Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Colbert? =

I don't think the Colbert bit is totally irrelevant--the message of his satire was that it's silly for people like Limbaugh to blame MM when all MM does is report stuff Limbaugh said. The piece that went in the article was too long, but Colbert's opinion is not by definition irrelevant to the Limbaugh criticism bit. Croctotheface (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert is a comedian doing political satire. Everything he does is to generate a laugh. He is simply not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Reliable source? He's being used as as a source for his opinion, as expressed in his comedy. Croctotheface (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is his opinion done while acting matter at all? It is not germaine to the issue at all. Arzel (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a commentator addressing the issue. The fact that there is a comic conceit involved doesn't somehow mean his POV can't be relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of other commentators whose opinion is included in this article, so there doesn't seem to be a basis for excluding Colbert's. The fact that he uses satire as a device for delivering his political opinion is irrelevant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you all do realize he is an actor. Are you suggesting that the word of comediens should be considered for political commentary? I love Colbert, but he is character acting. If you can get his views on Bears onto the Bear article, or his view on Elephants onto the Elephant article then you have something. Exactly which point of view are you trying to portray? Arzel (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're arguing here. There is not a reliable sources concern here. The information is sourced and verifiable. It's not as if Colbert made some dubious statement of fact; this has to do with his opinion. Your argument seems to be that because he's a comedian as well as a political commentator, his opinion can never be reported on? Croctotheface (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The character Colbert plays when he does the Colbert Show is NOT HIM. It is a fixtional character that he created based in part off BOR. You are attempting to use a fictional character as a reference, why not just referece Cartman while you are at it. I seriously cannot believe that you are trying to use political satire from a fiction character to advance your position. Arzel (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to advance any position; I'm trying to represent multiple points of view here. All the facts you bring up about Colbert do not in any way disqualify his opinion. His POV is relevant and not mentioned elsewhere in the section, so it strikes me as valid to include. Unlike Cartman, Colbert is both a comedian and political commentator, and he delivers his commentary by playing a character. The fact that he uses a comic conceit does not make him less of a commentator or disqualify his opinion as you seem to believe it should. Croctotheface (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is based off the premise that he believes everything he says is true. Look, I love Colbert. I watch the show most nights, but what he says on the show is done for comedic relief. You start using his comments as a reliable source to either promote a criticism or defray a criticism and you have to allow him in every article. There is already precidence against using him on the Bear article. He presents all of his views from an extreme perspective. His own fictional bio describes himself as an untra-conservative. By his own defintion he is extreme (at least in his fictional self). This alone violates WP:RS by making his fictional self an extreme source. How do you diferentiate between the two? Arzel (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, his statement is ironic. His actual meaning is clear and described in the text you keep removing. You seem to suggest that because Colbert does comedy, we can never ever know what his point is. None of his statements can ever have any meaning because part of his schtick involves being afraid of bears. I really don't think that's a coherent position. The meaning of his statement is clear, the point is valid, there's no reason to exclude it. Croctotheface (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you claim to know his meaning even though he is doing political satire? That would be a violation of OR and Synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comedians are not held to the same level of accountability for their statements as serious political commentators. As such, Colbert cannot be viewed as a credible source. Politicians don't call for the disciplinary action of Colbert. They do for Lou Dobbs, David Shuster, and Don Imus, to name a few. Their words bear more weight. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? And what "level of accountability" are say, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh held to? You're actually claiming that it is a higher standard than Stephen Colbert? Again, the use of satire does not invalidate political commentary. It is included as political opinion, not fact and is therefore acceptable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that this is the discussion page for an article describing watchdog group that tries to keep those political commentators accountable, right? ;) Notice they don't list satirists and artists on there. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for the edits. I stumbled upon this article and I was blown away that someone was using Colbert as a source. You are right, I am not an experienced editor. I do not have an account on here. But here's an anonymous user vote against using Colbert as a source. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<- outdent. There is no OR or Synthesis in the quote you keep removing. I fail to see how Colbert's quote is unacceptable -- with accurate context provided "character of right wing pundit, satirically.." -- while the National Review opinion is OK when they are both discussing Limbaugh's phony soldier controversy -- a situation that played itself out within the media. --guyzero | talk 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You act like an article in the National Review is equal to a comedy bit by an actor playing a fake personality. The point is this. Colbert, when doing the Colbert Show is a fictional character. Let me ask you all this. Would you use "The Onion" as a reliable source in this context? His show is a PARODY, it is not a real potitical commentary program. He takes news, general political news, and presents them in a way that takes the extreme point of view and turns it into comedy. The comments of a fictional character are simply not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Five editors have addressed this issue: four on the talk page and the one who made the initial edit. Four of them believe that we can include this material, and you are alone in believing that we can't. That looks like a consensus to include it to me, so you should really stop trying to force your version through by reverting. Otherwise, no, being able to recognize irony is not original research: it's just a matter of understanding the language. Must we go through and find any quote where someone uses irony or any other non-literal rhetorical device and delete them on the grounds that understanding them is a form of original research? Croctotheface (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, just because a few MM fanboys are wanting to include the opinion of a fictional character doesn't warrent inclusion. If you want to reach a concensus, perhaps you should present a RfC first. Least I remind that reason for inclusion resides with those including the material. To this point you have provided no valid reason for inclusion. You have failed to explain how you avoid violations of WP:RS under sections of Extremist Sources, not to mention that this is a fictional character. In as much your explanation of what Colbert is saying is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to promote a point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that there's any explanation that can convince you. As I said, there is a difference between understanding what someone is saying and doing research about it. I don't think that being able to identify satire is "research" in any sense, and I don't think you or anyone else can provide a remotely plausible explanation for what Colbert is saying that goes against the text you keep removing. As I said, Colbert is a political satirist. The fact that he uses irony or a comic conceit (he is not a "fictional character" the way you suggest he is; he's a real person who plays a character for the purpose of satire) somehow disqualifies his opinion. Also, four editors who believe one thing with a lone editor who disagrees seems like consensus to me. Since everyone who has weighed in agrees with me and nobody agrees with you, I don't need to find more opinions. Besides, you'd just dismiss them anyway, as you just did here. Croctotheface (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was on the fence. . .on the one hand it's verifiable, on the other. . .just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should necessarily be in an article. But the use of the word 'fanboys' has persuaded me. Arzel has made an attack on the editors and not the edit. Therefore, I move from my fence position to include the colbert text. Hey, it doesn't hurt. And reading over it, it is meaningful text. R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Colbert doesn't even write his own stuff. At least some satirists do... so when can I quote some Michael Savage in the article without it being reverted? Or is only left-leaning satire worthy of inclusion? Amazing that an ACTOR doing an ACT is being quoted here, and I can't put in what someone running for President said about "helping start MMfA." I know, I know, that's not the issue here... But to quote Colbert? This just goes to help prove what I already knew about the level of seriousness on Wikipedia. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any attempts to introduce a Savage quote in your edit history. I'm not sure what you have in mind: the quote could be relevant or it might not be. As far as Hillary, if you could answer my question about what it is that she did, then maybe we could include it. Since you don't know, I don't see how the quote could possibly be informative when it could mean dozens of different things. Croctotheface (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We should include it. Satire is an essential part of political commentary and has been for centuries. After all, Thomas Swift didn't really believe that poor children should be cooked and served to the rich when he wrote A Modest Proposal. If someone editorialized the exact same point Colbert is making (that the reason MM is so hated is because they make available to the public that which was only intended for a small agreeable audience), I don't think we would be having this discussion. So Arzel's entire argument comes down to his belief that the use of satire automatically invalidates the opinion and demonstrating satire is an argument against inclusion. That's simply absurd. Like it or not, Colbert is a political commentator and an influential one at that. See his performance with Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner to see just how effective he can be at criticizing someone under the guise of praising them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually my arguement, in case you have missed it, is that Colbert (on the Colbert Show) is an act, it is fake. He has stated several times that his character is not him. I know several people have a hard time with this, but SC the Character, is a fictional character. Why some people here feel necessary to use a fictional character to promote their POV is beyond me. You might as well quote Bugs Bunny, or Cartmann for the same effect. The irony here, is that Colbert is soo good at his act that many people get the real Colbert confused with the fake Colbert. His presidential stunt is a perfect example. Arzel (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, he doesn't mean what he literally says. He uses irony. It's satire. The fact that the character is not him explains that he is not actually blaming Media Matters for the controversy. It's clear that the point of his commentary is to satirize the notion that right wingers would say MM is to blame for the criticism they get when all MM does is post transcripts of their stuff. The edit in question clearly explains that Colbert is in character when he makes these remarks. Your argument seems to be something like "because Colbert uses a comic conceit of a fictional character, he is incapable of putting forth an opinion." Even if it's ambiguous what Colbert personally thinks about the issue, the opinion he expresses can't be relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing the two. Try to think of Colbert the Character as Peter Parker from Spider-Man, with Parker giving his perspective on something. Now, would you say this is actually Tobey Maguire thoughts? No you wouldn't, just in the same light you are assuming that Colbert the Character's thoughts are equivilant to Colbert the person. Your argument is that Colbert the PERSON is using Colbert the CHARACTER to convey Colbert the PERSON's opinion, when Colbert the PERSON has stated quite often that Colbert the CHARACTER is NOT Colbert the PERSON. So tell me, how can you use Colbert the CHARACTER's position as opinion of Colbert the PERSON when Colbert the PERSON has already stated they ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? Your other argument is synthesis of material, because you have no way to know what the heck Colbert the person is thinking about anything, it is part of the brilliance of that character. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually understand what political satire is. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation for why you keep trying to "prove" to us that he is playing a character even though we keep explaining that it is satire. Of course he's playing a character! That's the whole point. In this particular instance he is satirically defending O'Reilly and criticizing Media Matters (in a way that, in fact, makes mockery of O'Reilly's position). Likewise, when took the dais at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner and spent a half hour praising Bush, he was actually issuing a blistering criticism. To pretend otherwise is simply to be willfully obtuse. Are you suggesting that Thomas Swift was actually advocating that poor children be fed to the rich when he wrote A Modest Proposal? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Hello, I have already stated that it is satire, it is the first thing I stated. The problem is that it is a fake persona doing the satire. I am aware of his satirical attack on Bush as well (I am a fan of Colbert). The fact that I am able to differentiate between the two (Real and Fake) is no fault of mine. Arzel (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. It is not "a fake persona doing the satire." The real person is doing the satire. The fake persona is the satire. Do you see the difference? Stephen Colbert the satirist pretends to espouse arguments he does not actually support (as his character). But he does so satirically, to highlight the ridiculousness of many of those arguments. To use the Swift example again, the fact that he didn't actually believe what he was writing does not invalidate his point. In fact, it strengthened it. That's the essence of satire. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Real Person Stephen Colbert was employing the straw man logical fallacy. Source: the wikipedia article for Straw man setup (4) Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look Loony, I understand the situation, the problem is that you fail to grasp the difference between the two. You keep going back to Swift, but they are not the same situation. Swift (I am guessing) wrote his own stuff to begin with, plus he wrote it as himself, providing satire as himself. Another good example is Lewis Black, who does a great deal of political Satire, as himself. Colbert, has created a fictional character. This fictional character is part of an act, but it is not himself. Furthermore, he doesn't write his own stuff, thus what he said could not even be said to be his OWN opinion. Why not get down to the real issue, you, Media Matters, and others are trying to belittle the situation by using Colberts comedic act as a way to ridicule Limbaugh's position. In reality it makes MM look very childish, but that is besides the point. I want to make sure that other people view WP as a reliable source of information, and when sources like Colbert (who I like) are used in situations like this, it makes the whole project look like a joke. So pick your side, make WP look like a respected form of information on the internet, or continue to have it viewed as an unreliable source of information for anything scholarly. Arzel (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Colbert is the head of the writing staff. Yes, the show has writers, but it's not as if they're just handing him a script to read. He is in charge of the content of the show. He decides what he's going to talk about. But what does that have to do with anything? Do you think that Brian Williams or Katie Couric write their own newscasts every night? As for Swift, no he wasn't writing as himself. He was writing in the voice of somebody who believes the opposite of what he believes (and ridiculing their arguments in the process). That is exactly what Colbert does. It has nothing to do with "source." Colbert isn't being used as a source for anything other than his own commentary. I'm sorry, but you haven't made any convincing case that Limbaugh criticizing MM is relevant but Colbert's derision of that criticism isn't.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article does not present Limbaugh's criticism on its own. It does present a criticism presented by the National Review that came to the defense of Limbaugh. The difference is important, because the credibility of that accusation falls upon The National Review and not Limbaugh. This is precisely why the inclusion of the Stephen Colbert quote on its own is in bad form. You should really point out that Media Matters attempted to defend its own integrity by citing the support of Stephen Colbert. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Time to call this one dead... Six editors (add me to the list) have now tried to show or explain to Arzel what satire is... if he continues to either misunderstand or be obstinant, I don't see how it should require repeating the same information ad infinitum. This isn't the first place he's tried to do the "Colbert isn't really criticising" thing, and I think consensus is clear. Game over, Arzel. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You should probably also say game over to me, too, because I side with editor Arzel. I checked the reference for the Colbert quote and saw that it was from Media Matters for America. It became clearer to me what motivated an editor to insert that quote, given that source article. However, by not saying something like "Media Matters for America further defended themselves by quoting Stephen Colbert's caricature of a right-wing pundit which said <Colbert quote>", you are introducing POV. Without that attribution, you are taking Media Matters for America's point of view by becoming their voice and repeating the Colbert quote that they used as a rebuttal. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your idea of what an editors' motivation may be is both speculative and irrelevant... nor do I buy your argument that without characterizing the quote we are "introducing POV". In any case, consensus is clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're introducing POV because it is not your place to parrot Colbert's argument. You reported the accusation made by the National Review. You reported the rebuttal as given by Media Matters. It is not your place to throw in an additional comment by Stephen Colbert to defend the position of Media Matters. It's redundant and irrelevant. I speculated on the editors' motivation because I was giving him or her the benefit of the doubt-- that they were providing more information regarding Media Matters' rebuttal. However, because of the way the paragraph reads, it sounds like Stephen Colbert's remark is used by the author of the article to support the position of Media Matters. It should be that the author of the article writes the paragraph such that both viewpoints are represented but in a balanced manner. The additional Colbert "gotcha!" remark adds an imbalance in favor of Media Matters. Also, I'm not digging this "consensus" thing. I just got here, and after reading the pages of all of you it looks like you have longstanding bones to pick with each other that has nothing to do with coming to an objective debate of this particular issue. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider this passage from Funding Sources: According to Bill O'Reilly and others, George Soros is funding Media Matters through Democracy Alliance -- an organization of progressive donors. The Democracy Alliance does not collect and distribute money on behalf of its members. Alliance members donate directly to the organizations of their choice. Media Matters has stated publicly on numerous occasions that Soros has never given money to the organization either directly or through another organization. O'Reilly's accusation of Media Matters is presented, and Media Matters' response is presented. Would it be appropriate to add a reference to a political cartoon which mocks the O'Reilly's accusation of Media Matters? Would it be appropriate to add a reference to a political cartoon which mocks Media Matters' response to O'Reilly? It would be redundant because O'Reilly's accusation and Media Matters' response has already been stated, and irrelevant to an informational article because a cartoon is the opinion of a third party whose credibility is not at stake in that matter. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cybercast News Source

Should the qualifier "conservative" be added to the Cybercast News Source reference in the Funding Sources section? CNS used to be called Conservative News Source and the wikipedia page for it identifies it as a conservative leaning news website. I think the text should be changed to "According to the conservative Cybercast News Service, ..." This would maintain consistency, since in the Criticisms section the National Review is identified with the conservative qualifier. From my understanding, the National Review is more well-known to be a conservative-biased publication than CNS. 74.134.102.134 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's generally considered poor wikipedia style to do so, unless they self identify as such. That said, I've never been thrilled about the inclusion of that financing claim with CNS as the only source as they are a pseudo-journalistic outfit at best and generally unreliable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert Remark (moved from Croctotheface's user talk page at their request)

Stephen Colbert Remark on Media Matters for America article

Please consider re-writing or deleting the Stephen Colbert remark found on the Media Matters for America page. The context of Stephen Colbert's remark is not fully explained, and its insertion into the article may be misleading. The paragraph on the Media Matters for America article is:

In September 2007, the conservative National Review accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding Rush Limbaugh's controversial remark about "phony soldiers". The National Review wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened".[34] Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light.[35] Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, satirically blamed Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."[36]

The greater context of Colbert's comment, as found in http://mediamatters.org/items/200710090001 is:

JOHN GIBSON (Fox News host): [W]ho started this phony war? ... Answer ... Media Matters for America.

COLBERT: That's right. Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us.

Colbert's retort was made in response to John Gibson's attack on Media Matters for America. Gibson said that MMfA was at fault for reporting the issue alone -- simply raising questions. Colbert's opinion may be relevant with respect to that remark, but Gibson's comment is not stated in the MMfA article. Colbert's words do not address the contention of the National Review: that MMfA themselves took Limbaugh out of context. The National Review criticized the way that Limbaugh's statements were reported in the MMfA story -- not that it was reported at all -- so Colbert's comment does not make sense in the context of this paragraph. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (74.134.102.134)

First, this comment would be more appropriate for the article talk page. Second, Colbert is indeed satirizing the notion that Media Matters did something other than post Limbaugh's remarks. Perhaps the entry could be clearer, but I don't think it's unresponsive to the topic being covered at the article. Croctotheface (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to comment on the talk page, but you guys said you had consensus after one user was unsuccessful in making the case for its removal. My point is not being addressed. It was not the claim of the National Review that MMfA should not be writing critical stories. That was the nature of John Gibson's comment, which Colbert was addressing. But you left that out. So, how can Colbert's statement be relevant? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place there, not here, even if the consensus has been established. If you have a new point to bring up, then go ahead. Colbert makes the point that all MM does is post transcripts of what people said. The Limbaugh defenders claim that the transcripts were somehow misleading, and that's why people were offended. Colbert says people were offended because they saw what Limbaugh said. It's certainly relevant. Croctotheface (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Colbert's joke is a straw man argument then, if John Gibson's remark was to represent all of Limbaugh's defenders. Of course there were conservatives who saw what Media Matters had written about Limbaugh and were upset. The only person to argue that Media Matters should be blamed for writing the story in the first place was Gibson. And Colbert responded to that. Colbert's quoted remark did not respond to the point of the National Review which was that MMfA took Limbaugh out of context. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to see where you are coming from here. Are you suggesting that because Media Matters for America posts excerpts of transcripts that they are immune to taking people out of context? By selecting and emphasizing certain portions of text, choosing to include and omit parts, a point of view can be created. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the article does not assert that Colbert "responded" to the National Review, and I should've made that clearer at the outset. Second, Colbert's opinion is about the controversy in general, and he's saying that all MM did was post what Limbaugh said. I think that he's responding to the whole gamut of opinion that seeks to remove blame from Limbaugh, which is what the National Review sought to do. However, if you want to add a sentence that explains everything in a bit more detail, that may be a good idea. Croctotheface (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the bigger picture should be presented. I added a sentence that John Gibson (among others) had an opinion to give direct relevance to its coverage on Colbert Report. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

More about Colbert

Croctotheface, I didnt say that it was a BLP issue, only that the consensus was that the material should be removed because it is not notable. Please see the BLP notice board for the discussion and let me know if you think my understanding of what the consensus was is wrong. CENSEI (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that there's no consensus there, and if there is one it's that the decision should be made on this talk page, not there. That noticeboard is not the place for content discussions, as I'm sure the admins there would agree. Also, if we're going to say that Colbert's opinion on that criticism is unencyclopedic, which seemed like the most common argument in favor of exclusion at the BLP board, then I'd say that we should remove the entire "criticism" section on the same grounds. It's basically a couple of people grousing about "context" because they have no other rebuttal when their own words are used against them. The "context" criticism, as Colbert indicates with his satire, has basically no merit here. MM just publicized comments that were meant to be heard only by radio devotees of Limbaugh et al. Croctotheface (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Noroton on WP:BLP/N. Switzpaw (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert's opinion is relevant as a defense of Media Matters. Again, if we're going to exclude relevant points of view that defend MM on the grounds that they're unencyclopedic, then we should just delete the whole criticism section for the same reason. Croctotheface (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

National Review criticized Media Matters. Media Matters defended themselves. End of story. Switzpaw (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But why is that criticism relevant? Surely we don't need to include everything that conservative magazines write. If this criticism should be included, why shouldn't a valid defense of MM from the Colbert Report? If we're going to exclude that defense, doesn't that say something about the importance of the whole issue? Croctotheface (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the points I had were made in the previous section when I was arguing under an IP address (before I had an account here). Saw even more editors were chiming in on this and I really wish someone here would follow that flowchart in WP:CONSENSUS, instead of playing cabal, to address what is obviously a contentious edit. Regarding your comment: there'd be no pushback from me if the whole criticism section was axed, but I'm not here to argue whether or not the National Review's criticism of Media Matters belongs here in the first place. But I feel pretty strongly that including the Colbert quote is unprofessional. Remember when every other Wikipedia article had a section at the bottom to reference Simpsons episodes in which the subject was mentioned? Switzpaw (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an indiscriminate collection of pop culture references and a relevant opinion expressed by way of political satire. However, I'd be fine with removing the whole criticism section as an alternative. Croctotheface (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be inappropriate to scrub this, or any other article, of relevant criticism. It may be difficult to strike the right balance between various viewpoints, but giving up is not acceptable solution. Yilloslime (t) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that this criticism is not particularly relevant. It's relevant as far as being on topic, but it's pretty weak overall, and we're obviously not obligated to include every criticism ever made. I don't think there's actually any merit to the notion that Limbaugh's remarks were "out of context" in the MM report, and I actually think Colbert gets it exactly right in that all MM ever did was publicize remarks that Limbaugh had meant for only the dittoheads to hear. I am not advocating for removal of the section no matter what, but I don't think readers get a fair perspective on the issue without what Colbert said. And if what Colbert said is not encyclopedic, then I don't see how the issue itself is. Croctotheface (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I see what you're saying now and mostly agree, but I still do think the whole NR/MM/Limbaugh/Phony Soldiers thing is notable and should be included. After, we have a whole article devoted to it. I'm not wedded to the Colbert quote per se, but rather the sentiment it expresses, since--as I tried explain below--I think that sentiment is notable and encyclopedic and needed for balance. So I could get down with removing the Colbert quote if it could be replaced with something from a less contentious source that says essentially the same thing. Harry Reid and 40 other Senators seemed to agree with Colbert/MM, so perhaps a quote from one of them could be dug up. Still, the Colbert quote has a certain brevity and wit to it that I'd miss.... Yilloslime (t) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of criticism of MM from noteworthy sources out there, and there's plenty of rebuttals of that criticism out there, too, also from noteworthy sources. The question shouldn't be simply "Is Colbert's 'criticism' notable?"—it is, and so is the real criticism by NR and other sources—but rather, "Does the mix of praise and criticism for MM accurately reflect their reception in the real world?" This is the more appropriate question, largely because this article isn't to going list every single instance in which a notable, relevant source has criticized or defended them. And so if the choices we're considering are limited to 1) leaving the article as is, or 2) removing the Colbert part, it seems to me that #1 is the way to go, since this version most accurately samples the melange of opinion on MM. Perhaps the article could be improved, but improving it is going to take a lot more than selectively removing one or two opinions of MM. Yilloslime (t) 07:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The National Review is both notable and encyclopedic. Colbert is not, he is as notable as a Jay Leno monologue. CENSEI (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just demonstrably wrong. There's no article on Leno tantamount to Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. If you look, you'll find source after source calling Colbert "a brilliant political satirist" and similarly glowing praise. Having said that, though, a particularly insightful comment from Leno (or really from anyone) could merit attention in an article. More generally, I have trouble seeing your comment as anything but an attempt to favor opinions hostile to Media Matters over those that defend them. If you don't like the idea of quoting Colbert, then find someone you find more acceptable who is expressing a similar opinion. Otherwise, I can't see how leaving out a particular defense of MM is neutral writing. Croctotheface (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I felt this way, too, but when someone at the BLP board said that the whole criticism section was of questionable merit, I found it hard to disagree. I mean, really, the whole thing is piffling at best. Colbert's defense poses no BLP problem. If we're going to exclude it because it's unencyclopedic, which seems to be the implicit position of most who want to remove it, then I think that it raises serious questions about whether the criticism section should be in the article. Of course, we could still mention in a sentence or two that MM receives criticism; there would just be no need to detail specific ones as we do now. Croctotheface (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what BLP/N thread are y'all referring to? Yilloslime (t) 07:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP/N#Mocking_a_BLP_at_Media_Matters_for_America Switzpaw (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert in character is not a WP:RS to anything so it's actually forbidden to include it in serious articles not about him or his show per policy. Hobartimus (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the previous discussion as far as satire and commentary and so forth. The idea that someone who is being funny can't put forth a coherent opinion is not persuasive. Also, the idea that it's "not him" because it's a scripted show, that would apply to any "serious" commentary show, too, since they have writers as well. Croctotheface (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the premise between the two are different. Colbert can lie, mislead, take completely out of context whatever he wants since what he is doing is satire. They are not the same. The fact remains that a fictional character is being used as a reliable source to defend MMfA. Arzel (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All comedians can do that. Your argument would have us reject everything any satirist has ever said about anything. O'Reilly (for instance) lies, misleads, and takes stuff out of context all the time, and we still report his opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I could see a few situations where Colbert's commentary may considered a reliable source and encyclopedic: 1) if his commentary in itself was newsworthy or of historical significance (e.g. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal) 2) if he was a party in the debate between National Review and Media Matters. Neither of these apply in this case. His joke was funny because a lot of people basically see right-wing media as a voice that is preaching to their own choir, and the punch drove home that point. That really has nothing to do with the National Review's argument that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context by choosing how they wanted to present his statements. Switzpaw (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It does defend MM. It's possible to defend someone on a "context" charge by saying, basically, "all they did was post a transcript." Colbert does not need to somehow "prove" that it's "in context," which is a matter of opinion and not really provable anyway. It is a defense of Media Matters that, in my opinion, gets at the heart of the issue here. The "context" criticism has no merit in this case, and if we're going to report it, we need to also report on Colbert's opinion in defense of MM. We could also delete the criticism section as unencyclopedic, which it arguably is here. Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia article on Y. X criticizes Y. Y issues rebuttal. Z makes joke about X and Y. If Z's joke about X and Y doesn't belong in article on Y, neither does X's criticism of Y. Brilliant. Switzpaw (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Z is notable for being funny. Yes, everyone agrees, Z is notable for being funny. We have consensus. Z stays. Switzpaw (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, Z's joke did not somehow ridicule both; it ridiculed the notion that X would be criticized in the manner that Y criticized it. I know that you think that this is somehow analogous to Simpsons references, but it's not. As far as I know, nobody here has said "we should keep this because it's funny." It's political satire that is very much on point. Again, as I've said, I'd be fine with a similar opinion articulated by a non-comedian. I'd be fine with deleting the entire criticism section, as it really doesn't articulate criticism that has much merit, the admins over at the BLP noticeboard seem to agree. However, it's not neutral to remove an opinion that defends MM from criticism if we're going to include the criticism. At this point, though, we're just repeating ourselves. Croctotheface (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Look this is all good and well but the only question is about, "Is Colbert in characther a reliable source about the topic of this article?" I've seen no explanation how would an in-characther Colbert fit WP:RS in which case policy FORBIDS it's inclusion and the only consensus that can overrule that is a consesus that changes policy. I'm bringing this up at the RS noticeboard. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Colbert Report is obviously the most reliable source for Colbert's opinion (albeit a satirical opinion) and that's all it's being used for so there is no WP:RS issue. If the Report was being used as a source for some factoid--Obama is Frankenstien, for example--that would violate WP:RS, but using it for Colbert's opinion is fine. Yilloslime (t) 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the thread Hobartimus started: Wikipedia:RS/N#Stephen_Colbert_in_characther.Yilloslime (t) 15:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<- Agreed with Croc and Yillo- How is Colbert not a reliable source for his own words? There is plenty of descriptive text ("in character..." "satirically..") around the quote to hand-hold give context to the reader. There has been editorial consensus to include this quote. If we remove the quote, the criticism becomes fairly one-sided. I encourage the folks who have issue with the Colbert quote to find another, better source to balance the para and propose a revision. As it is, the quote addresses the criticism, the situation played itself out in the media, and the source is a media figure who regularly comments on these situations. The fact that humor and satire are in the mix when context is clearly given is beside the point. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument that this should be included because it is Colbert's opinion has flaws. Colbert is saying these words in character... we have no way to verify if this is actually Colbert (the person)'s opinion. You could say that the bit is the opinion of the chartacter... Steven Colbert (the character) is not a reliable source for an opinion.

It is also not appropriate given the context of the paragraph... The rest of the paragraph deals with comments by real people... whether Media Matters or noted conservative pundits. To suddenly jump to a fictional character is inappropriate. It simply does not belong in the same paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be unclear about the way "fictional" is meant to be used here. It can be "not factual," which is the way you seem to want to use it, but Colbert uses it more as a way to denote that what he is doing is ironic and satirical. He was likewise in character at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, so I suppose we should delete any mention of anything he said there, too? Croctotheface (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Newsbusters, Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters

Over the last few days, editors User:ForTruthSake and User:CENSEI have made edits like this inserting the allegation that MM is the inspiration of for a new rap song called "Kill Bill O'Reilly." These edits have quickly been reverted by me and others. I'm hoping that this slow, mini edit war is now over, but I figured I'd open a thread here, in case anyone wants to make a case for including this criticism.

I have opposed these edits since:

• The news item about the song itself is non-notable, with only 5 news.google hits,[1] many of them blogs. And only two of these, both blogs, even mention Media Matters.[2]
• The connection between MM and the song is at best tenuous: the phrase "media matters" is indeed in the song, but it's only mentioned in passing, it's not clear from the lyrics that it's even an intentional reference to the organization—only newsbusters.org, a conservative blog and hardly a WP:RS, has has made that claim. Even if it is an intentional reference, there is absolutely nothing in the song suggesting that the rappers were "inspired" by MM or used it is a source as alleged by newsbusters.
• Even if this story becomes notable and it is somehow confirmed that it is an intentional reference to MM, this "criticism" boils down guilt by association, as pointed out by Croctotheface.[3] Is this really the kind of criticism that we want to feature on WP? MM has no shortage of critics, surely WP can do better than to feature this one.

Yilloslime (t) 03:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds non-notable given the lack of attention by reliable sources. Switzpaw (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a no brainer. I'm surprised we're even discussing this. Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. And yes, it's a waste of time to even discuss it. It's a given that those edits are inappropriate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also agree; revert on sight. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have never tried to add this material, but as a side comment, its interesting that a sentence or two cannot be sourced to Newsbusters and Bill O'Reilly, but entire article sections can be attributed to MMFA. CENSEI (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you did.[4] Yilloslime (t) 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Still more about Colbert versus the entire criticism section

We've taken this dispute basically everywhere. Someone thought it was a BLP issue, so they took it to that noticeboard. The consensus was that it was not a BLP issue. Someone thought it was an RS issue, so they took it to that noticeboard. The consensus was that it wasn't about reliable sources. All I see here is a group of editors determined to run any argument they possibly can to remove this content. The truth of the matter is that Colbert's opinion is not so important, but neither is any of the criticism we've been detailing here. None of them are even particularly strong or persusasive in the first place. The criticism section overwhelmed the article, and if we're going to look to exclude relevant defenses of MM on whatever rationale we can scrape together, then it can't possibly be neutral, either. Croctotheface (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy shopping would be a good read for some people. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ironic. MM is used as a source for criticism for just about everyone considered even remotely conservative, as such when they get something wrong it should be noted. They open themselves up to such criticism. Colbert on the other hand (as I have said from the very beginning) should not be used. Arzel (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, they didn't get anything wrong with either of the "context" criticisms. There was no context problem with either. However, we can still note it, but not if we exclude relevant opinions that defend them from that criticism. If the idea is that Colbert's opinion is trivial, then so is the other opinions. I'm specifically referencing Wikidemo's comments on the BLP noticeboard, where he articulated the same basic argument that I am here. Croctotheface (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll offer up an actual compromise. What if we replace the Colbert quote with something like this:

Shortly after Media Matter broke the story, 41 US senators signed a letter to Clear Channel Communications, the company that broadcast's Rush's show, calling for the company to "publicly repudiate these comments and ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize" for the remarks.

Mooney, Alexander (2007-10-03). "Clear Channel defends Limbaugh after 'phony soldiers' remark". CNN. Retrieved 2007-10-22.

I definitely remain unconvinced by the anti-Colbert arguments proffered by Blueboar, hobartimus, et al., and there is most certainly NOT a consensus to remove the quote, but maybe we came put the Colbert matter aside and come up with a version of the article that we all agree is better. Yilloslime (t) 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that gets at the issue. It doesn't mention or defend Media Matters, for instance, while Colbert clearly does put forth the notion that any grousing about "context" is off the mark, as all MM does is post quotes. That's the opinion I think needs to be in there, not the opinion that Rush Limbaugh, who is not the subject of this article, needed to apologize. Croctotheface (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MMFA does not just post quotes, they post snippets of quotes, distort the context and add commentary. Limbaugh was the focus of one of MMFA's hysterical rants, he retaliated, others commented that MMFA was full of shit and thats why it was notable. CENSEI (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about that, but I think this shows just what I'm saying: it's not about BLP or RS or any other rationale; it's that you want this article to promote your opinion that "MMFA was full of shit." Croctotheface (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MMFA is full of shit, no way around that and the legions who seem to see it as some kind of oracle of truth and knowledge need to stop self medicating. As much as I want to give the impresion that MMFA is full of shit, you certainly want to promote the view that MMFA is a balanced source of material. CENSEI (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor in admitting that your goal here is to push your POV. My goal is to represent all sides of the issue fairly. Croctotheface (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh good God ... pot meet kettle. CENSEI (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Croc that this quote isn't an adequate substitute. However, if those who want to remove the Colbert quote were to come up with similar material that they feel meets WP:RS, perhaps that would move us closer towards compromise. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Gamaliel that those wanting to remove the Colbert quote ought to come up with similar material. If people don't like the 41 senators quote (and I admit I prefer the Colbert quote too) perhaps we could paraphrase it and attribute it not to Colbert but to "Several other commentators" and then follow it up with a bunch of citations to OpEds and what-have-yous that make the same point. Digging up such citations is, of course, kind of a pain-in-the-behind, but I hope that as a sign of good faith the editors arguing for removal of the quote would help out. Yilloslime (t) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no similar quote to what Colbert said because he was making a straw man argument in which John Gibson faulted Media Matters for posting the material online, and Colbert equivocated that to the argument of all who believed MMFA took Limbaugh out of context. I doubt you will find a serious commentator who says that "all MMFA does is post transcripts" and operates without their own editorializing. Switzpaw (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He's saying that the controversy came about because MM alerted the general public to comments that were only intended to be heard by people who already agree with Limbaugh. That certainly goes against the notion that the controversy exists because, as Gibson and the National Review suggest, Limbaugh's words were not offensive ("innocent") and were taken out of context by those scoundrels at MM. Colbert is not required to accept the premise of the criticism in order to have an opinion on it. Croctotheface (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposal to include the fact that 41 senators wrote a letter to Clear Channel would be a good informative addition. Switzpaw (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But how does that comment on the criticism of Media Matters? That certainly belongs at the article on the controversy itself, but why is it relevant to what we're talking about at this article? Croctotheface (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It emphasizes Media Matters' role in the controversy: they broke the story, influenced notable Democrats in the Senate, and there was a backlash against Limbaugh. Conservative commentator John Gibson blamed Media Matters for breaking the story, and Colbert made fun of Gibson's remark. That's how it went down, ya know! Switzpaw (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I agree with your interpretation, but people on your side have been arguing that it's OR to even interpret Colbert's comments as satire. It's certainly OR to interpret those comments as a defense of Media Matters. Croctotheface (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't want to stir the pot too much since it seems like maybe we've reached a compromise that everyone, save perhaps Arzel and censei, can live with, but: I have to agree with the Switzpaw here. More specifically, I strongly agree with the sentiment expressed in WP:CRITICISM that separate criticism sections are generally bad ideas. They're troll magnets, they're hard to keep NPOV, and if you try to insert opposing opinions to balance the criticism, sometimes editors oppose it on the basis of "This is a criticism section. Praise/rebuttals/criticism of the criticizer doesn't below in this section" or some similarly specious reason. In general I believe that criticism should be worked into the article itself, not segregated into its own section. For this article, this could be achieved by making a section or subsection on the Phony soldiers controversy. This would of course start with {{Main|....}}, then sketch out the events with particular attention to MM's role, including the conclusion (i.e. the letter from Reid et al.), and could include all the criticsim and counter criticism of MM that we currently have. This would give the reader a much better sense of what happened and MM's role. I suspect the other topics in the current criticism section could be similarly handled. Yilloslime (t) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you'd find that Switz's interpretation would be regarded by most non-interested parties as original research. However, I'd be OK with moving the whole rigamarole out of this article and into the Phony soldiers controversy article, where it could actually be integrated. In general, I think that "integrate criticism into the article" is basically a pipe dream and the best way to describe it is often in a separate section. My issue here is that this criticism is just not very strong. It's the default to grouse about "context" when your own words make you look bad, and that's really all we have here. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you don't understand WP:OR or you're trolling. I did not suggest the assertions above be included into the article unsourced. Since there are sources for all of the facts that I've mentioned above, it is a matter of determining which primary resources exist for reporting on the matter itself and using reliable secondary sources for any third party commentary on controversy. And if you decide that Colbert is a reliable secondary source for political commentary, you'll need to keep in mind that opens the door for the inclusion of secondary sources such as Rush Limbaugh or other spinsters on the opposite side of the spectrum. The way the conclusions of the secondary sources are paraphrased and put together is a matter of considering WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. But don't take my word for it, RTFM. Switzpaw (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled about why you're so angry about this that you would suggest I am "trolling" and tell me to "read the fucking manual" or whatever it is you want me to read. I think you're taking this way too seriously. Your determination of why that material about the senators is relevant to this article requires making a leap, a synthesis, that is tantamount to original research. As far as the idea that it opens the door to Limbaugh--we're reporting on a criticism made by the National Review, which is no more reliable than Limbaugh is. We're already there. I want to reiterate that we could just delete the entire criticism. It's a weak one, so the readers wouldn't suffer, and it would solve the Colbert problem entirely. Croctotheface (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we get an English professor in here to explain synthesis? This is a real concept in scholarly writing and you are twisting the meaning. Switzpaw (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way it's defined at WP:SYN is taking two facts, A and B, to support a conclusion C that is not otherwise asserted. Here, you want us to say that (A) MM publicized an issue, (B) several senators took action on that same issue, so (C) those senators have a certain position on a criticism that Media Matters had been targeted with. Colbert is clearly satirizing the "context" criticism of MM, while the senators took a position on the underlying issue. Croctotheface (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting words into my mouth? You can't accuse someone of WP:OR or WP:SYN when they haven't even written anything yet. Am I editing the article with my talk page comment? You tell me. Switzpaw (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think you could stand to relax a little bit here. I did not say you violated those guidelines, just that text that you want to include (you said it "would be a good informative addition"), used the way you want to use it, would violate those guidelines. Croctotheface (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar's version

I'm not going to revert this recent edit because I've done enough reverting for a while, but I want to register that I disagree with it. Saying that Colbert is "poking fun at the controversy" does reduce this to "and, for yuks, let's put some comedy in." He is poking fun at the controversy, sure, but he's also satirizing one side in particular and ridiculing the notion that Limbaugh's comments were "innocent," as the "context" criticisms presume. I think that this minimizes the serious side of the satire, really with no particular benefit to the readers, since "poking fun at the controversy" doesn't add any material that further enhances their understanding. Croctotheface (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like it on the record that I think Blueboar's version is a step forward. Switzpaw (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing "replied," which I didn't realize was in there, is an improvement. Adding "poking fun at the controversy" does not help the readers at all. There's no need to explain what he's done even further than "in character" and "satirically." Croctotheface (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I made this change:[5]. Does it move us in the right direction? Another alternative might be:

Satirizing the situation, Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, sarcastically blamed Media Matters for the controversy. ...

Yilloslime (t) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's better, but not a whole lot. I don't see what saying it's about "the situation" really does for the readers, either. I think that he's satirizing one side of "the situation" and not the other one, but even if you don't agree with that, the answer is to leave that out and just let his words speak for themselves. Croctotheface (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your version better than Blueboar's. Switzpaw (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that "in character" is now unnecessary with new wording. I think we should leave Yilloslime's change for a while and see if any uninvolved editors read the page and take an issue with the paragraph. Switzpaw (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this an improvement? Perhaps this is how it should have been treated from the beginning, after some google searching on the incident I was unable to find any reliable third party sources that talk about this incident relating to Colbert's joke, other than MM own report. Given the coverage of the phony soldiers event in general this is undue weight, and a lack of reliable sources question it's notability WP:WELLKNOWN. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We can't report anything a commentator said about something unless someone else as noted that s/he said it? That seems fairly untenable to me. For what it's worth, I've added a citation that references the very Colbert comment that are being cited here, so hopefully everyones happy. Yilloslime (t) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I can get behind Yilloslime's most recent version. I don't think it's the best, but I'm OK with it. As far as the "third party" business, is there any end to this? BLP and RS arguments have already been soundly rejected. Are people who want to delete this content going to stop this parade of ever-changing rationales? I've already said that we could just remove the whole criticism (or the whole section), if it's so important. They insist on keeping the criticism, just not the defense. How about thinking about the one policy you haven't cited (yet), WP:NPOV, and consider whether you're intents here are neutral or whether you're with CENSEI as a POV pusher. Croctotheface (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this and BLP was rejected, RS isn't, from the looks of the noticeboards. Switzpaw (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The people who said that there's some RS concern--which there just isn't, as the show itself is certainly reliable for seeing what is on the show--are the people who would support ANY rationale that might lead to removing the content. I wouldn't be surprised to hear them say that there's a WP:NFC concern because we're quoting Colbert verbatim, and that's protected by copyright. Croctotheface (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, if editors here want to elevate Colbert to be on the same level as political commentators who are earnest in their opinions, the paragraph should be written as such. That is why I consider recent changes an improvement over the older version. Switzpaw (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem. Treating Colbert's character the same as a real political commentator does a huge disservice to actual political commentators. Those that would wish its inclusion counter all logical reasoning for why it shouldn't belong with strawmen arguments. My initial reason hasn't changed (go look at the archives). The fact is that some editors here wish to use a fictional characters comedy to mock a living person in defense of MMfA. The actual joke was not covered by outside 3rd party sources (yes I see an alternet BLOG was now added...not an improvement)....But then the non-democracy of WP has ruled, I relent, concensus building be damned. Arzel (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The truth of it is that Colbert has won a Peabody Award and has received countless accolades for journalism. He is regarded as a brilliant satirist (you can search for these and similar accolades) and his commentary is often better than "real" political commentators. The idea that there would be much less objection if a hack like Chris Matthews made the same defense of MM in "serious" terms is a little bit troubling to me. Croctotheface (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Until you come to grips with the fact that Colbert the person is real and Colbert the character is a fictional character I don't see the point in arguing the matter further. Colbert the character is no more real than Happy Gillmore or any other number of fictional characters played by actors. His awards were presented to the person not the fictional character. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you are neglecting the critical fact that Colbert (the person and character) is known for being a political satirist. People tune into the Report expecting political satire. Other people write articles about how Colbert is a brilliant satirist. Happy Gilmore, on the other hand, is not a vehicle for politcal satire/social commentary, and no one watches an Adam Sandler movie expecting satire or anything or sort of deep truth to be expressed via his comedy. It's a huge difference, and it makes all the difference. Cobert ≠ Happy Gilmore. Yilloslime (t) 17:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the exit from civility, but give up the ghost, Arzel. If you can't grasp the fundamentals of satire then I strongly suggest you withdraw from the conversation. If you're just trying to make a point, then I suggest you read our policy regarding that sort of behavior. In any case, there is no longer a burden of good faith that we should have to explain this to you every few weeks... either you don't understand (go read), or you're just being intentionally difficult (go away). Civility circuitry reactivated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I could move this a step in the right direction. The rewording of my edit works for me as well. I do think the Colbert comment belongs in a seperate paragraph, as it shifts the focus of the discussion from the criticisms of MMfA to a satirical remark about the criticism (criticism of the criticisms?). Used in this way, I no longer have RS issues with reporting what Colbert said. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the new paragraph really so important for you? It's a response to the criticism, just like Media Matters' response. I'm wary of these attempts to put distance between Colbert and the rest of it, as "this is different from the rest" seems to be a fundamental tenet of what people who seek to remove the content have argued. It opens the door to someone down the line saying, "oh, well, this is different from what's there, so let's delete it." Croctotheface (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the separate paragraph for the sake of clarity though I understand that it risks getting removed later. May be a new title "Criticism on Criticisms" is an option. Sounds funny. :) Docku^Hi 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the tenacity of Croctotheface and his powerhouse methods for twisting the argument, the only way I foresee this getting removed is for Colbert himself to step in and tell everyone not to take him seriously. Switzpaw (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• With the sources provided, I still contend that it is original research for us to assume who the target of the satire was. I could just as easily suggest that Colbert was mocking MMFA a la the Streisand effect. given that we have competing editor interpretations of deliberately opaque satire, we should endeavor not to interpret at all. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the original version, which did not interpret anything, but I have a hard time seeing another reasonable interpretation of the target. I want to reiterate that we could just remove the entire criticism or entire section if people want Colbert out. Croctotheface (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the version that is on the page now interprets (without a source) that the only people colbert was criticizing were the conservatives. I don't think that is correct and I think that the interpretation itself is original research. However, you won't get very far with the ultimatum of "Colbert stays in or the whole criticism section goes". Protonk (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

though he (Croctotheface) makes a valid point. Docku^Hi 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the WP:OR claim is valid. The spirit of WP:OR is that one is not to include original claims with respect to the subject of the article itself. There is a degree of editorializing that goes into determining how facts are presented, and I believe WP:NPOV addresses problems that may arise in that respect. I cannot believe that anyone contests that Colbert was ridiculing O'Reilly et al. That is a fact. Switzpaw (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying it is a fact doesn't make it so. It is entirely possible that he can both make fun of Limbaugh and MMFA. No source makes the claim made by the clause I removed (unlike the quote from colbert and the alternet source which substantiate the portion that remained) and as an ediorial matter, it seems kind of unnecessary. Was colbert making fun of papa bear? Probably. Is that statement necessary and informative for the reader? Not really. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about this version, which I proposed earlier (I think I actually like best):

Satirizing the situation, Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, sarcastically blamed Media Matters for the controversy. ...

Yilloslime (t) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the lampooning phrasing better -- it seems to fit Colbert's character more appropriately. Switzpaw (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we get consensus that Colbert engaged in an action called 'lampooning' and Rush Limbaugh et al was the target or do you wanna debate papa bear? Switzpaw (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this is the second "papa bear" reference, and the second time I have no idea what it means. Can you enlighten me? Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think when we start talking about papa bear, Wikipedia has jumped the shark. Switzpaw (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was avoiding writing this so the thread doesn't veer into a discussion on whether MMFA is a reliable source on The Colbert Report, but I might as well mention the opening paragraph of the source article: "On the October 8 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert mocked Rush Limbaugh for his attacks on Media Matters for America, which documented Limbaugh's characterization of service members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers" during the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show." Switzpaw (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with their characterization. I basically agree with Protonk that we don't need to interpret the target of the satire; the readers can do that. However, I don't think there's any support for the idea that he was satirizing "the situation." I suppose that's true in a technical sense, since that term is fairly general (he is also satirizing "human folly," and so on), but he's really satirizing the idea that this is all about being "taken out of context." If you watch the video at the Alternet link, you'll see that the premise is that Colbert made some really offensive comment on the radio and said that it sounds bad "out of context." He then said that "context" was all about the idea that the only people who were supposed to hear it were people who already agreed with him. Croctotheface (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So there isn't even agreement on how to characterize the event. Why is that? Oh because there are no secondary sources for this and the characterization is being left to editors here. Hmmm. That smells like a violation of WP:NOR.PelleSmith (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are secondary sources, but we don't even need to characterize the event. The version from a month ago didn't do that. However, I'll say again that we can just avert the issue completely by deleting the entire criticism, which is weak and not especially informative to begin with. Croctotheface (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you continue to claim that the criticism section is weak and not informative to begin with when there is an entire article devoted to the phony soldiers incident which was a direct result of MM actions. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because there's merit to the controversy doesn't mean that criticism of that controversy has any merit. The grousing about "context" is what you do when someone uses your own words against you: pretend you didn't really say them. It wasn't widely reported by non-partisan secondary sources, which seems to be your newest rationale for why Colbert's comment should be excluded, and it's not illuminating in the slightest, since Media Matters did nor remove any relevant context. Croctotheface (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Phony soliders version

User:Yilloslime's bold edit[6] is a step forward, thank you! I think the new contextual information is balanced and informative. It looks like the Colbert quote as it is included is still required to balance the criticism that MMfA tried to present a "completely false account of what happened". I think the bit regarding the senators, their letter, and ebay might be too much detail as it is only indirectly related to MMfA. thanks! --guyzero | talk 07:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree with the second part here: the notion of "too much detail," as all of that does seem to apply. I appreciate Yillo's desire to resolve this, but i think that it gives way too much weight to one thing that MM reported on and was criticized for. In general, I don't see how this is "integrating criticism into the article" as much as it's "creating a whole new section that wasn't there before." Croctotheface (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it "creating a new section that wasn't there before in order to integrate existing criticism into the article." ;). I'm no expert on MM, but I do think this is possibly the biggest story they've broken, so highlighting seems appropriate. To reply to Guyzero, I like having the bit about the letter, since I think it adds credibility to MM's interpretation of Rush's remarks: if MM was really way off base, there's no way 41 US senators would have gotten so deeply involved. Also, if we're going to introduce the phony soldier's controversy, we shouldn't leave the reader hanging, and I think the detail about the senators provides the needed conclusion of the events. The stuff about Rush ebaying the letter I could do without, though. It doesn't provide any additional understanding of MM, and whereas the fact that 41 senators sent the letter in some ways vindicates MM, I don't think the fact Rush ebayed it in anyway vindicates Rush--it only makes him look like a d*ck. Yilloslime (t) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

More Criticism of MMfA

The lack of strong criticism makes it seem like Media Matters is, for lack of better words, perfect. Both the Bill O'Reilly and Cliff Kincaid cases are not strong forms of criticism towards Media Matters; they are either insignificant or debunked by the information provided. Though it *could* be the case that there simply is no strong criticism conceivable towards Media Matters, I think it would be 'fair' to at least look for some. For example the fact that MMfA only concentrates on conservative misinformation would be valid criticism in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticism Appreciated (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have something specific, feel free to post it here for discussion (don't forget to include your source for where the criticism came from). --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your criticism is especially valid. It would be like criticizing the Republican National Committee for not campaigning for Democrats. Croctotheface (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that MMfA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and according to the Wikipedia, "Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office." So it wouldn't be like "criticizing the RNC for not campaigning for Democrats" at all? Switzpaw (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

They chose to focus on conservative misinformation, just like any organization gets to choose what they do. It's not their job to monitor all misinformation in the media, just like it's not their job to monitor, say, the interstate highway system, and just like it's not the RNC's job to elect Democrats. If your are asserting that they are "conducting political campaign activities" by virtue of "monitoring conservative misinformation," I'd still disagree, but that's a different argument from "they should monitor more than one kind of misinformation." Croctotheface (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not assert that MMfA is engaged in conducting political campaign activities. I thought your analogy was inappropriate because I have seen bloggers raise some curiosity as to whether or not MMfA is acting in good faith with respect to its 501(c)(3) status, though I have not seen that criticism in a reliable source. Whether or not there is any merit to this criticism, well, it's not my place to judge. And it's not your place to pre-emptively shoot it down. Switzpaw (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a 501c3, MMfA can't publicly endorse or campaign for a candidate, nor can it contribute to or fundraise for a campaign. But I think that's where the line is. And pointing out conservative misinformation, while not doing the same on the liberal side, is no where near that line. Also keep in mind that while, yes, there is a pretty good correlation, strictly speaking conservative ≠ republican and liberal ≠ democrat. Yilloslime (t) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, the MRC is a 501c3 too. If we were to put in criticism that challenges the idea of MMfA as an organization in and of itself, I'd love to use this line (which is in the Media Research Center article): Dana Milbank of The Washington Post perceived MRC and MMFA as promoting two opposing viewpoints of the American news media and "devoted almost entirely to attacking the press". :) Switzpaw (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What the first poster said was that they deserve criticism because they "concentrate only on conservative misinformation," and my reply to that was that they can define their mission however they like. They don't have any responsibility to be "balanced" or to address any issue that anyone else thinks they should address. I didn't bring up the RNC because I wanted to say that MM and the RNC are somehow equivalent. I brought it up because the RNC exists for a purpose: to elect Republicans. Saying that they should exist for a different purpose is not a convincing criticism. It would likewise not be convincing to criticize a nonprofit that monitors local roadways for failing to monitor misinformation in the media. What you described--that MM has perhaps run afoul of the law because they are "conducting political campaign activities"--is not the criticism that the first poster articulated. Croctotheface (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Valid" was the wrong term. My point was that the current criticism of MMfA was weak and made it look like Media Matters was basically perfect. Though their concentration on conservative misinformation isn't "valid" criticism, because they themselves openly proclaim this is their goal, one could still criticize them for making that choice. But regardless of that, the article of Media Matters could still do with more strong criticism. I myself do not have any examples or sources of any other criticism, so I am hoping there are others that do. Criticism Appreciated (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're approaching this backwards. We don't look at an article and say "this doesn't have enough criticism" and then go searching for criticism to add simply because we feel there should be more of it. We weigh each thing on its merits and whether it's relevant to the subject of the article. If there is a specific piece of criticism, we discuss whether it's reliable and verifiable, look at the source, discuss whether it's notable, etc. By way of example, ask yourself the reverse. If somebody said "there needs to be a lot of praise in this article, let's find some" would you support it? Probably not, and neither would I. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the Body Armor Controversy between MMfA and FactCheck should be added to the article. FactCheck wrote two articles debunking an ad from Votevets in 2006 and in 2008. However, MMfA defended the ad with their own article. I find this to be a fair criticism of MMfA because no where in the ammendmant is body armor mentioned, nor was it mentioned in the debate. In addition, according to that same FactCheck.org article, MMfA defended the ad with a vote that wasn't even mentioned in the ad. Anyone else have thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.184.33 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Village Pump

The discussion at WP:RS/N has been moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Use_of_comments_made_as_satire_by_Stephen_Colbert_.28character.29. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(And it's since been archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_53#Use_of_comments_made_as_satire_by_Stephen_Colbert_.28character.29) —EqualRights (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the VP discussion appears to cover its allowability, but I question its suitability (lack of useful information conveyed; mere levity) in an encyclopedic article. —EqualRights (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"When did you stop beating your wife?" variety of criticism

This organization is a 501-3c and as such, its funding sources are public information. Why is there a "he said/she said" entry for its funding source? This information is ascertainable. It is not enclyclopedic to include a debate on this subject. Either it is a fact or it is not that Soros is a funder.

If anyone objects to the removal of the non-factual paragraph on Media Matters funding source (unverified claims for and against), please state your reasoning. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support removal. There has been some discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard as to whether or not CNS is reliable source. Better to leave it out. Switzpaw (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, yank it. FTR, I've never seen CNS pass any sort of muster with regards to WP:RS. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much agnostic about this one. I don't think there's a lot of harm in reporting the back-and-forth rigamarole, and the rationale of the groups that say MM is funded by Soros at least accounts for the fact that there isn't a smoking gun piece of evidence. That said, the sourcing is on the weak side, and the charges seem to be designed to somehow put MM on the defensive more than anything else. I'd be willing to go either way. Croctotheface (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Given no objection, the paragraph will be removed.Skywriter (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Propose putting "Liberal" or Progressive in the opening line

Media Matters explains very clearly in ther "About Us" section who the are, and I find it intrestering that while [Accuracy in Media] is labeled "conservative" MM is not labled as "Progressive" or "Liberal" intheir opening line dispite their self proclaimed agenda of counteracting anything that "forwards the conservative agenda" (Conservative on one side, Liberal on the other). I did not make this change outright because I assumed it would be un-done right away anyway, due to the wikibias on political related articles such as these. However if it is correct to label an originization that, despite it not ourwardly saying it, is there to counteract anything that forwards the liberal agenda, one should logically assume it is also correct to lable an originization that, backed by it outwardly saying it, is there to counteract anythat that "forwards the conservative agenda"--71.82.134.111 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It mentions "progressive" in the second sentence; I don't really know that there is a huge difference either way. So long as the new version is equally well-written and neutral, I'd be fine with first sentence, second, third, whatever. Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a Technical communications major, consistancy is important to me. This is why I bring it up. Becides, just like news paper articles, how the first sentance is worded is VERY important.--71.82.134.111 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we replaced the first period with a semicolon, it would go from the second to the first sentence, but I don't think it would make any kind of relevant change. In case I was unclear: if you want to rewrite it so that we put the self-description in the first sentence rather than the second, I would not be opposed, so long as the new version is equally well-written and neutral. Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

we can use an example of AIM for consinsity

Accuracy In Media (AIM) is a conservative American organization which monitors the news media in the United States. Founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine, at the time an economist with the Federal Reserve, AIM describes itself as "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage".

So MM Could be worded

Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a liberal American organization which moniters the news media in the united states. A 501(c)(3) non-profit organization Founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. A Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.134.111 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I see little difference in the second line or the first line, whatever. I do oppose using the world "liberal" as opposed to "progressive" since they themselves use the latter. See the archives for previous discussion on the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "left-wing", to save readers from having to look up the description of Progressivism? Then AIM could be altered to say "Right-wing" and we have full consinstancy. and the big diffrence is consinstancy of wording more then anything. Less consinstancy and people tend to see things that are worded diffrently as inaccurate, unprofessional at best, or bias at worst. --71.82.134.111 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As discussed in the archives, I and other editors prefer the self-description. The labor saving of a single click shouldn't be a consideration. Gamaliel (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so then the self description should be appliciable to similar wiki artilcles? we should apply these same standards to the AIM page as well. Would you assist me with this Gamaliel?--71.82.134.111 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If the self-description is basically accurate, we should use it. "Progressive" is at least as accurate as "liberal," and it's probably more accurate, so we should use it. If their self-description were not accurate, it would be a different scenario, but that doesn't apply here. Your version above is much less neutral than the present version, as "liberal" and "left wing" are less accurate and neutral, and you want to put them first and foremost. Croctotheface (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Change made per above, check it out.--71.82.134.111 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative, this has been discussed to death. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And what is your reasoning to retract the changes? consinsity is a pretty big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.24.187 (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the most important thing, not even close. It could be that the approach we take at this article is better than the approach taken at other articles. It could be that they're both valid and there's no reason to do things one way versus the other. Speaking only for myself, I reverted the change because it was worse than the version currently in the article: I'd be fine with a reworked version of the first few sentences, but the most recent version mentioned the group's politics twice in the first three sentences. Considering that the prior version was perfectly adequate, I reverted back rather than retain the redundancy. Croctotheface (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth are you removing the obvious. Of course it is a liberal organization and it should be stated blatently. Anything less is censorship. Don't soften the edges to suit your own POV. Don't sugar coat facts. Bytebear (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about anything but accuracy. See the archives for previous discussion instead of leaping to conclusions. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to throw a monkey-wrench into the cogs here, but for a long time now it seems that every week or so an editor tries to drop "liberal" into the LEAD and it's immediately reverted, with the explanation being something along lines of "this has been previously discussed, see the archives". I've scanned the TOCs of the archives and also searched for the word "liberal" within the archived pages, and I have not found any such discussion. Granted I have not actually read through the archives, as that would take a long time. But anyways, I would appreciate it if those editors who claim that this has been discussed to death would provide links or difs to the actual discussion, 'cause I can't find it. Is it possible that this was discussed in a ANI thread or on someone's talkpage, i.e. somewhere other than right here? Yilloslime (t) 21:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard practice for politically charged labels is to use a self selected label when such a label is available and it provides a meaningful description. This is done for several reasons. The first is that this practice satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Second is that self-selected labels minimize Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. Using a label created by a third-party brings with it the question of what biases does that third party add to the debate, a problem easily avoided with a self selected label. It should also be noted that the terms "liberal" and "progressive" have almost identical meanings in the context of modern American politics. Until someone is able to explain why the term favored by the political right is superior to the term favored by the political left, we should use the term favored by the described group. --Allen3 ^talk 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says that contributions are given by liberals, and it further says that this group is specifically tasked to find "conservative" errors in reporting. To rely on a euphamism like "progrssive" instead of "liberal" when the article is riddled with liberal vs. conservative rhetoric is POV. Again, don't sugar coat facts. Is anyone debating whether this is not a liberal organization? Call it what it is and stop trying to soften the language. Wikipedia does not sugar coat, nor does it censor facts. I realize MMfA does this on their own, citing a story, they do use the term "progressive" when defining themselves as in "paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts" but their own external sources that they cite use the term liberal as in "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices." Just because MMfA changes the wording, does not mean we must follow suit. In fact, to do so is POV. Wikipedia is in no way obligated to use their preferred term, particularly when the far more common term is "liberal." It is conservative/;iberal, not conservative/progressive, and it is POV, and more particularly MMfA's POV that is being used in this article. Wikipedia is not MMfA, and should use the lest neutral and most common and common wording it can. I am not against having a statement saying they prefer the term "progressive" to "liberal" if it is well cited, but it should not be used to sugar coat the political leanings of this group. Bytebear (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to specifically make a point of using the term they do not use. Is "progressive" somehow inaccurate? When you complain of "sugar coating," it seems that you acknowledge that "progressive" is accurate, but you prefer to use another term that, in your view, is less flattering. There's no reason not to use the term they prefer, provided it does the job. In some ways, "progressive" can be more accurate than "liberal," as liberal could connote (or even denote) an older style of politics, a different set of issues, than "progressive," which is used more often by modern groups. Croctotheface (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is "liberal" is an accurate and correct definition of this group. "Progressive" is a euphemism and Wikipedia does not replace facts with euphemisms. Why do you want to avoid the term "liberal." You call it a "less flattering" term. I didn't realize Wikipedia was here to flatter anyone. Wikipedia is here to give the most accurate information, and "liberal" is more accurate, particularly when contrasted with "conservative" which is the sole aim of this group to vilify. In short, accuracy supercedes flattery, because flattery introduces POV.Bytebear (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is interested in flattering or euphemisms or avoiding anything. Accuracy is what we are interested in and we feel that the most accurate description is the one which the group itself uses. Note User:Allen3's comments above about self-selected labels. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this goes against verifiability. We are to get facts from third party sources, not from the organization itself. Sorry. Bytebear (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So what are those reliable, third-party sources that claim this organization is more accurately described as "liberal" than "progressive"? Why are those sources more accurate on this point than the organization itself? Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, Fox news is truly fair and balanced. Do you agree? Bytebear (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they see themselves as "fair and balanced", just as MMfA sees themselves as "progressive". The Fox News article contains plenty of sources disputing the former. Is there a comparable source which disputes that MMfA is progressive? Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again you are using a euphemism that is only used by the group. Do you have external neutral sources that call them 'progressive" and not "libera" I can find several examples of using "liberal" that are already in the article. So your choice of one word over the other is clearly POV. And very few if any neutral sources use conservative/progressive in lew of conservative/liberal. It is just most correct to use the term 'liberal.' If you have an argument for not to use "liberal" I am open for them, but right now your choice of words is POV. Bytebear (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a euphemism begs the question; I see no evidence that "progressive" is any less accurate than "liberal." Croctotheface (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

when paired with conservatism it is a euphemism. progressive simply isn't a term used in contrast to conservatism. Accurate? not exactly, and certainly not when contrasting conservatism. Bytebear (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is clearly opinion; "progressive" does not somehow fail to encapsulate the place that MM occupies on the political spectrum. As I said above, it could be seen as more accurate than "liberal" in the sense that it is meant to represent something more modern than New Deal liberalism. I don't see how your position says much more than that you would prefer to use "liberal" instead; the idea that it "simply isn't used" is clearly wrong, as this very example indicates. Croctotheface (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that it's a euphemism is clearly an opinion, and I suspect that it's one you won't find much in sources, except perhaps right-wing ones. Croctotheface (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to count up the sources for 'progressive' vs 'liberal.' The article certainly uses 'liberal' several times. Bytebear (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Perhaps you misunderstood what I said: I'm sure there are sources describing MM as liberal, as well as progressive, left-leaning, and probably some without any such label, too. The idea that I don't think you'll find in sources is the idea that "progressive" is a euphemism. That position seems to presume that people don't know what kind of politics someone means when they use "progressive," but I don't think that's really so. And that's what wikilinking is for, anyway. Croctotheface (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this article [7] which certainly makes my point about the usage. and from a liberal point of view. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that source does call it a euphemism, so I suppose it's at least a point that we could open up for discussion. However, it does not describe a way in which the label somehow does not apply, and you haven't, either. Furthermore, despite the fact that "euphemism" implies no difference in meaning, the article does describe ways in which it could have a meaning different from "liberal." Beyond that, the article acknowledges the way that it is being used, not just by MM, but by other significant political figures. That cuts strongly against your argument that nobody uses it. Croctotheface (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

well, now shift gears after finding my argument of 'euphemism' is valid. Fine. Go ahead and prove that conservative/progressive is more acceptable than conservative/liberal. The burden of proof is now on you. I have provem my case. Bytebear (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? One source that agrees with you means that you have "provem" your case? It gives you a valid basis to make your argument, but I still find it wholly unpersuasive for the reasons I articulated and that you declined to respond to. Croctotheface (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Respond to what? The term 'liberal' is perfectly acceptable. you have given no reason other than they claim to be 'progressive' which by the way, I did not remove from the article. Are you saying they are not liberal, and it would be inaccurate for me to call them liberal? Do you have any sources to back this claim up, because I can give you dozens that call them and their founder, and their members and contributors and donators liberal. Bytebear (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to rework the article to put the reference to "progressive" closer to the top, then I'd be fine with that. I could find lots of sources that use "right wing" for various conservative groups; does that mean that the term needs to go into those articles, too? Croctotheface (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

outdent

Why am I unsurprised at finding the usual suspect repeatedly trying to inject subjective labels? The arguments don't hold any more weight than they did the first dozen times you've pushed this, Bytebear. We're not going to start using subjective labels because of opinions; as we've been through dozens of times, we will stick with the adjectives used by the organization itself. This has been thoroughly discussed ad infinitum. Let's stick with policy instead of editorial opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Blaxthos, I have never edited this article before today, so please stop with your accusations. Second, your 'opinion' is the one that is false. Self identifying as a 'progressive' when the world calls you a 'liberal' is POV. See the 'fair and balanced' point above. Let's stick to policy, if you like. How about "no self published sources" for starts. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you assume that this organization's publications are "self-published", a premise that I doubt anyone would accept, there is no such blanket prohibition on self-published sources. It is widely accepted on WP that you can use a self-published source for information about the author and his or her opinions. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I;m sorry? What? The organization's publications are not self published? Are you serious? But good wikilawyering on your part. And yes you can say they call themselves 'progressive' but you can equally say they are liberal. if you want, then say they have been called liberal. I am offended that Blax reverted my changes because they were an attempt at compromise. Something you all should learn. Bytebear (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So are books by Simon and Schuster self-published? Is Time magazine self-published? Self-published traditionally refers to a single person publishing their own work, as opposed to having it published in a magazine or by a publisher. It is generally not used to refer to organizations like MMfA or S&S or Time Warner which create publications. Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, self-published generally refers to a lack of editorial control. MM plainly does exercise editorial control and fact checking. Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They do fact checking on themselves? I thought they only did conservative groups. Ha ha. Come on, read the article I linked to. "Progressive" is just a lame euphemism for "liberal" and used to create a positive POV. Wikipedia is POV neutral, and euphemisms are not to be used. Why are you so afraid of being labeled a liberal? Bytebear (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't make this personal when it isn't anywhere besides your imagination. No one is afraid of anything. We have a different opinion on what is the accurate term to use in this situation. The key here, which you can't seem to accept, is that we believe that the self-description is what should be used in the introduction. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

← Hi, I'm from the mediation cabal. Assuming that either party doesn't want their term used because it's a euphemism (I won't link-drop AGF)... what is the difference between progressive and liberal that warrants this discussion in the first place? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Xavexgeom, while your efforts are appreciated, I really have to insist that this talk page is not the appropriate forum for a generalized discussion of "the difference between progressive and liberal". Your efforts are no doubt in good faith, however this issue has been the subject of a pretty lengthy consensus in which, in cases of editorial opinion, articles will use an organization's self-description as opposed to subjective labels. Several veteran editors and administrators have pointed this out, and I can't help but question the motives of an editor willing to edit war to service a particular viewpoint. Bytebear is no stranger to the conservative cause, and is wholly familiar with the established consensus. In any case, I don't think we're going to descend into an unbounded "what is a progressive?" discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize; it was not my intent. To be more specific (although I realize now that the question is best left undiscussed), I was referring to the difference it causes for the article. That'll teach me to read into the archives a bit more deeply ;-)

So the naming dispute (and heaven knows one-word disputes are hell) is whether we refer to the organization by what it calls itself versus what editors want it to be called? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary.  :) Policy and consensus both dictate to avoiding editorial opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear presumably agrees that editorializing is to be avoided - as I read the discussion above, the disagreement is that s/he thinks that calling it "progressive" is editorializing (as s/he put it above, "[s]elf identifying as a 'progressive' when the world calls you a 'liberal' is POV.") I wonder if editors here are willing to apply this same principle beyond this article? Bytebear asked that question above and it was ducked. If verifiable sources confirmed that Bill O'Reilly called himself a moderate, would a revision of his article lede referring to him a moderate commentator survive scrutiny? Simon Dodd (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, the O'Reilly biography does report pretty extensively on his self-description of his politics, so I'd say the standard here is followed in that case. There may be some reference to the fact that he is frequently called a conservative by others, and I'm not entirely sure that I support that, but there's at least an argument to be made, as "conservative" conflicts with his "not ideological, independent-minded" self-description. Croctotheface (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the question is: has "progressive" been/is being used as a euphemism for "liberal" within this article? Or is there a simpler explanation? Or are we all on the same page? (I'm not, but that's why I'm playing catch up ;-) ) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Also, I opened this case up at medcab. here's the link to the case page

No, I think the WP policy question that should be asked when considering a change is "Does a preponderance of reliable sources show the subject's self-identification (progressive) is false?" —EqualRights (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, then, the standard is that the subject's self-identification trumps descriptions of them in other (possibly hostile) outlets? If that's right, I have a follow-up question that's irrelevant here but bears on other articles to which this standard you've coined applies. As you see it, what would happen if the subject's self-identification was passive and the identification in other outlets was active? That is, suppose MM was broadly referred to by critics as being liberal, and had not pronounced itself liberal or progressive in explicit terms, but had never referred to themselves as liberals and wrote exclusively in terms of progressivism. Would the correct term for MM still be "progressive," or would that tilt the balance, in your view, towards using the description preferred by the media? Simon Dodd (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If a descriptor were essentially never used, which seems to be the case in your hypothetical, then there's no reason we should use it. Croctotheface (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(Another reply that collided with the previous one)

Nuance; see Progressivism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States.

I believe the subject's self-description ("progressive") is appropriate unless a preponderance of reliably-sourced evidence shows that it's false. —EqualRights (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussions past

As interesting as the discourse above is, before we descend into unbounded discussion that is far beyond the scope of this talk page, let me give my understanding of what consensus has been reached in the past. Please note that I've been a veteran editor of many politically charged articles since about 2004 -- after a few years of discussions, the particular details of where and when all these discussions occurred have all blended together. Many of the same editors roam the same circle of articles (with much overlap), and many have already commented to these effects above:

• If an organization has explicitly chosen a description, and that description is uncontested, we use that description in the article.
• If an organization has not explicitly chosen a description, and there is a general concurrence amongst (strictly) reliable sources, that description can generally be used in the article.
• If an organization has explicitly chosen a description that is not prima facie false, and that description is contested, we use that description and then allow neutrally presented descriptions from other reliable sources within the criticism section.

I'd be able to dig up most of this stuff in the archives, if pressed to do so. However, the rules above are a pretty good guideline for working within policy. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For the love of god WIkipedia, please be consistant. they themselves say they are progressive. from the perspective of a technical writer, the lack of consistancy in articles SCREAMS unprofessiona/bias/etc. Media matters themselves labeled themselves as progressive, much like [Accuracy in Media] lables themselves as conservative. please maintain the consistancy with how the first paragraphs are written for ALL WIKI articles. the wording of paragraph one, much like a news paper article, is so very important.--71.82.134.111 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)