hear any argument other than his own, he shows no respect for other editors and their opinions (for example, the "game-playing is rejected" comment), and I think it's pretty clear he's here for a single purpose. I personally don't see any additional benefit to continuing to pander to this behavior -- I don't think he's here in good faith, so I recommend the community, and especially the veteran established editors and admins, do the same. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as he is unwilling to act within the rules and norms of good faith editing, I don't see how any other course of action is possible. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments by Brooks and Frum are acceptable but they should not be referred to as "liberal Republicans". While Levin's defence should normally be included, his criticisms of other people are more appropriate to their articles. Therefore his comments should be omitted. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will just have to disagree with that. I can't see how a neutral voice is maintained in the article by only reporting criticism when the subject's own words regarding his critics are certainly notable. Malvenue (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact they are not notable. They are postings to weblogs. — goethean ॐ 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are other issues which continue to be ignored. The comments by Brooks were on television shows. There is no article stating the notability of that comment, nor is there anyway to examine the source for accuracy. The initial sources for Frum being a leading critic of Levin (cite 12 and 13) do not make that connection. Citations 14 and 15 have the same failings as those stated for Levin as they are simply Frum's own words and not secondary reports on how Frum is a critic of Levin. If this poor sourcing is to be allowed then I see no reason why Levin's response is not to be allowed. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, with regard to the "other issues that continue to be ignored"... I actually addressed your fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V most recently here on this page yesterday, and have historically corrected your incorrect assertions several times over the last few years. Please re-read my response if you still are confused about WP:V. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I read your response. I don't misunderstand WP:V, but you seem to be ignoring a basic principle. We are using a DIRECT quote. From wp very only policies quotes should be cited expressly so that anyone may be able to look them up. This is not possible with the current citations given. Arzel (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP does not prohibit sources like books, journal articles, and television and radio shows just because they are not immediately accessible from every single editor's desktop on demand. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it does, only that you are using a direct quote and there is absolutely no way to verify what was actually said or under what context it was said or whether it was part of a sentence. If WP is going to say that someone said something than the reader should be able to look that up and see when and where they said it. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The citation provides the information about "when and where they said it". If you think that - contrary to WP policy - this citation is insufficient, then in fact you are saying that all sources must be free on demand to every desktop. You can verify the quote in any number of ways. Transcripts and video clips would be the easiest. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your underlying premise being that a weblog post to The Corner is just as notable as an article published in Newsweek magazine. — goethean ॐ 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My underlying premise is that the primary Frum articles being used are self-published and really no different than the self-published comments by Levin on his radio show. In essense Frum's comments, while technically from a third-party source, seem to violate the basic premise of a Third-Party source. In fact none of the articles being used are from a third party perspective illustrating that Brooks or Frum are the main critics of Levin. The frist Political cite simply says that Frum is "squabbling", and neither make the broad statement currently being made. The other two for Frum are from Frum, which requires Synthesis to make that connection. I have no idea what the Brook's cites mention because they are not linked to any documents. I'll be gone for most of the rest of the night, so I won't be able to respond. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Frum publishes Newsweek and Politico? Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please...you are an admim. You should know wp policies better than most. WP:PRIMARY makes a point that we should rely on secondary and tertiary sources. The Political and Newsweek sources are both primary sources, just as the Levin sources. Frum wrote them, it wasn't someone else talking about how Frum has a problem with Levin. None of the sources establish the basic premise that Brooks or Frum are leading critics of Levin. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Politico is not a primary source and the primary sources are there to supplement the secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Arzel has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:PS, as demonstrated by his (1) belief that sources not available for verification online do not pass WP:V, and (2) his assertion that the Brooks comment on Meet The Press qualifies as a primary source (when, in fact, the television show that aired his criticism is the secondary source). What I find most interesting is that on other points, Arzel acknowledged that "while technically from a third party source", the policy is somehow mistaken and this really shouldn't count. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between someone opining and someone else reporting on the opining, and I believe that's his point. Malvenue (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Reporting" is not required, only publication by third party reliable sources (which has been met). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That assumes, under WP:BLP, that Frum's observations are unbiased. As Frum and Levin are principals in a rhetorical, ideological exchange from which these "criticisms" are contextually sourced, it simply strains credulity to suggest that either Frum or Levin are objective, unbiased observers...and WP:BLP mandates the provision of substantial "third-party" sourcing to validate "criticisms" such as these (and wisely so) before they might even be considered appropriate for inclusion in a biographical article. Wikipedia policy countenances "insisting on provision of these "third-party" sourceS, none of which, save for the Politico article, have been offered. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two articles from Politico, so that takes care of that. There are no RS third-party sources for the criticism of Frum, so I assume you'll be advocating the removing of that? Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

First things first. Is Frum biased in his views on Levin or is he not? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. The same standard must be applied to all. The standard has clearly been met in one case and not the other. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hardly" is unresponsive to the question. Is Frum biased in his views on Levin or is he not? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've answered that before, but in short: I don't know and I don't think it matters. Frum is a significant commentator whose views have appeared in and been reported on by major neutral mainstream publications. Now will you be advocating for the removal of the criticism of Frum since it doesn't even begin to meet this standard or the standards advocated by you, Arzel, and Malvenue? Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You present logical falacy. Frum is a significant commentator. Frum is critical of Levin. Therefore Frum is a significant critic of Levin. Not buying it. Find some third party sources that illustrate Frum's notabilty in the context as a critic of Levin. Arzel (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That standard has already been met. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've answered that before, but in short: I don't know and...

So, you're unable, in consideration of the contextual circumstance of Frum's "criticisms", to reach some personal determination as to his objectivity or lack of bias in offering his "criticism" of Levin. Very well.

Assuming your inability to arrive at a determination in that regard, it logically follows that you must then allow for the possibility that Frum might, indeed, be biased in his criticisms, no? If that is the case...

I don't think it matters.

...becomes even more problematical. You are unsure whether the source of a "criticism" may or may not be biased. You are further uncertain as to whether or not it "matters" that those "criticisms" are incorporated into an article subject to the most stringent requirements for incorporation in Wikipedia...WP:BLP. Beyond that, you are personally pro-active in seeing to it that those "criticisms", in obvious dispute, remain inserted into that same article. I'd like to see that kicked around at the Wikipedia water cooler.

(On edit) P.S. I neglected to add...

Now will you be advocating for the removal of the criticism of Frum since it doesn't even begin to meet this standard or the standards advocated by you, Arzel, and Malvenue?

I already have...and I think I've been rather clear on my position (perhaps you've overlooked it...see my response to malvenue in "mediation"). Until the question of WP:BLP bias is resolved, discussion of any NPOV considerations are premature. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I did miss it, I can't seem to locate any such comments that address the inadequate sources in the anti-Frum material. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have read your comment more carefully and I'll yield you the point. I did not specifically address appropriateness of sourcing for inclusion of a Levin response but instead advocated for removal of both based upon inadequate sourcing in support of the Frum content rendering the need for NPOV considerations moot.

That being said, I still maintain that discussion of NPOV considerations are premature pending resolution of the question of appropriate sourcing for biased content under WP:BLP and will reserve further comment in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Frum sources versus Levin sources is not about NPOV, but about the BLP criteria that we are currently discussing. There is no reason to reserve further comment because this is a directly pertinent question. Why is one standard applied to Levin but not to Frum? The failure to directly address this matter leads other editors to believe that some here are not acting in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Frum sources versus Levin sources is not about NPOV, but about the BLP criteria that we are currently discussing.

On the contrary. It is resolution of the appropriateness of Frum's "criticism" for inclusion under WP:BLP and the edit/sourcing which purport to support the current disputed text that precedes any discussion of NPOV considerations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing NPOV considerations, I just want someone who thinks the anti-Frum material is acceptable to explain why it is acceptable using the same standards they apply to the anti-Levin material. I don't see how a compromise can be forged here if no one on your side of the dispute is willing to address a simple, straightforward manner. You certainly are much more reasonable than your two compatriots, but if even you won't address this matter and are unwilling to address the simple, basic, WP-required matter of a consistent standard applied to all living individuals equally, then there is simply no way that we can reach any consensus here without the intervention of outside editors. Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want someone who thinks the anti-Frum material is acceptable to explain why it is acceptable using the same standards they apply to the anti-Levin material.

Then I'm not your boy. I haven't even looked at them and have made no such determination (as you so correctly noted above) as they appear to represent some type of NPOV accommodation to "biased content" currently incorporated not only in violation of WP:BLP standards for sourcing but in violation of mandates for the immediate removal of WP:BLP disputed material pending resolution of the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So material sourced to mainstream publications is "in violation of mandates for the immediate removal of WP:BLP" but material sourced to blogs and partisan outlets is okay with you? Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Content under dispute as "biased content" lacking the requisite "third-party" sourcing mandated by WP:BLP is to be removed immediately pending resolution of the dispute. The policy is clear...and incorporation of the edit, as currently comprised, is in violation of that Wikipedia dictum. I'll simply defer comment on NPOV considerations related to an edit which I deem to be in violation of WP:BLP and which are, in fact, off-topic as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly? The two political articles do not make the statement that Frum is a leading critic of Levin. The two other articles (written by Frum) are Primary sources. You cannot use them to establish Frum as a notable critic of Levin because it is simply his opinion, and it requires both Synthesis of Material and Original Research to make that connection. You are applying the letter of the rule without taking into consideration the spirit of the rule. The whole section should be removed becuase there are no secondary sources that make the case that this is a notable event or find some better sources. The Political articles are the closest to that, but they hardly make the case that Frum is somehow a notable critic of Levin, and if either Brooks or Frum are leading critics of Levin and it is notable then it should not be that difficult to find some good sources that back that up. If it is to stay then Levin's response is appropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)

Why would Levin's response be appropriate? It has far, far more sourcing problems than the Frum/Brooks material, but no one wants to even begin to address that matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Far, far more? One of the Political refs (which for some unkown reason is being used to claim that Frum is a leading critic of Levin) is really a source that shows that Levin is a critic of Frum. Not that it really matters. The whole section has sourcing problems. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, far, far more. Blogs and sources that don't even meet RS, crap that wouldn't last a second in the article if it was anti-Levin material. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no

• Yes I think that published criticism of any notable communicator's "literary" form, and any political commentator's views, is appropriate in every biography about any such person. I also think that they ought to be sourced to formal publications, like the Newsweek article that Malvenue is so unhappy about, instead of to the blogs he's been pushing.
  I have no objection to a short "response to the critics" so long as it is taken directly from something Levin published (and can therefore be assumed to precisely reflect Levin's own views). However, the "response" statement should be short, meaning "clearly less than what we say about the critics' views". A criticism section should never be written as a WP:COATRACK for expounding on the Truth™ as Levin see it (his views can have their own section) or smearing the critics (not encyclopedic). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  Very well said. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why WhatamIdoing, you will probably be horrified to learn we are not really that far apart in our views here. Malvenue (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So long as you think that horrified means thhe same as wikt:pleased, then I'm sure you're right.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. In the foregoing discussion, the opponents of including the material misunderstand Wikipedia policies because they overlook the distinction between fact and opinion. If someone states that Levin, as a young man, ran a business that filed for bankruptcy, we might not assert in the article that there was a bankruptcy if the person alleging it seemed likely to be biased. That's because we don't want to include any factual statements without reliable support. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. We would be very unlikely to say something like "Levin is helpful to conservative politics" or "Levin is harmful to conservative politics" because neither statement could be properly sourced; both statements are opinions. We can, however, report the fact that Frum said that Levin is harmful. The only reliabiity issue is whether the sourcing is good enough that we're satisfied that Frum did indeed make the statement. Some editorial judgment is called for -- we don't report every criticism ever made of Levin -- but the Brooks and Frum statements here at issue seem notable. JamesMLane t c 09:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• No Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. We would be very unlikely to say something like "Levin is helpful to conservative politics" or "Levin is harmful to conservative politics" because neither statement could be properly sourced; both statements are opinions. We can, however, report the fact that Frum said that Levin is harmful.

Your comments, I'd submit, are irrelevant to a resolution of the question posed by the RfC. The issue is not one of WP:RS, but mandates for the breadth and specificity of sourcing requirements under WP:BLP. Frum is a principal in an acrimonius dispute with Levin who, I submit, are both blatantly biased "observers". It is assumed by WP:NPOV#Bias that "all editors and all sources have biases." How much moreso than by one directly involved in a rhetorical pissing contest with the target of his criticism?

It is "bias", compounded by the author's contextual perspective, that exemplifies the rationale for establishing the mandated requirement for multiple, "reliable third-party published sources" under WP:BLP#Criticism and praise demonstrating, with little doubt, that the "criticisms" suggested for inclusion don't "promote" an isolated, "biased point of view". In fact, by logical inference, it is legitimate to state that WP:BLP always assumes "bias", particularly inre negative "opinions", for articles under its purview.

However, any discussion of considerations under WP:RS or WP:NPOV are premature prior to resolution of the question of Frum's alleged bias. One proponent for inclusion is, apparently, unable to come to a determination in that regard despite the WP:NPOV guidance cited above...so I pose to you the same question. Is Frum biased in his observations on Levin or is he not? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the blood feud the two are currently engaged in it is immediately apparent Frum cannot be considered as anything BUT biased, which is the point of my entire objection. If Levin has come under such general criticism, I do not understand why it is so hard to find non-biased sources of that criticism? Malvenue (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One way to approach this issue would be "We report facts about opinions, provided we're satisfied that the opinions are thoughtful, well-informed, and coming from unbiased analysts of unimpeachable intelligence and integrity." You may prefer that standard but it doesn't happen to be the actual policy. Per WP:NPOV, the standard for reporting an opinion is its significance, not its inherent merit. If a blogger in Ireland who never heard of any of these people were to read the relevant materials, reach a conclusion, and publish an analysis, that opinion might well be unbiased but it wouldn't merit inclusion in our article. Frum's opinion merits inclusion because of his prominence, and furthermore because he's a prominent conservative. There are presumably plenty of liberal criticisms of Levin, which don't all need to be quoted. We should quote Frum precisely because there's a "blood feud" -- although that phrase may overstate it, the point is that the reader ought to be informed about the sharp criticism of Levin from people who are generally on his side of the ideological spectrum. There is no requirement that the opinions we report be unbiased. Just to cite the first example that occurred to me, a quick glance at Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy#Attacks on the film and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy#Controversy about the film's content shows numerous passages reporting the opinions of conservative advocacy groups, The Wall Street Journal, and supporters of the invasion of Iraq. None of these sources can be considered unbiased as to Michael Moore. Should all that information be deleted? or does this alleged policy of not reporting criticism deemed biased apply only to suppressing criticism of conservatives, while liberals remain fair game? JamesMLane t c 13:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

...or does this alleged policy of not reporting criticism deemed biased apply only to suppressing criticism of conservatives.

Your conclusion is a strawman that mis-represents the issue. No proponent for exclusion of the material (as currently comprised) is suggesting that "biased" criticisms such as Frum's may not be incorporated. Under WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, that policy is clearly defined...

If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

...the reader ought to be informed about the sharp criticism of Levin from people who are generally on his side of the ideological spectrum.

People? As in plural? Surely if this "criticism" is both noteworthy and substantive (which, I'd submit, is the "spirit" behind WP:BLP), then provide the mandated "reliable third-party sources" supporting an allegation that Levin has "posed a negative influence on both conservative politics and civil discourse" as something more than the biased utterings of someone with questionable contextual motivations.

...the reader ought to be informed about the sharp criticism of Levin from people who are generally on his side of the ideological spectrum.

People? As in plural? From Libit's article in "Politico"...

You can count on a fingerless hand the big-name conservatives who have publicly joined the (Frum's) crusade.

Frum's "criticism" of Levin is effectively isolated from "people who are generally on his side of the political spectrum". Little wonder the mandated third-party sourcing is not forthcoming to support the current edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As to your reiterated question of the plural, I referred only to Frum for convenience, but the RfC is about noting that Levin has drawn criticism from him and from Brooks.

More important is that you evidently see no distinction between a fact and an opinion. You demand that we "provide the mandated 'reliable third-party sources' supporting an allegation that Levin has 'posed a negative influence on both conservative politics and civil discourse'". That would indeed be mandated if anyone wanted the article to assert as a fact that Levin has had such an influence. No one has advocated that position AFAIK, and my post expressly disclaimed it. In fact, I pointed out that we could almost never have reliable sourcing for a flat-out assertion either way about whether Levin's influence was positive or negative. What we look for is reliable sourcing for the fact about the opinion, i.e., make sure that the opinion was really expressed by its supposed author. Beyond that it's a matter of editorial judgment.

As for WP:BLP, I think it's worth quoting the entire passage so that the context is evident:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The applicability of "if it is relevant to the subject's notability" is clear. The criticism concerns his work as a broadcaster, not his personal life or some prior career (information that might or might not be relevant). Furthermore, Levin as a broadcaster is specifically a controversialist, so this kind of political dispute is directly relevant. As for "reliable secondary sources", reliability must be assessed in light of the distinction between fact and opinion. The policy doesn't mean that a criticism like "Levin ran a failed business" and a criticism like "Levin is hurting conservatism" must be treated identically. For the first, we must have good reason to believe that the critic's statement is true. For the second, we must have good reason to believe that our statement is true -- our statement being the assertion that the critic really did say it. The two are different because the second will never be asserted as true but will be reported as an opinion, attributed to a named critic. Finally, I don't see any basis for charging that a few sentences about this dispute constitutes undue weight.

We need reliable sources for assertions made in the article. We have to make editorial judgments, though, and we don't need (and usually won't have) reliable sources for those judgments. For example, we would not state that a politician had a criminal record unless we had a source to that effect. But should the criminal record be mentioned in the introductory section and elaborated on in the body of the article, or mentioned only in the body of the article, or omitted from the main bio article entirely? Wikipedians have concluded that Spiro Agnew's record should be in the introductory section but George W. Bush's should not be. The difference is based on our assessment of how to best serve our readers. From that perspective, the existence of a conservative "intramural" dispute merits a short mention in the Levin article. JamesMLane t c 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As to your reiterated question of the plural, I referred only to Frum for convenience, but the RfC is about noting that Levin has drawn criticism from him and from Brooks.

I'll table, for the moment, addressing Brooks' "criticism".

More important is that you evidently see no distinction between a fact and an opinion.

Nor does WP:BLP in the matter of substantive and substantial sourcing for biased content...or inclusion for that matter.

For the second, we must have good reason to believe that our statement is true -- our statement being the assertion that the critic really did say it.

Your apparent assertion, that the mandated provision of multiple "reliable sources" under WP:BLP is satisfied by merely establishing the actuality of a "biased" criticism, would turn WP:BLP on its ear. WP:BLP does not differentiate between biased "facts" and biased "facts about opinions." Both constitute the presentation of "biased content" and are, therefore, subject to considerably higher standards for inclusion, one of which is an increased mandate for relevant, credible sourcing...

Look out for biased...content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources...

Any suggestion that WP:BLP is, somehow, otherwise ambivalent to other considerations as to the introduction of "biased content" opens the door to the introduction any manner of "opinions", regardless of the relative prevalence of those "views" among supposedly "informed" sources. Adequate (and mandated) sourcing in support of that "content" resolves the issue.

That reality, and your following comment, raises yet another issue relating directly to the mandated sourcing requirements under WP:BLP...

I don't see any basis for charging that a few sentences about this dispute constitutes undue weight.

Another of the criteria WP:BLP utilizes as a consideration for inclusion is the breadth of support within an assumed informed community for the suggested content. The current edit reads...

Levin's show has garnered criticism from moderate conservatives.

Within an unknown, unspecified universe of "moderate conservatives" (to say nothing of "conservatives" in general), where are the supporting sources elevating these "views" to something more than criticisms of a "tiny minority"...of anything? Per WP:BLP...

The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.

It simply cannot be asserted, by any rational interpretation of WP:BLP, that the mandates for sourcing the current "content" as legitimate for inclusion are satisfied solely by reference to an additional, single, allegedly corroborating, source. And that allegedly relevant, supporting source? A moment of rhetorical hyperbole and, just as with Frum's, not even specific to Levin, uttered in the context of a round-robin discussion relating to "partisan divide".

Where is the sourcing supporting inclusion of these views (even if Brooks' moment of hyperbole was arguably relevant?) as something more than the "views", "opinions", "facts about opinions" of a "tiny minority?" Answer: They are not to be found...at least within the "universe" implied by the current content...and Libit's observation in the Politico article confirmed that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Saw this over at RfC and decided to weigh in. While I am a pretty big Levin fan, and don’t agree with Brooks (on much of anything these days), as the go to RINO for the mainstream media, he certainly is widely read and his opinions are often cited. I think the inclusion is appropriate. David Frum is fairly marginal and few seem to follow him, so I would argue against his inclusion here. WVBluefield (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)