Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Media Matters for America

Extended content

One small quibble with the summary of the issue at dispute: The article actually now does include a short mention of a Hillary Clinton connection to MMfA. So, the dispute is not about whether we include a mention or not, but rather about the nature of the coverage and the weight of the coverage which should be given in the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I have a bit of a quibble with your above comment, Saltyboatr. The fact that Kelly Craighead's previous employment by Hillary Clinton is mentioned briefly in the article doesn't really show a connection between Hillary Clinton and MMfA. After all, Craighead might have worked for me, but the mere mentioning of that hypothetical fact in the article wouldn't mean that I had any substantial relationship to the organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I am specifically thinking of the footnote in the article which says "...Kelly Craighead, who planned Hillary's trips for eight years when she was First Lady, advised Media Matters "on all aspects" of its launch. And the new group wasted no time becoming an aggressive protector of Hillary's reputation and boasting its role as truth police, forcefully going after journalists for what the group deems to be leaving out key information of cherry-picking material." That, to me, is a "short mention" of a Hillary Clinton connection to MMfA seen in the existing MMfA article. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, but how many article visitors read the footnotes? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I am glad that we agree that we are making at least a short mention. The question is then what is the proper weight? You want more weight given. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Secondary Issues Trying to keep discussion off of the project page and on the discussion page. Responding to this comment[5]. After more than a little soul searching, I honestly can say that I am approaching this with good faith. And, to be accused of being gratuitous if a false characterization. My "secondary issue" has not been conceived of lightly. It repeats concerns I have already raised several times before which remain un-addressed. And, my secondary issue is well considered after paying close attention to this controversy for over a month. I also would like to give credit for these editors being transparent in their intentions. A review of their talk page discussion record will show their unabashed intentions to counteract what they perceive as a left leaning bias at Wikipedia. I am not accusing them of duplicity. I am simply pointing out what I see, which is that editing to advocate for a personal political point of view is not according to policy here. SaltyBoatr get wet 02:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Being unwilling to admit to your own biases does not equate to not having them. For example, you have a significant interest in editing articles about right-wing extremists, but no interest in editing articles about left-wing extremists. Is that just by happenstance?--Drrll (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I answered that question before[6], I am interested in countering systemic editor bias. The guiding policy here is WP:NPOV. The policy violation being committed now is that you have boldly declared your intention to edit based on your personal politics. You favor a neutrality balance point being established by the weight of POV battle between competing editors. "Having editors with competing political views helps those goals to be achieved." That policy violation, in a nutshell, is my "secondary issue". SaltyBoatr get wet 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Let me underline SaltyBoatr's point: at least one editor in the "inclusionist" faction has already been blocked for blatant and unabashed POV pushing -- though some are more honest about their motives, the intent here seems to unquestionably an attempt to right some Great Wrong. You may find a winding discussion on the systemic issues, and a complete statement of my concerns and thoughts, here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statements

It's traditional for us mediators to get a lay of the ground by asking all participants to create opening statements, regarding primary concerns, secondary concerns, how you think I can help, and whether you like carrot cake. The last, in particular, is the most important.

However, I do ask that parties keep their statements brief, 300-400 words tops. Also: no cross-talking. That'll come later.

Opening statement by Badmintonhist

Before I start I would note that an ingenious hooligan has somehow managed to vandalize Saltyboatr's opening statement without leaving the separate record that would normally appear in the edit history. At the risk of allowing this same vandal to announce (incorrectly) that my favorite desert is key lime pie, I will now begin:

The issue here is quite basic. Should information that is pertinent to the subject of Media Matters for America, verifiable by neutral third party sources, and easily of sufficient weight relative to the rest of the article's content, be included or excluded from the article? I would opt for inclusion. In previous discussions those opposing inclusion of factual information briefly describing Hillary Clinton's association with MMfA have asserted that it is a "right wing meme" as if this were a reasoned argument for excluding it. The "meme" argument is as irrelevant to our task here as carrot cake. Encyclopedias legitimately contain all kinds of information that cause certain folks all along the political spectrum to nod in approval. The issue is not whether right-wingers or left-wingers want the information in or out of the encyclopedia. The issue is whether the basic fact (documented by journalists not ideologues) that Senator Hillary Clinton, then pretty much the putative Democratic presidential candidate for 2008, gave advice and support to a media watchdog organization belongs in a Wikipedia article about said organization. The answer is an emphatic YES. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The most recent example of an attempt to concisely include the basic sourced information about Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters, which was removed by one of the "exclusionist" editors, can be found here [[7]].

You mention that all folks across the political spectrum are going to look at this and form an opinion.

Some political commentators suggested that Media Matters exhibited a pro-Clinton bias during during the run-up to 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Media Matters vigorously denied any favoritism toward a particular candidate.

---

---

Is this a substantial part of the history of media matters? Some political commentators: who? vigorously denied? I suspect it's this tone that bothers some editors. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will confess that the "MMfA may have favored Clinton over the other Democratic contenders" part of the entry is not as solid as the rest. Several respected observers (at least one of them, Michael Crowley, a progressive) had strongly suggested that MMfA was tilting toward Clinton. All of them seemed to take for granted that there was a close connection between MMfA and Hillary. I did not want to make the entry too long and tried to summarize this part of it. One could make a good case for handling this part of the entry differently or even omitting it. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Where does Soxwon's retirement from this particular fray place the state of the mediation? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If he's a prominent editor in the article, and one side suspects Ill Motives (joke) of him in the future (i.e., suspicion that he's likely to disregard consensus gained here), then I may have to close. But most parties tend to agree with the consensus gained from of a mediation whether they were a part of it or not, since it looks dickish if they don't. What do you think (question open to all)? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Drrll

Several editors are wanting to keep out the MMfA article very well-sourced information (10 sources so far) that relates to a very prominent political figure's (as well as close friends and advisers of that figure) significant role in advising and providing funding for that organization during its beginning years. Besides the abundance of sources, Hillary Clinton herself bragged about her role in helping to "start and support" MMfA to a convention of fellow progressives.

At first, the objection was to the credibility of the sources. When the sources kept multiplying, the objections shifted to such accusations of obsession and promoting right-wing memes (implying poorly sourced memes). The fact is, nothing else in the entire MMfA article even comes close to the level of sourcing as the Hillary Clinton material.

The proponents only want to see a sentence or two of material in the article about Hillary Clinton and her close associates relationship to MMfA. Well-sourced material (if it exists) countering this notion could be included as well.--Drrll (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Arzel

From a historical aspect, the founding of MMfA should be included within the article. One of the most interesting aspects about any company is how it started and the nature of it's beginnings. To this point, the history of MMfA has been largely absent. Hillary Clinton, through her own words, has stated her role in the beginnings of MMfA. Given her prominence as a former Senator, spouce of a President, and current Secretary of State it is only natural to include her within the historical aspect of MMfA. The primary reasons for not including this information seem to be based on the belief that the only reason for including HRC is that it is being used for partisan purposes. Indeed the primary objections to the information is not that it isn't true, but that the sources have some bias against HRC and/or MMfA.

All of this leads me to believe that the only reason some do not want this information to be included is because they don't like it. It certainly is possible to include her part in the founding of MMfA in a neutral form using her own words. Arzel (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Soxwon

Withdrawing from mediation, don't feel that I can add anything at this point and may not be available for rest of mediation. Soxwon (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Blaxthos

It is my belief that a core cadre group of editors sympathetic to conservative causes/memes is attempting to introduce this information in opposition to Wikipedia policy, practice, and norm. My objection springs from several points:

1. Due weight -- Out of the hundreds (nay, thousands) of potential sources, there are only a handful that even acknowledge the "Hillary connection". This is a perfect example of editors seeking sources to fit the story they already want to tell -- Objective research of MMFA's history won't turn up any serious treatment of Hillary Clinton as a key figure in its history.
2. Accuracy -- Sourcing is almost nonexistent... of the few sources on point, the only one that covers this as anything more than trivia is from a biased author with an axe to grind. The meaning of the quote so often referenced by the proponents at best is ambiguous, and at worst is being willfully misrepresented to further the "Hillary connection" meme. It certainly doesn't provide enough context to sustain a claim that Clinton was doing anything more than making pandering, campaign-style statements of questionable accuracy to liberal constituents.
3. Synthesis -- Editorial action up to this point has made it very clear that the intent here is to present the material in such a way that a certain bias is reflected. Perfect example -- when inserting text associating MMFA with Clinton, it was placed in a "criticism" section rather than a "history" section even though there was no context/content/criticism.
4. Good faith -- this has come up for almost three years, and though no material facts have changed editors seem to have learned that if they just ignore consensus and continue to push their (biased) viewpoint ad infinitum they'll eventually run off any opposition. (Example: see myself and yiloslime walking away from the article).
5. NPOV -- the obsession with Clinton can be traced back to the early 1990's and Rush Limbaugh fans. Given the cadre group tends to focus on petty issues like these whilst ignoring major gaps in articles that are easily fixed, I don't think there's much of an attempt to represent the facts objectively and with proper weight.

Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Croctotheface

The issue here is not whether to include a mention of Hillary Clinton--there is one in the article already. I added it. The notion that I or other editors want to keep Clinton's name out of the article is just false.

The issue here is ostensibly about whether to expand that mention into a large one, one that overwhelms the rest of the material in the article and implies to the reader that Hillary Clinton is the single most important individual in the history of Media Matters. As SaltyBoatr has pointed out on the talk page, according Hillary Clinton such a high degree of weight is not a conclusion that anybody would reach based on reading reliable secondary sources about Media Matters. Rather, the research done to support a Hillary Clinton connection was conducted specifically to find sources to support having the article discuss Hillary Clinton in detail. Many of those sources have agendas. Many of the rest mention some connection to Clinton only in passing--put another way, the article would give substantially more weight to this "Clinton connection" than the articles it cites do. The articles that address the matter in more detail cover it as part of the day-to-day rigamarole of a political campaign. But again, the point here is that these editors worked precisely backwards: they began with something that they wanted the article to say, and then they went about piecing together individually weak support to make it seem more substantial.

But I actually think that the real issue here is more broad. For a time, certain editors raised a different issue: whether we needed to call Media Matters "liberal" in the lead of the article when we already quoted their self-description of "progressive." Despite a clear, longstanding consensus against doing this, these editors returned every few months to insist that "liberal" must go in the lead. They continually repeated that the group is called "liberal" in sources and accused editors who disagreed with them of trying to purge the word "liberal" from the article--never mind, of course, that it did and still does reference "liberal" or "liberals" several times elsewhere. We're seeing the same thing with this Hillary Clinton business, which was first raised in 2007, and it has come up every once in a while since then, without ever gaining the support of a consensus of editors. It needs to stop. Croctotheface (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by SaltyBoatr

I love carrot cake!!! It has been my favorite desert ever since I was a child.

In a nutshell, this article is a magnet for POV battles. Therefore must take extra care to follow the letter and the spirit of WP:NPOV policy. After doing my homework and reading a lot about this topic, I see that this point about a "Hillary connection" is objectively a trivia point about the MMfA. Though, I do see that this "Hillary connection" is also treated as a 'talking point' in the conservative media and blog-o-sphere, seemingly as a counter-attack aimed at the MMfA. Per NPOV policy we must use a neutral point of view, and mirroring this conservative "Hillary connection" in the article improperly raises a point of trivia to a point of significance. Also, it is troubling that this involves one or two editors here who are unabashedly on a campaign to battle lefties at Wikipedia. Agenda based editing should be avoided. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Yilloslime

I pretty agree with the statements by Blaxthos, SaltyBoatr, and Croctotheface.

Media Matters has been the subject of plenty of criticism (mostly from the Right), and has done plenty of criticizing of people (mostly on the Right.) Just as we're under no obligation to always include MMfA's criticisms of people and media outlets in our articles on those subjects, we're under no obligation to include every criticism of MMfA in this article. And make no mistake, the sources discussing Clinton's (alleged) involvement with MMfA cast it as a criticism. And what is/was Clinton's relationship with MMfA? We really don't know. As I see it, some fairly non-neutral observers have made a mountain of a molehill, and tried to spin it as a damning criticism of MMfA. But there's no reliable sourcing on what her relationship actually is, so we can't reliably say anything about. What we can do, of course, is report the controversy, but there the issue is: How much WP:WEIGHT to give it. I'm on record repeatedly as saying that I'm not opposed to some mention of it. Heck, I wouldn't be opposed it giving it a little more coverage than the current version affords it. But the wording proposed by the "other side" has, in my opinion, given it way to much weight. E.g. the text removed here gave it way too much attention in that it was in it's own section called "History" (which neglected all other aspects of the org's history) that came right after the LEDE, used the Clinton name three times, and failed to properly attribute the material. If you read that paragraph, you'd come away thinking Clinton played some central, pivotal role in MMfA's inception, which she did not, at least according to the preponderance of reliable sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Ink Falls

People have mentioned time and again that Hillary is never mentioned in the history of Media Matters, but I would like to point out to these people that there currently is no real repository of the historical events of Media matters(at least that I can find), thus we are in effect writing the history of MMfA. Anyways I'm sure that Media Matters would be happy to hear they are endorsed by such a popular political figure and I see no reason why the Media Matter fans would disagree with the inclusion of the info on the obvious connection between her and MMfA. The notion that this is a "right wing meme" is completely ridiculous, if anything it's a left wing meme because it gives a semblance of legitimacy to MMfA that it could never gathered from it's other contributors(George Sorros for instance). In short it's self-evident(given the sources and contributions) that this is significant and if there are others that have played similar roles then they should be mentioned as well. I maintain this position despite the baffling and confused assertions that this is a POV edit by right wing fanatics. Ink Falls 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I like cherry pie. :) With some homemade french vanilla whip topping and a scoop of pralines and cream ice cream.

Comments by Xavexgoem so far

It seems three things have been certainly established:

• There are reliable sources mentioning a link between HRC and MM, but few in the way of exposes.
• Both groups believe their opposite group is whitewashing the article
• The primary issue is due weight.

Is this correct so far? I'm still hoping for more statements. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Those three things are correct, IMO. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the "inclusionists" believe that the "exclusionsists" are whitewashing the article. The exclusionists seem to believe that the inclusionists are politicizing the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the three points above accurately represent the totality of the objections. Please see my (freshly placed) statement above. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hearing cadre, petty, etc. I understand frustration (I mean, look what I'm doing), but I please ask everybody to refrain from furthering any animosity between ourselves. I don't want to know what editor X thinks about editor Y; I want to know what editor X thinks about the article and how it can be made better. I understand that there are cabals (TINC) and biases; those will come out in the wash. But I wish to keep that as my judgment, lest I get caught up in others' opinions, and then have those opinions reflected on me. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Of course, y'all can say nasty things to each other over email and in your head or whatever. But here, please, no.

My apologies for being unclear and perhaps poor taste in diction.  ;-) In my statement above, cadre is only meant to refer to a group of like minded individuals set upon a common belif; it is not meant to convey any belief of coordinated efforts or a structural group. It was a poor noun to choose; I will amend my statement shortly. Regarding "petty", I refer to the specific content in dispute (as in "the Hillary tidbit is a petty portion of MMFA's origins"), not to the character or actions of those with whom I disagree. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem. And, of course, it's intended for everybody ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I always say "they are a cabal (WP:TINC!) or something to that effect, just to make myself clear and give some folks some of the weirder WP:CLUE

The Newsday source is quite detailed in its explanation of the links between the two, even though it was written before HRC's admission of the link. I agree with Badmintonhist on the whitewash issue. Yes, I agree that weight is the primary issue.--Drrll (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ink Falls points out in his statement that "there currently is no real repository of the historical events of Media matters ... thus we are in effect writing the history of MMfA" which I pretty much agree with. I think if we try to write a history section that treats MMfA's origins and subsequent development holistically, then the Clinton issue will go away. When the history section focuses exclusively on Clinton, then it's a WP:WEIGHT issue, even if we're only talking about 3 sentences. But when it's three sentences out of something like 2 or 3 paragraphs, then it's less likely to run afoul of WP:UNDUE. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the best way to settle this topic is for somebody to do some research and create a history section(which could maybe be merged with the Donors section?) and then just to include a few lines about Hillary. Ink Falls 01:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Tempting suggestion, Ink Falls. I am afraid it can't be done without WP:SYN and WP:NOR. There just isn't that much good sourcing available. One problem I see is that there are very few third party reliable sources which are directly writing about the MMfA. (See this study, I could only find six third party reliable sources speaking directly about the MMfA.) The vast majority of citations in this article presently point to articles that make a small incidental references to the MMfA. The way it works is that an editor around here gets an idea, then they Google search it to find a snippet incidental references to "prove" their idea, (needed to advance their personal POV agenda). The way it should work to avoid editor bias is that editors should read all the best available sourcing that directly describes the MMfA, and then the editors write an article that reflects what they read in the sourcing matching the NPOV balance seen in the sourcing. Bottom line, except for the editor political agendas, it doesn't look like this topic has received all that much 'direct coverage' in third party sourcing, therefore this article should be short to match. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Three sentences might be more than you think--how many sentences are you thinking there are per paragraph? I'd say that especially considering the short Wikipedia paragraphs, we're dealing with something like 4-8 sentences per paragraph. Three sentences could be something like 40% of a two paragraph history section. Unless we're going to write several pages of history, then Hillary Clinton doesn't merit more than the sort of namedrop reference that's in there now. Croctotheface (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally inadvisable to make concessions based off of size, especially considering this is a wiki. We report what's said according to its due weight. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The numbers I threw out were not meant to be taken literally. My point was that if the history section is 100% about Clinton, then there's a weight problem no matter how long or short it is. But if treat the whole history of MMfA fairly, then we can probably fit in a mention of the purported Clinton-MMfA connection while respecting WP:WEIGHT. Yilloslime ^T_C 14:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems like replies are now allowed, I'd like to respond to one of Arzel's assertions above: Hillary's role in MMfA is indeed in dispute. Check the MMfA article talkpage. Her remarks in a speech are not enough to confirm her as a co-founder. Politicians do not have the same standards for truth that WP does. Looking at the Hillary Clinton article, even the phrasing there is overstating it: "..advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America..". I note that the relevant talk archive mentions only her speech on youtube and the unreliable Gerth-VN book. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing editor Blaxthos's points

I am off on a long-planned budget tour of Spain, Portugal and Morocco tomorrow, but before I depart I would like to address the points raised by the legendary Wikipedia editor Blaxthos, in the order in which he raised them.

A.It is true that potentially hundreds (or even thousands) of reliable sources might have written about the relationship between Hillary Clinton and Media Matters, whereas only a handful did. The problem with this argument is that only a relative handful of reliable third-party sources wrote much of anything about Media Matters. . The market for news stories about organizations which critique political news stories is rather limited. This fact is well illustrated by the paucity of neutral third-party sourcing in Wikipedia's article on Media Matters which is largely "self-sourced." The more pertinent question is this: Among the serious journalists who did take more than a passing glance at Media Matters between 2004 and 2008, what percentage at least mentioned a connection between then Senator Clinton and the organization? And here, I believe, the percentage is impressively high.

B. The quality of the sourcing for at least a mention of Hillary Clinton's association with Media Matters is actually quite good; in fact, probably better, in terms of WP:Notability, than anything else in our Wikipedia article. It includes the authors of a major biography of Hillary Clinton, the authors of a best-selling book on the 2008 presidential campaign, and reporters or editors from MSNBC, Newsday, and The Hill among other significant news outlets.

As for editor Blaxthos's suggestion about the Hillary Clinton quote, that it may have been nothing more than a politician's "pandering, campaign-style statement of questionable accuracy to progressive liberal constituents," it contrasts rather starkly to his previous interpretation [[8]] that the senator "wasn't speaking directly about MMfA, but rather about creating an atmosphere conducive to more diverse viewpoints in space previously dominated by right wing media." Apparently the author, justifiably, had trouble believing his earlier take on the quote. I rather believe that (then) Senator Clinton meant exactly what she said, that she "helped to start and support" Media Matters and the Center for American Progress.

C. Even experienced Wikipedia editors often place appropriate copy for an article in an inappropriate section of the article. Two routine tasks of Wikipedia editors are retitling sections and rearranging the placement of material. Excluding perfectly good information because because an editor once placed it in an inappropriate section of an article is absurd.

D. Editors have a duty to press their arguments when they reasonably believe that those arguments have not been received in good faith in the first place. One gets the impression here that had the three major networks all done hour long specials on the connection between Media Matters and Hillary Clinton at least one editor would still arguing against any mention of Hillary Clinton in the Media Matters article.

E. Since the term "obsessed" was raised, I would submit that it more properly adheres to editors who resist accepting concise, innocuously worded, and well sourced material into the article because they think that it might reflect negatively on a subject for which they have much ideological sympathy. In politics, certain facts tend to make some folks happy and other folks unhappy. It's the nature of the beast. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Badmintonhist applies a different standard to articles about subjects which he supports, like Fox News. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of the central issue facing this discussion. People against it's inclusion seem to only attack inclusionist for being biased rather then making a logical counter argument. Whatever reasons for Badminton's post (which you cannot prove) aside, his response was logical and well thought out, so it deserves a logical counter argument, not a "Well you're biased so we should just ignore what you said". If we argue like that then Badminton could have just as easily wrote "Blaxthos is biased let's ignore his post", but he didn't, he respected his argument and made a logical, well thought out counter argument. Let's follow his example and respond to each others arguments instead of just calling them bias. That being said, I agree with Badminton's post. Ink Falls 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling out an editor's bias and use of double standards is not an attack, check WP:Npa policy. And just because BH's post is long and you like it doesn't make it logical and well thought out. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking Ink Fall's advice, responding to specific Badmintonhist arguments:

A) Why 2004 to 2008, (other than that the 'big fish' in Democratic politics during most of that time was the front runner HRC)? Why exclude 2009-2010? (Oh, HRC is not prominent during 2009-2010.) If this article is about MMfA, it seem logical that we focus on the recent timeframe.

B) Um, that book you describe isn't written about the MMfA. It is written about HRC. Aren't you in the wrong Wikipedia article then? This looks like a case of systemic editor bias. You have found a point you want to make, then you seek out sourcing to prove your point. That is backwards. Instead you should be reading about the MMfA, and then editing what you see in the material about the MMfA.

B.1) Regarding what HRC meant, it is anybody's guess. Just as likely is that she was reacting to the boo's she just received at the Koz presidential debate that had just finished, and that she was pandering their support during this Q&A session saying in other words... "hey! I am one of you". We should tread carefully when the literal meaning may not be the 'in context' meaning.

C) The point which you evade is that it is blunt evidence of improper editor POV agenda based editing to call a connection to HRC to be "criticism" of the MMfA. This was not an innocent slip up. There are editors here who happen to be mirroring the well known "Hillary bashing" talking-point which is widely seen, where a mention "Hillary" followed by an 'eye roll gesture' as a smear tactic. We should be carefully avoiding that here, it is policy to do so, see WP:NPOV.

D) This is a straw man.

E) Actually, we have a duty to read all the best sourcing, and edit based on what we see in the sourcing. What is happening here is that editor's have a Hillary hypothesis, and then have sought out to prove that hypothesis. I have read the sourcing and see that Hillery Connection is a trivia point about the MMfA. The article presently gives the Hillary Connection a small amount of coverage, which is perfectly appropriate for a trivia point. It would be wrong to elevate this to anything bigger than a small amount of coverage. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I. I have no problem at all with us focusing on the entire six years or so of MMfA's existence. However, this is not a running blog. History does matter, including the organization's founding and the election cycle of 2008.

II. No, Salt, we should be taking our reliable sources about MMfA where we find them. As I previously pointed out, reliable third party sources haven't written a whole hell of a lot about MMfA. That's why most of the information in our Wikipedia article about MMfA comes from MMfA.

IIa. No, Salt, what HRC meant is not "anybody's guess". She meant that she "helped to start and support" MMfA and CfAP. Admittedly the exact nature of that help is not specified, but she most certainly meant what she said. As I asked before, where are the reliable sources contending that she meant something quite different (and that this would therefore be a misleading quote)?

III. Not sure of your point here, Salt. You're still angry that an editor once put material connecting Hillary with MMfA in a "criticism" section? Get over it! As for the "eyeroll" stuff, you lose me. I can't follow your syntax.

IV. V. NO TIME, GOTTA PACK. GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY! Badmintonhist (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And, may I add a sixth point? The elephant in the room here is that this Hillary Connection is a Conservative talking point. Perhaps the compromise is that we address it in the article by saying out loud, that it is a Conservative talking point. My sourcing that this is true is the article in The Hill[9], (by-the-way one of the few articles we have seen which is actually written about the MMfA), which pretty bluntly describes the Conservative counter attack strategy aimed at MMfA, giving Tucker Carlson as a specific example. I mentioned this before, but am saying it again: Reading this entire 2,300 word article in _The Hill_ we see that the thesis being presented is that "Conservatives like Tucker Carlson..." (argue that) "“(MMfA) is an arm of the political party started in part by Hillary Clinton." If we are going to give coverage to this conservative argument, NPOV requires us to phrase it as a conservative argument. We cannot simply present it as a statement of fact when the sourcing like this describes it as a conservative argument. Indeed, the 'big picture' being presented in the Rothstein article is that "Meanwhile, like a beanstalk, the organization grows." No wonder that conservative opponents of the MMfA would use a strategy to diminish the reality of the growth by labeling it with a Hillary meme. The 'big picture story' here is that MMfA is part of a new and powerful liberal Netroots phenomena, and one chapter of this story is that conservative commentators like Tucker Carlson are fixated on the Hillary connection. Might this be a workable compromise? It is reliable sourced that the Hillary Connection is a Conservative strategy to attack and distract about the MMfA. Let's just say that. Hmm??? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems fair (addressing it as a conservative talking point) to me, but I'd like opinions as well. I think we don't need to explicitly state such; proper attribution will probably do (Politico, Fox News, et al), imho. What does everyone think? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But why should we report on conservative talking points at all? Should we report on all conservative talking points that gain any kind of traction? Is that what we want for the encyclopedia? Doesn't this send the message that persistent attempts to get trivial conservative talking points inserted into the encyclopedia will succeed? Otherwise, if we do decide to report on talking points because they are somehow significant as talking points, why should avoid making it clear that they are significant as talking points? Also, an attribution to Fox News does not the same meaning as describing something as a conservative talking point. Croctotheface (talk)

By that definition then we should say that much of the "controversy" on conservative pundits is just part of an overall smear campaign that caught some traction(which the evidence clearly seems to suggest). Who are we to make these judgments, that an statement is a meme, or a smear attack, and report them as such without any secondary sources to back us up? Ink Falls 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read Salty's original comment? He clearly said that our sources do in fact identify this as an opinion propagated by conservatives. Croctotheface (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I object to wording it as a conservative talking point just because a single source (out of 10) says that a single person (Tuck Carlson) speculates that MMfA is an arm of a political party. No one here is suggesting that we put in that MMfA is an arm of a political party. I say we stick to the many sources that demonstrate as a fact, not as speculation, that HRC (and associates) advised MMfA and helped support/fund MMfA.Drrll (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case then we should present the wording something like: Coservatives have argued that Hillary was a member of the founding party a MMfA, an idea supported by statements she made claiming "*Insert her statement of Brock and contributions". Would this work?

Could somebody first just explain how saying Hillary contributed and helped the program at its start is a criticism of the program? I would've thought it was good for them, showing they have mainstream liberal support. Ink Falls 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, this is a good point. This could make for a considerably even compromise. Any opinions on this? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Before this information was briefly placed in the Criticism section, it was placed in a History section. Placing it in something like a History section seems like it would be much less contentious. Drrll (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good option. However, if appears that the MM-Hilary connection (the negative connotations, at any rate) is a little too tenuous to be linked into "history". Unless the positive ones are also iffy... but then it really doesn't belong in history? That's up to you folks, of course. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that our opinions of what's positive or negative much factors in here, but I had intended my version below for a history section, and I wrote my version so as to avoid connoting anything positive or negative. I'm generally leery of adding more material with respect to Hillary Clinton--even if it's verifiable, it implies that she had a large part in their history. It seems that she had a small role as an informal advisor early on, but that's about it. I think it's fine to say that, but that's pretty much the upper limit for how much weight Clinton should have in the article. If we start teasing out positives and negatives in detail--even though it might be fun to explore from a writing standpoint--we make Clinton appear more important to Media Matters than she really is. Croctotheface (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll attempt to answer the specific point raised by Xavexgoem & Ink Falls here: Media Matters is a watchdog group. Their supposed ties to specific politicians, especially such a polarizing figure as Hillary Clinton, may be used in claims of bias. Granted, it's a tricky concept since they self-identify as progressive. (I argued against what some editors see as 'admitted bias' over at the Talk:FNC page). -PrBeacon (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

I'm not sure if I even like this version myself, but I figured I'd put it out there. Assuming we have enough reliable sources to establish that Clinton "advised" MM, or something like it (and I'm not even convinced of that at this point), how would people feel about reworking the Clinton mention into something like:

"Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and other progressive groups. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow the lead of conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals."

Again, I'm not sure on the facts/verifiability here, but if we're OK with the sourcing, I'd be fine with that kind of structure. I think that one sentence in this vein would accord Clinton appropriate weight relative to the entire history of Media Matters and would place her in an appropriate historical role (again, provided that our sources establish that she has one at all.) What do others think? Would even this be too much weight? Would this be acceptable to my colleagues on the other side? Or would you hold out for still more weight given to Clinton? Croctotheface (talk)

This would be fine by me. :) Ink Falls 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me as well. Croc, I reformated your statement to make it more readable, feel free to revert if you wish. Arzel (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

DAMNED GOOD, by my lights! Badmintonhist (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Surprised to say it, but that looks perfectly worded and acceptable. I am impressed and pleased that we could so easily find a version acceptable to most (all?) -- much respect to Croc for the wordsmithery, and to all the other editors for such quick agreement. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I officially resigned from this mediation, so I hope this isn't out of line, but I also approve of this text. Soxwon (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that the corresponding quote from Hillary Clinton be included, along with the information related to "support" from the quote (that is, that her close friends had a significant role in funding MMfA). That said, I agree that the wording by Croc is well done and I could go with that.Drrll (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to give Croc credit. Very well worded. The entry really no longer "needs" the quote since Hillary Clinton's advisory role is already stated as a fact. The quote then becomes rather gratuitous. Also, stating that MMfA hired "political professionals who worked for Democratic politicians . . . " and then mentioning Hillary's advisory role, gives the politically savvy reader a pretty good sense of what was going on. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the note can be ref'd or footnote'd, if need be. I also suggest it stay off the main article, since the weasally "close friends" could be anyone in DC, I imagine. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't support including the quote in any manner. The implication here is still to represent some sort of close relationship between HRC and MMFA, which runs afoul of the issues we raised above (UNDUE, NPOV, RS, etc). While I appreciate that editors are being transparent about their intent, I'm not at all comfortable with the continued "imply the bias we can't inject" mentality. Can we please stick with the compromise and call this done? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with putting the quote in a footnote, along with the context of the quote before and after it. As I said before, I'd like to see the information about the significant funding of MMfA by HRC's closest friends included. The exact words "closest friends" comes directly from the sources, including one reference directly from HRC herself about one of her friends--in her memoirs Living History. Drrll (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Xavexgoem's idea. Further, I note Blaxthos repeatedly uses an unfriendly wiki behavior, at the least, that does not incline one to accede to his protestations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Xavexgoem said that we should include the quote. It might be that we cite a source that includes the quote, which is fine, but there's no reason to place it in the encyclopedia. As Badmintonhist said, the quote is redundant with something that actually says what Clinton did--the only reason to include it at that point would be to imply something we can't otherwise say, and suggests a political kind of "piling on" mentality. Also, would you somehow be inclined to agree with Blaxthos if his tone were different? In my experience, editors that disagree with Blaxthos tend to disagree at precisely the same rate with other editors who take a less direct approach. Croctotheface (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I only offered it as an alternative, incase consensus were there. It doesn't look like it is, and it looks to be a bit of subtle synthesis. The terseness of Blaxthos's tone may bother some, but it's not something to take personal. If it were truly something to take personally, you'd take it to AN/I or WQA. And you lose all capital that way. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) We're editors, dammit.

I don't want to piss on the parade here, but I'd still like to see more context. If the proposal is to insert just the blockquoted text into the article, then I'm opposed. If we're going to write a history section for the article, and that section includes the sentence in question, then I'm OK with it. I also see no need to include the Hillary quote. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to see more context, since the phrase "Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters" is not fact -- it is largely conjecture by others and political posturing by her, unsupported by primary and neutral secondary sources. In fact, User:BH inadvertently gives reason why the first sentence gives false context. And I'm not sure how Blaxthos' was being 'unfriendly' other than he disagreed. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Facts in WP are determined by reliable sources. That Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters is directly supported by the Newsday source, and backed up by two books by major reporters. Drrll (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) At least one of the two books is unreliable. And the Newsday story you cite is not available to us for verification. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Let's take the above compromise quote and source it, then go from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Could everyone here read _The Hill_ [10] article please. Notice that it describes, at length, conservative criticism of MMfA, and it just gives a tiny mention to the Hillary Clinton connection. Per policy, we should be mirroring that weight seen in the sourcing, which is a tiny weight. (And, now, we already give a small mention to Hillary). The article status quo looks about right to me. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I would agree with you if The Hill article was the sole source, but it is only one of 10 sources, many of which assign a far greater weight to her connection with MMfA. Drrll (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Can you provide those sources, please? There haven't been many on this page, yet. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The 10 sources are found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#Sources It's about to rain cherries... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Be that as it may, this is the reason I have to do what I do. This isn't a competition; there is no conscious intent. People believe something needs to be said, so they push for adding it into the article. Others believe something shouldn't be said, so they push for removing it. Then everyone hates each other, and I have to deal with comments like this. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a platform for people who "believe something needs to be said". As SaltyBoatr points out above, what should be happening is that editors objectively read the available source material, and then formulate an article based on the facts and their appropriate weight in the source material. This is a perfectly horrible example of that being turned on its head. I don't hate anyone, but I do recognize (and will vocally identify) when editors start cherry-picking sources, injecting biased information beyond its proper weight, or otherwise attempt to advocate their personal viewpoints. Your assessment of the way things work is undoubtedly more pragmatic than mine, but the only way we can possibly hope to fix the larger problem is to call out the bad behavior every time -- quickly, directly, and without exception. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry Blax, but that is bullshit. This is a perfectly horrible example of that being turned on its head. I don't hate anyone, but I do recognize (and will vocally identify) when editors start cherry-picking sources, injecting biased information beyond its proper weight, or otherwise attempt to advocate their personal viewpoints. You cannot honestly point to this and say such things when you yourself constantly push Media Matters for America and Huffington Post. Your assessment of the way things work is undoubtedly more pragmatic than mine, but the only way we can possibly hope to fix the larger problem is to call out the bad behavior every time -- quickly, directly, and without exception. The problem with this kind of stand Blaxthos is that you yourself are biased and let that seep into your editing whether you like it or not. Perhaps this could be why you are always butting heads with people. But honestly, maybe you should consider how it looks for you to be so trigger happy with accusations when you yourself can be accused of the same things (or are you so jaded that you feel that those who differ in opinion and do not stand down are automatically POV pushing, edit warriors). Soxwon (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) But you end up cornering defensive folks who will they bare their teeth, and then you will bare yours. That's my only concern. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC) No, what he does is build ill-will and make reasonable discussions near impossible for those who do not have the patience to wade through his endless accusations. Soxwon (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop it, all of you. Give me the sources, and answer Croctotheface's question. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The 10 sources can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#Sources . I'll copy them over here if you prefer. Drrll (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

These are all sourced in 07-08. Does this matter have any currency vis-a-vis Media Matters today? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any more current sources. What's being proposed to put in all deals with what occurred before mid-2008, so it's not surprising that all the sources are from 2008 and earlier. Drrll (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Game Change book is from 2010. Drrll (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The book Game Change isn't a book about Media Matters for America. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. But my question is of currency. Make no mistake: this will be included in the article. What I'm now wondering is if there could be arguments that this connection between Hillary Clinton and MM could be in both a negative AND positive light (as it were). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong to use a future tense "will be included". The connection between HRC and MMfA is already included in the article. The question is simply should there be extra weight added by giving extra focus to a quote from an impromptu talk given by HRC to a Netroots focus group 8/4/2007[11]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Still interested in my original question

Setting aside sourcing and wording, I'd appreciate an answer to the original question I asked. Would something in the vein of my original quote be too much weight given to Clinton, just right, or too little? I don't want to presume anything here, but I get the sense that many editors are happy with it, and some have expressed reservations that it needs to go into a more comprehensive section than we have now--but it would likely be the right amount of weight in a more complete section. Is that about right?

My feeling is that it's going to be downhill after we solve the weight issue, since I expect that the sources will be adequate to support the main thrust of the content. Croctotheface (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is hard to follow, please give a diff to point to your "original question". The WP:DUE weight issue is core, I agree. I object to a process where editors get an idea, then those editors go out and do a bunch of Google searches to prove that idea; because that violates policy. Per WP:DUE policy we should be reading sourcing and matching the weight seen in the sourcing. No agenda driven editing. (And, I have read all the identified reliable sourcing that is written primarily about the MMfA.)[12], and don't see significant weight given to the HRC "start and support" Koz talk. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the same question I asked again in this subsection. Would my version give the right weight given to Clinton, too much, or too little? Croctotheface (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much weight. (I assume that Croc means his compromise wording at the top of this thread). The fact that it was immediately satisfactory to several of the more contentious editors leads me to believe that it goes too far. Perhaps if they had previously engaged in respectful debate without patronizing or dismissing opposing viewpoints, then a mutual compromise would be so easily reached. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Would I be safe in assuming that you think Clinton should get no weight at all in the MM article? And more generally, I don't think the "if editor X likes it, then it must be bad" formulation is at all helpful for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. That kind of approach would only give editors an incentive to fight any compromise for at least a little while so as to avoid appearing "too happy" about it. Croctotheface (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really helpful to exaggerate and say "Clinton should get no weight", as the article right now does describe a Hillary connection. The question is whether additional weight should be given. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to ascertain PrBeacon's opinion with the "no more weight" comment. That said, I think that my version doesn't give any more weight than the current version, and it would replace the Craighead reference (who, incidentally, is a minor figure who probably doesn't deserve weight in the article herself). Croctotheface (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still am unclear what is your "original question"/"original version". Could you point to the exact diff? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's right at the top of this section. It's the sentence after the one with "original question" in it. "Setting aside sourcing and wording, I'd appreciate an answer to the original question I asked. Would something in the vein of my original quote be too much weight given to Clinton, just right, or too little?" Croctotheface (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll help out :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. I am still lost. Could someone point to the exact "original question" diff that Croctotheface is talking about. (see Help:Diff for help doing this) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No I said earlier that it needs more context. If you say that MMfA hired Democratic party operatives and Hillary advised MMfA at its start, you're framing the watchdog group in that light. Just because Hillary says she helped start it doesnt make it true. Politicians claim plenty of things in their speeches. And though I had second thoughts about how my response might appear, I still feel justified in mentioning their overly quick agreement. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of discussion of sourcing and wording I specifically asked us to avoid in this section. I'm asking you to assume for the sake of argument that we can verify the facts in my version above. (For what it's worth, I'm confident that we can, but you don't need to agree to answer the next part.) Assuming that "advised" is verifiable, would this be an appropriate amount of weight? Croctotheface (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. How can you set aside issues of sourcing (and wording?) to decide what weight to give it? And what changed in the past week-plus, where you went from then "I'm not sure if I even like this version myself" and "I'm not even convinced of [enough reliable sources to establish that Clinton "advised"] at this point" to now "confident that we can [verify the facts in my version]"? Besides, I answered your weight question already, I think the connection needs more context even if the sources hold up. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I think the weight issue is the foremost one here. I don't really think that there's going to be a sourcing/phrasing issue that's half as serious as weight. (Incidentally, I was iffy about that version at first, but I've grown to like it more as time went on--but I don't see what that has to do with the merit of what I"m saying.) More importantly, would I be right to believe that you're saying that: (1) if the facts turn out to be verifiable and (2) if the section is expanded to give a more complete picture of MM's history, then this one sentence would be appropriate weight? Croctotheface (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise Question

Croctotheface added this text as a potential compromise:

"Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and other progressive groups. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow the lead of conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals."

He further asks:

Setting aside sourcing and wording [...] would something in the vein of my original quote [the one above] be too much weight given to Clinton, just right, or too little?

I ask all participants to respond in bullet-point, with a brief explanation for the reasoning behind their answer. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's just right as evidenced by the amount of editors who so quickly agreed to it. It mentions Hillary but almost in passing and certainly doesn't give so much weight that it makes her role seem like more important then it is. Ink Falls 04:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that it assigns too little weight to Hillary Clinton's role--but not by much. As I said before, I believe that her significant role in having her close friends steer many millions of dollars to MMfA should be mentioned (briefly). Drrll (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Before I answer, can I ask what sourcing would be used to cite this? (This question is directed to Croctotheface.) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate my support which may have been lost in the previous discussion. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Salty

I'm putting this down here because I don't want to distract from the bulleted question and answer. Salty, the entire question is predicated on setting sourcing aside for now, as evidenced by the first three words being "setting aside sourcing." As I've said several times before, I'm interested in what people think is the right amount of weight, and I'm less interested (for now) in what precisely they want the text to say. My feeling is that we can't have a productive discussion on wording or sourcing if half of us want no weight and the other half wants a large section. Those positions will never reconcile, and we'll just talk past each other, which is what has happened for a month or so now. Croctotheface (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the main question (or at least, my main question) is the sourcing that is being used to definitively state that "HRC advised Media Matters". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that's the main question, though. (And that might be because I'm satisfied that the sources I've read--some of which may not be cited here yet--establish that it happened.) I think the main question is whether this is a discussion between people who are open to have the article address the facts with appropriate weight, or whether this is a discussion between some people who want to do that, others who don't believe that the article should mention Clinton regardless of what facts are and what sources say, and still others who want the article to focus inordinately on Hillary Clinton even if she deserves only a small amount of weight in the article. If we're mostly in the first group, then OK, let's agree that one sentence is about the right weight so we can move on to discussing sourcing and whatnot. If we're mostly in the second and third groups, then it doesn't matter what sources say, the second group will argue that we can't say anything, and the third group will want to take any amount of inclusion as a starting point to write more and more and more.

To be perfectly honest, I have no interest in going out and finding sources if "group 2" individuals will deny what they say and if "group 3" individuals will use my work to push for an inordinate amount of weight. I proposed my compromise because I thought there was a chance that it would let us put this whole thing behind us. I'm growing increasingly concerned that some people here don't want to put it behind us because they prefer to WP:Battle. If that's the case, then this is just a useless exercise. Croctotheface (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Would the people of the opinion that HRC advised Media Matters please give me the sources, and the relevant excerpts. No, I don't want to be redirected to the list on the article's talk page. Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little vexed by the kind of frenetic nature of your mediating here--I had figured you were willing to accept my premise of "let's figure out weight first and do sourcing afterward," but this kind of aborts that question and sets weight aside in favor of sourcing. Of the stuff that's been cited so far, there's this article: http://www.newsday.com/news/switching-allegiances-1.690641 and the Gerth book. I'm a little dubious on the Gerth book, but I'm OK with using it as confirmation for this article. I think there might be something in that _Game Change_ book, too, and while Halperin could be problematic himself, again, Newsday doesn't have an axe to grind. By the way, don't take this to mean that I'm "of the opinion" of any particular thing.

But look, if we want to rework the wording, fine. But Xavexgoem, you're already on record as saying that some kind of change in this vein is going to happen; if you're not confident that there's appropriate sourcing, shouldn't that have precluded you from making such a pronouncement? Croctotheface (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, "do sourcing afterwards" is not the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia at the core is about sourcing and neutrality! WP:5P. To answer any question about content, we must ignore our personal opinion, we must read the sourcing, we must fairly and neutrally match the sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of "sourcing first, then etc" as it is "if someone asks for the sources, provide them". Just avoids conflicts, is all. And it's not a matter of sourcing first, than neutrality, per se; they run parallel to each other. What comes first is whatever floats your boat (see, you can write what you know and then source it, or you can find the sources and write from them). But if someone is asking for sources, it wouldn't be too difficult to provide except out of fear that someone is trying to derail the discussion. With all that said, would we all please go back to the compromise question above? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This confuses me, too. I guess I just don't understand the leadership style here. Does this mean that we're done discussing the sourcing, so you want us to go back to discussing weight? If someone raises a new question on a topic other than weight, do we stop discussing weight yet again? Croctotheface (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussing the sourcing is vital. BTW, the link to the Newsday article is not working for me, but when I stick it in Google I find this highly partisian link hxxp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1905140/posts (and that raises a red flag for me.) Also, I have trouble with using both the Gerth book and the Game Change books for sourcing because neither of those books are written about Media Matters for America. That proves to me (if proof is needed, considering that they admit as much) that we have editors here who have a political agenda, and s hypothesis they seek to prove. They then go out and do Google searches as long at it takes to prove their political point. That is backwards. Instead we should using open minds and be reading the sourcing about Media Matters for America. Then, we should write an article that matches what we see in the sources... sans the personal agendas. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 04:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsday has a paywall. You can look the article up in a news archiver or at a library with access to it. Otherwise--let me get this straight. You don't much care about the reliability of the source (Newsday is plainly reliable), and you don't care if the material in question is true...you just care what its main subject of the source is? This is a wholly unserious position to take for someone who is purportedly so focused on sourcing. The rest of your comment only addresses other editors, not the content of their positions. To be honest, I was suspicious about the motives of some of the other editors involved, but they seem to be OK with one sentence's worth of weight, and it's a sentence that restricts itself to what is verifiable in sources and doesn't overwhelm the article. If they're willing to go along with that and not insist on adding more, then I'll come out and say that my suspicion about them was wrong, and in fact they were and are operating in good faith. That they appeared to be seeking out sources to support content that they wanted in the article is immaterial if the content actually belongs in the article. Again, I'm talking about one sentence here--are you OK or are you not OK with one sentence that mentions Clinton? Croctotheface (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the characterization: "This is a wholly unserious position to take..." I have explained this several times. WP:WEIGHT says "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors". Editor agenda push editing[13] which is the use of selective deep Google search to find out of context snippet quotes to support an unabashed personal agenda to battle lefties at Wikipedia isn't per NPOV policy. Per policy we should be first reading the reliable sources giving coverage to MMfA and only then be writing the article to match the balance we see in the sourcing. Agenda driven editing violates NPOV policy, because it is weight set by prevalence among Wikipedia editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

a question of sourcing

So far I've only seen conservatives arguing for the strong connection. Glenn Thrush (the author of the Newsday article in question) is more like an amateur a pundit/ blogger than an actual journalist -- he now writes for Politico. [14] The bar is even lower for Gerth. Both are anti-Clinton.       And Croc, I think that you're coming off as somewhat antagonistic to the mediator Xavexgoem as well as the folks here who were previously on your side. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So three sources are insufficient to source even one sentence? Do you doubt the veracity of the Newsday article? It's, what, just made up out of whole cloth? Why are you inclined to cast an article in a major professional newspaper as some kind of amateur blog piece? And besides, where did you even come up with that characterization of Thrush? The New York Observer called him "Newsday's star political reporter" when he took the Politico job.[15] Croctotheface (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really quoting a fluff piece from the Observer? Then be fair about it, which includes in the memo from Politico: "he [Thrush] understands Politico's mission and is ready to advance it." So yes I'm commenting on his journalistic standards, or lack thereof. And that's only two sources. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when is Politico a conservative publication? Arzel (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when are they not? -PrBeacon (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Politico leans right, but I'm not sure why it matters. And incidentally, "understands Politico;'s mission and is ready to advance it" is an ambiguous comment that reminds me a whole lot of "helped start and support." Interesting in light of all this "double standards" talk that's floating around.

PrBeacon, is your assertion that the Newsday article simply published false information, that it's just totally made up, and that the editors there did not care that it wasn't true? Likewise for the other sources that mention it? They're just making it up? If you're not willing to say that, then I don't really see how it's not verifiable, even if you have some kind of issue with Thrush. Croctotheface (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is a combination of WP:RS + NPOV, not verifiability. The reliability of MMfA's critics may be questionable as sources for criticism of MMfA, especially since those critics are often the subject of MMfA's criticism. So yes bias matters, it's a tricky concept and I haven't seen any clear consensus yet, even among longtime admins. Anyway, the Newsday piece is unavailable to me, we now have what seems like two conflicting accounts of it, so I can only comment on the author's bias. And I'm asking nicely, again: please don't keep asking multiple, loaded questions like you're cross-examining witnesses here. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So, ok, RS and NPOV. Is your position is that Newsday is not a reliable source? Or is it that my text is not neutral? Croctotheface (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If I understand the logic correctly, MMfA can be used as a reliable source, on foo article, but foo can't be used as a reliable source against MMfA because foo is now biased against MMfA since MMfA was critical of foo? This kind of circular logic would then apply back towards MMfA and MMfA would not ever be able to be used as a reliable source. Extrapolate it out and you pretty much are not left with any reliable sources. Arzel (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You may not agree with it and I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. I could bring up relevant RS/N threads with support for my viewpoint. And your last point is a drastic generalization that really shouldn't be applied to a single case like this. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Please note -- I was ready to concede a point about Thrush despite his current work for Politico. (That's not what I was debating earlier, it was just the conservative bias angle. I happen to think that the term 'conservative' is not pejorative but i understand the alternative usage 'right-leaning' may be better in this context). But then I saw this change there. That seems hasty at best, and maybe even inappropriate in the middle of this mediation. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no source for that, therefore clearly could be removed. It had been over a month before removal therefore it was not some hasty move. However, I see you used MMfA as your source! Oh the irony that MMfA can be used for a source of bias against Politico, yet Politico is too biased to be used as a source for MMfA. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're just flat out wrong here. Apparently you didn't read the source which is Politico itself, the editor is responding to Media Matters. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I'm not discussing Politico as a source here, because Thrush wrote the piece for Newsday. And I never said it can't be used for criticism, anyway. Just not for asserting fact. I believe you've made a similar argument against MMfA as a source for opinion vs. fact at the Fox News article. -PrBeacon (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The section I removed had NO source provided, and had had no sources for over a month since you added it back in asking to give the anoyn editor a chance to add a source. Now you can continue to make false accusations or appologize. I grow weary of your attitude. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And what attitude is that? Let's try to keep things civil despite disagreement. -PrBeacon (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Try reading again. My last response was about your false claim, "I see you used MMfA as your source!" -- when the primary source (in that case, Politico) confirms the secondary source (MMfA), the reliability of the secondary source is not in question. And my whole point is that you removed the criticism of Politico only after we talked about it here -- you really don't see the conflict in that? (It was the first time you've touched the article, and apparently without even looking at the talk page.) -PrBeacon (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then rephrase your wording. Your repsonse clearly seems to be in regard to my first statement. As for Politico I have been watching that article for some time. I find it interesting that your claims that Politico is biased correlate strongly with this RfM to promote your POV. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for your misreading. You keep saying I'm pushing POV, I say its an attempt to balance which is what I can only assume you're trying to do too, here at MMfA. And we were talking about Thrush above, the earlier references to Politico were to show Thrush's bias. -PrBeacon (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

break Croctotheface, please stop mischaracterizing. Your attempt to push your version of the issues here is what's stalled this mediation discussion, in my opinion, since you asked. I'd like to ask the mediator here to step in. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Please keep in mind that you are not a party to this particular mediation (see the Project page for the participating parties). Drrll (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Is it your position that his opinion shouldn't be considered, Drrll? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I don't think he should be participating in this mediation, given that WP:Mediation refers repeatedly to the (involved) parties. That said, since the mediator said he is welcome, then I don't have a problem with him participating. Drrll (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what Drrll's point is, either, other than to be somewhat rude and non-collaborative.-PrBeacon (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PrBeacon, do you intend to respond to the substance of my questions? Do you simply believe that the Newsday article is made up out of whole cloth? Croctotheface (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC) PrBeacon, you are more than welcome to join the mediation, but please don't point fingers. It doesn't help things move... swimmingly ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear you think it's merely pointing a finger. I may not be the most cordial here but I'm not the one wikilawyering at length, which doesn't help things move along smoothly, either. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC) We are all trying to arrive at a fair compromise through balance and other considerations already mentioned. I posted earlier out of frustration and what I honestly thought was unfair. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Spill over from this involving WeaponBB7 Howdy, Allow me to introduce myself I am WeaponBB7 a self admitted news Junkie, Politico is on my watchlist this edit Concerned me, as it restored an acusation with no source. Thus i reverted under vandalism. The following is the talk page discussion PRbeacon responded on my revert, I wish for this discussion to continue here Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC) On May 6 of this year, the following sentence was added to the lede at the end of the 2nd paragraph: "The connections between Politico's leadership and conservative and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of conservative bias." [16] It was soon reverted. I restored it then added a cite tag. (more details about this edit history). It's now been removed, reverted again, re-reverted (ie, removed again) and now restored again with the following sourcing: (which is already quoted above in Bias but it could still use more context, even just for the talkpage): From 2 user comments: At one of his Press Conferences, Bush specifically asked a Politico representative if they wanted to "introduce" Politico to the rest of the WH press corps. ... Bush wasn't merely introducing them. He was endorsing them. Even the editors at Politico admit as much: From primary source: "In response to a letter from Media Matters for America accusing Politico of a Republican tilt, Politico Editor in Chief John F. Harris asked Senior Political Writer Ben Smith [and others at Politico] to participate in an e-mail exchange about the merits of the piece. ... [Politico's] Ben Smith says Media Matters has a point ... I'll pick another point of his to agree with: His implication that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." - politico.com Though there is plenty of criticism from groups like FAIR and Media Matters (both sources considered reliable as watchdog groups in at least two RS/N threads) including the letter referenced by Politico above (!) to substantiate this, personally I think the source from the horse's mouth is more than enough. However in the spirit of cooperation I will make the following change as well as add the new tag at the end for confirmation: "The connections between Politico's leadership, conservative and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of right-leaning editorial views." [17] I will look for specific secondary sources and also add some of the above detail to the article's body text. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Forgive me, I did not realize that the RFM for "Media Matters" thread had anything to do with this current discussion. I am merely going of what i see, We have an accusation with a "{fact}" tag thus i consider it Vandalism until a source is provided. I am not opposed to the content as long as it has a source and is not jst a vague allegation. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "The connections between Politico's leadership and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of right-leaning editorial views." That is so vague it make it sound like the the GOP owns it behind the scene, that is not remotely what the source says so please dont imply there is smoke when there is no fire Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) [18] Is this appropriate? -PrBeacon (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus

← Is there a consensus that this is largely a matter brought up by the conservative press? If Thrush is the most reliable source (and let's not cast doubt; his publications are reliable), perhaps proper attribution will help the problem? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC) And I am truly sorry I haven't been as active as I should be; I just moved to Mexico City, and am still settling in (e.g., learning fricken' Spanish, which you'd think would be a requirement before I left)

I think that the criticism is mostly found in conservative circles, and there isn't a ton of coverage anywhere. However, I don't think that we need to attribute _facts_. If we doubt the veracity of the Newsday article (which I don't really see any reason to), then we shouldn't include anything of this nature because we wouldn't have enough of a factual basis. If we believe the Newsday article and the other sources that say similar things, then there's no reason to say "conservatives believe..." before something factual. And as I've said elsewhere, I don't think that "popular in conservative press" is sufficient to grant something weight in the article, as that would invite all our articles related to politics to become dumping grounds for partisan criticism. Croctotheface (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Minutes ago, I actually read this Glenn Thrush article, (not easy because it is copyright and behind a paywall), and I discovered that it doesn't mention the Hillary Clinton "helped start and support" statement which I thought we are arguing about here. So, no, we cannot use the Glen Thrush article to source the "helped start and support" statement in the MMfA article. (It does give confirmation to the Kelly Craighead connection to MMfA, but that is already in the article.) Here is a direct quote from Thrush about the connection with Clinton "Two years ago, she advised Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades. And while Clinton and Brock aren't exactly chums, she chats with him occasionally and thinks he provides a valuable service, according to people familiar with the relationship. ". chats with him occasionally is hardly a strong connection so we should not suggest otherwise. The words used about starting are advised and encouraging. For what it is worth, I consider this to be only the seventh article I have seen, which qualifies as reliably sourced and is written about the MMfA.

Source Citation: "Switching allegiances." Newsday [Melville, NY] 7 Sept. 2006. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 June 2010. Hope that helps. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is pretty much what I based my text on. Salty, do you think it's adequate to source my one sentence? Obviously, my version doesn't reference "helped start and support." Croctotheface (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So then, what to make of the quote posted by Drrll at Talk:MMfA...? Newsday article excerpts: "David Brock, the reformed right-wing reporter who once took aim at Hillary Rodham Clinton, ... has emerged as a reliable defender, while she's quietly nurtured his $8.5-million-a-year nonprofit empire [Media Matters]. ..." [19] (my emphasis in bold). -PrBeacon (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the wording "advised and encouraged" (which matches the sourcing) over the wording "quietly nurtured" which implies some things not found in the source. Also, the word "empire" causes NPOV problems, and is unnecessary anyway. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on all those. Just so there's no confusion, here's the version I proposed: "Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and other progressive groups. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow the lead of conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals." I'd expect us to replace the reference to Kelly Craighead that's currently in the article with this. What changes if any do you think would improve this text? Croctotheface (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That wording implies that Hillary Clinton was the only famous Democrat to advise, which seems incredible. Does sourcing confirm her alone? Why single out HRC? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen HIllary Clinton mentioned more often and in more detail than other figures. (In fact, I don't know of others, particularly not others of her prominence as one of the top 5 Democratic politicians active today, but of course that doesn't mean they don't exist.) Either way, if we assume that there are others, which may or may not be true, in what way does my wording imply that she is the only one? How could we fix it to address that concern? Croctotheface (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this reveals your personal bias. I don't doubt that you have seen HRC more often, but that suggests selection bias, because you have been mostly looking for HRC. Objectively, I believe, the major famous democrat who actually helped start and support MMfA was former White House Chief of Staff John D. Podesta, yet the article makes no mention of this. All the while, editors with an agenda focus on HRC. Seems backwards per WP:NPOV policy. We must guard against editor selection bias. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am curious about where your speculation about my bias comes from. Based on everything I've said here, your conclusion is that I have an agenda to put undue focus on Clinton? And if that's not what you're saying, then I'd very much appreciate if you'd avoid implying it. Otherwise, as Xavexgoem has said, sometimes editors read sources and conclude from them what the article should say, and sometimes editors begin with what they think the article should say and then seek to support it with sources. Doing it the second way isn't a problem in itself--it's only a problem if it leads to tendentious editing. I had suspected that was what we had going on before, but based on how open a lot of editors appear to be to putting a single sentence of weight on Clinton, I'm not at all convinced of that now.

More importantly, "I don't like the ancestry of where this came from" isn't an argument under Wikipedia policy. If the version is neutrally written and accords appropriate weight to the material, then it doesn't violate NPOV or WP:Weight. It might show that individual editors are not themselves neutral, but WP:NPOV doesn't say that editors have to have neutral points of view; it says that our articles must be written from neutral points of view. An opinionated editor can certainly write neutral text, just as a disinterested editor could write non-neutral text.

So, we return to my original question. If the text I wrote is somehow imperfect, how can we improve it? Mentioning John Podesta and according him more weight than Hillary Clinton could be a good approach to take with such a section. Salty, I recall that you said a while ago that you were working on a more comprehensive history section--how has that been coming? Otherwise, are there any concerns that you have with (1) giving one sentence of weight to Hillary Clinton's role, (2) using the Newsday article to verify that role, and (3) the wording I proposed to describe that role? Croctotheface (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not "largely a matter brought up by the conservative press" as far as our sourcing is concerned (out of the 10 sources, only the Washington Times and the WSJ Editorial pages could be considered conservative). There is no justification to use attribution for the Newsday article (which, if anything, leans left). I would like to see high quality reliable sources (not sources well-known to be liberal) demonstrate that Glenn Thrush, Politico, and Jeff Gerth are conservative. By the way, the "quietly nurtured" phrasing is directly from the Glenn Thrush Newsday article. Drrll (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I grant you that point. Would you answer, and not ignore, my 18:54 questions? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, John Podesta is the only other well-known Democrat to be involved in the formation of MMfA. I don't see why we shouldn't include mention of him as well as HRC. Drrll (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty, thats a very good point about Podesta & context. I think i know what you meant about bias there, and it may be a subtle point though not worth exploring here. (Something about bias against the Clintons, or just with Hillary, within moderate or left-leaning circles.)
Croc, I agree with some of your points & I'm glad you're elaborating on how you interpret NPOV. I actually see the balance issue in a similar manner so i think there is hope for presenting this MMfA-Clinton connection in a way that may be acceptable to most if not all parties.
    And I think there is precedent for presenting something like ""advised and quietly nurtured" as an opinion from conservative right-leaning source(s). If that is indeed what Newsday printed, then its editors take responsibility for it as well. But I don't think I can support it presented as fact. I just don't think that would be due weight given the sourcing -- Salty has made some compelling arguments about this, above. And Croc you did as well, in the MMfA thread. I think it would be fair to describe Thrush and Gerth as right-leaning critics, at least when it comes to the Clintons. (The NYT might be considered right-leaning when it comes to the Clintons. See this very interesting article from [Business Week].)
By the way-- these threads are getting hard to follow even for me, with replies inserted out of chronological order (I admit to doing this too) and the collapsed part sort of hanging at the end -- so i can only imagine how difficult it may be for others who aren't following this as closely. I've attempted to do a bit of housecleaning (format-wise, only) but I'm happy to revert it &leave that to someone else. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am basically OK with having a history section neutrally describe the history. Looking at the sourcing, it seems that the NPOV balance is that there were three or four relatively famous major democratic players involved in the origin of MMfA, John Podesta was the 'big fish' with most involvement, followed by C. Neel Lattimore and Kelly Craighead (who both were major former White House staffers on the MMfA payroll) A brief mention of HRC advising and supporting would be appropriate too, based on the sourcing. It also would be appropriate to describe based on the sourcing about the conservative counter-attack that focuses on linking HRC to the MMfA. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to the original question, I have no interest in presenting a matter of fact as if it's a matter of opinion. Clinton either advised the group or she didn't. If she did, we should say so; if she didn't, we should say nothing. I honestly do not understand the sourcing argument here. The only way that we could argue that a connection is not verifiable is if we dismiss the Newsday article as made up out of whole cloth. And honestly, I just don't have any patience for that belief. Especially given that Clinton herself alluded to some kind of connection, and especially since the Newsday article (and my version for our article) describes a weak connection...what's the problem?

In response to Salty, I'd have no problem with a more comprehensive history section that includes something like my version. If we have a sources that discuss a "conservative counterattack" such as the one you mention, then maybe that should go in as well. But I'm wary about including political attacks in general. There are tons of political attacks made on lots of people and organizations, and they fall basically within the back-and-forth of the daily news cycle; they generate lots of heat, but basically zero light. I'd hate to think the result of your longstanding objections to overemphasis on Clinton would be to expand the discussion of Clinton because we reached a consensus that all conservative memes that gain some traction must go into the article. Croctotheface (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just when I thought we were reaching some common ground, Croc says that "I have no patience for that belief." Your argument assumes it is fact that she advised and supported. Were you there? Were the sources? No, that's why they're called secondary. The primary source (MMfA) does not confirm Hillary's story. Are you saying that should have no bearing on how WP portrays the connection? We do not know the extent of Hillary Clinton's involvement. You don't seem to acknowledge the truism that politicians routinely lie, fib, stretch the truth and otherwise say what they need to say. And for some odd reason you keep repeating the 'whole cloth' idiom. Who's arguing against that? We're saying it's opinion, not necessarily fact. Maybe Thrush and the editors at Newsday believe it happened, maybe they don't. (My impression of Newsday is its a third-rate tabloid, but I don't know it well.) We don't know. You don't know. Thats why we present it as their opinion. And Croc your generalizing about all conservative criticisms is pointless. We're not writing a media guide here, we're dealing with one case. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP relies on secondary reliable sources, not primary sources. The article in question is reporting, vetted by editors, not opinion. If the standard in WP were that nothing goes in WP unless it is absolutely known to be true, WP articles would be tiny. Instead, the standard is Verfiability. As far as Newsday being a "third-rate tabloid"--do you have a non-opinion reliable source to support that claim? "Third-rate tabloids" don't earn numerous Pulitzer Prizes. Drrll (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

resolving primary vs. secondary

Your dismissal of primary sources is puzzling, where is that policy? Afaik, when a secondary source (in this case, Thrush/Gerth) conflicts with a primary source (MMfA), that conflict/criticism should be qualified (e.g. presented as opinion). And the secondary source needs to be confirmed. I don't think the Newsday source would serve to confirm the Gerth book, nor the other way around. -You've brought up the Pulitzers before with Gerth. Those awards haven't had much real meaning since Janet Cooke in the 1980's (her story was fake, she had to give the Prize back). You might also want to read about scandals in the past decade when old awards were re-investigated. (Though the Pulitzer folks stopped admitting anything was wrong.) -PrBeacon (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I wasn't a named member of this discussion, I have been following it, and I have to interject quickly here that the sourcing policy can be found at [20]. It rather clearly states "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", and "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source". The argument "Were you there?" and "Were the sources?" seem spurious to me since not only do they fly in the face of established WikiPolicy, but were the Project to take that view then nothing could possibly be reliably sourced. Thanks. /relurk Rapier (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said in order to prove a generalization about policy. My phrasing which you quote was in response to Croc's statement "I have no interest in presenting a matter of fact as if it's a matter of opinion" as if he absolutely knows better than the primary source and/or that he can confirm the secondary source. I wasn't arguing for primary over secondary. (But we can't dismiss primary so easily which is what Drrll is saying, I think). And the core question still stands: what happens when the primary & secondary source(s) conflict? Analogy: If the WashPost wrote that Wikipedia receives an inordinate number of conservative activists to counter the "liberal media" and systemic bias, yet Wikipedia maintains that's not true, would it still be a fact because the secondary source reported it? No, that would be their opinion. Even if it was a reporter doing research & editors vetting it, as Drrll says. The conclusion is opinion, though it may (or may not) be based on fact. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're saying there's a conflict between our sources, but is there? Could you point me to a primary or secondary source that says that Clinton did not advise Media Matters? Your position can't possibly be that we can only publish something about Media Matters if they say it themselves, can it? Croctotheface (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there really any question that the primary source does not confirm the Hillary connection? I thought you guys hashed that out at the Talk:MMfA page. Anyway, no my position is not as you state. Please re-read my point above about opinion vs fact, including the analogy. You can't keep asking so many questions without answering a few somewhere along the line. -PrBeacon (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand your analogy first. In your analogy, the Washington Post says "X is happening on Wikipedia" and then Wikipedia says "X is not happening." Is that correct? In the hypothetical, there is a clear dispute about what is actually true, not a difference of opinion. In the Clinton situation, we have sources that say "Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters." For the analogy to hold, we would need to have sources that say "Hillary Clinton did not advise Media Matters." Could you point me to those sources? Croctotheface (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern isn't that this is primary or secondary, but that when I read the sourcing, especially the article in The Hill, that the Hillary KOZ quote is presented in context of the conservative counter-attack, specifically it is as told by Tucker Carlson (who is not objectively considered a 'third-party' with this). We should maintain that context. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty, why do you keep talking about the quote? My version does NOT include the quote. Croctotheface (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He's talking about context, not about including the quote. -PrBeacon (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that Salty could speak for himself, but it seems like he's talking about putting the quote in context, yes? Why discuss the quote when it's not something that people are really pushing to include at this point? Croctotheface (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, context of the quote as a conservative talking point, not context here. That's my understanding. And certainly he can speak for himself but anyone is allowed to answer you, unless you're saying otherwise? -PrBeacon (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So: there's no consensus for the small tidbit that Croctotheface added way up above; there is no consensus on whether the sources agree with that tidbit (or any tidbits; suggestions, anyone?)

I'm operating under the assumption that if someone comes up with an idea, there will be sources to back it up. As for primary vs. secondary, Croctotheface is somewhat correct: for the analogy to hold (the Wikipedia-WaPo one), there would need to be a source -- preferably secondary -- that says HRC did not advise Media Matters. If the source is primary, then attribution is obviously required; and since it's a primary source, doubt will be cast over its veracity by readers (moreso than their biases would in the first place).

Come up with an idea, source it, and provide it. Everything else is WP:BIKEshedding over nuance. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure there's no consensus that the sources don't support my "tidbit"? It really seems like only PrBeacon has said as much, but he seems to have based his entire argument on reasoning that, as you point out here, is completely faulty. My version says basically what the Newsday article says, and nobody has really disputed that point. Croctotheface (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not the only one -- Blaxthos and Salty have clearly stated their opposition. And my reasoning is not faulty. Thats not what Xavex said. He conceded your point about the need for source of denial. Primary denial is still acceptable, reliable secondary is preferred. I understand that. We present both sides, let the reader decide. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you show us the primary source that disputes that Clinton advised MM? Croctotheface (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone forward me the source and substantiating excerpt, please? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gerth, Jeff (2008-04-07). Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Back Bay Books. ISBN 978-0316017435. Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and "quietly nurtured" his nonprofit empire.
• Thrush, Glenn (2006-09-07). "Switching allegiances". Newsday. Two years ago, she advised Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• Heilemann, John (2010-01-11). Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. Harper. ISBN 978-0061733635. …advised the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America

Drrll (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Secondary source quoting primary source: Who "helped start" Mediamatters.org? - The Buffalo News: "So The Buffalo News called Mediamatters and asked if [it] is true that Clinton 'helped start and support it…'? Spokesman Eric Burns replied that 'David Brock started Mediamatters on his own'." (And yes I saw the reporter's parting shot, I think it's his interpretation). -PrBeacon (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

/Delurk again. I'm sorry Beacon, but what you have been saying sounds like your deeply held opinion based on emotion, not something that you have researched and come to a conclusion based on available evidence. The only source you've given is an opinion piece by columnist Douglas Turner of the Buffalo News (written today, not something that could have influenced an opinion months ago), and in the end you even state that your opinion differs from the conclusion of the columnist that you are quoting. This isn't a very strong argument. /relurk Rapier (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The piece is from 2007 and it was mentioned by Drrll at the Talk:MMfA discussion. (I can only assume you saw the website date before the actual story loaded.) Anyway, Turner is a political reporter. The quote is from MMfA therefore not his opinion. It's presented here as rebuttal to other sources reporting on the Kos convention that say HRC helped start MMfA. You don't like it when others presume to lecture you, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do the same. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, do you have a source wherein someone disputes that Clinton advised Media Matters? That's what the text in question says, nothing about "helped start." Second, note that the spokesperson doesn't actually say no and doesn't address the "support" issue. But again, do you have a source that contradicts what my text says? Croctotheface (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good grief! I just get back from vacation to find this still going on! I thought it was all but settled when I left over two weeks ago. What's the issue here? Nothing in the Eric Burns quote contradicts the reliably sourced statement that Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters early in its formation. What seems to be happening here is contentiousness for the sake of contentiousness. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't bother to catch up on the discussion. I didn't say this proves anything either way, anyway. It's simply another source to consider in context of this subthread on primary source(s) and secondary source(s). And BH, like Rapier you don't like to be lectured (who does?) so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do it either. You guys are the ones arguing so much for so long at MMfA (months and months!) hence you end up here at mediation instead of being able to work it out yourselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of sources (got copies of the Newsday article, thanks) that support Croc's compromise. The veracity will probably always be in question, given Brock's and Clinton's history of animosity. The Newsday article does appear to insinuate a broader connection than there is ("Still, [Media Matters] been particularly kind to Clinton. ") It's certainly true that many of Clinton's friends and advisors have been contributors to MM. The relevant portions saying HRC advised are:

"Two years ago, she advised Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades."

"And while Clinton and Brock aren't exactly chums, she chats with him occasionally and thinks he provides a valuable service, according to people familiar with the relationship."

There does seem to be a disconnect between these two quotes; I think the reader goes away from that article not knowing exactly what the status of Brock and HRC is, but it is a reliable, secondary source that backs up the compromise brought up above by Croc. I think we'd be wise to stay away from the buffalo news opinion piece (in part because of the URL), since a primary source will probably suffice. (we'd either be saying that "SecSource said that MM said", or that "MM said", which I don't find to be a terribly big difference in this context). The Newsday article could probably back up the entire compromise. A problem, I suspect, is that none of these citations are without their own biases, and they may be getting lumped into one big pile of "grr! conservative press!" or something (bias admission: I'm waaaay left of center, but also, bias admission: I don't care). Throwing Game Change in there probably doesn't help things, given its reputation.

I should note that the compromise floated is probably not the be-all-end-all of this discussion or compromises later. Can we agree that the sources provided back up the compromise quote? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the Buffalo News piece (2007) but are you saying its unreliable because it's an opinion piece and the URL says 'blog'..? Obviously it's not the same as amateur blogs just anywhere. Turner is one of their political reporters. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just afraid that it could needlessly complicate things. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the matter of consensus

Does the lack of recent comment indicate that we have basically reached a consensus with editor Croctotheface's formulation, which is as follows:

Media Matters hired numerous political professional who had worked for Democratic politicians and other progressive groups. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• not agreed Based on sourcing, as explained above. The 'big fish' democratic politician who was involved in the early stages of MMfA was John Podesta. Giving a mention singling out Hillary Clinton, without any mention of John Podesta, creates an impression that gives undue weight to the role of Hillary Clinton. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an easy solution to your problem is to mention John Podesta as well. It's not as if my two sentences are designed to replace the entire article. Also, to be clear, your argument appears to not be based on sourcing, but rather on weight. Or is your contention that the Newsday article is just plain untrue or unreliable? Croctotheface (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Still don't understand the "sourcing" objection, as reliable sources say that HRC "advised" MMfA without contradiction. Compared to Hillary, Podesta is no "big fish." If you are old enough, it would be like calling Robert Finch a big fish (or a big bird) when compared to his patron Richard Nixon. However, I see little problem in adding Podesta's mentoring role to the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

John Podesta material

Here are relevant excerpts from material that I found about John Podesta's involvement with Media Matters:

• Thrush, Glenn (2006-09-07). "Switching allegiances". Newsday. And Brock is close to Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, founder of the powerhouse Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. Podesta, one of Hillary Clinton's top policy advisers, made room for Media Matters in the center's offices before Brock found permanent digs for the group.
• Rutenberg, Jim (May 3, 2004). "New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right". New York Times. p. A21. Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff…Mr. Podesta has loaned office space in the past to Mr. Brock and introduced him to potential donors.
• Steinberg, Jacques (2008-11-01). "An All-Out Attack on 'Conservative Misinformation'". The New York Times. And John D. Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton who helped create Media Matters…

Drrll (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, Drrll. How about something like this:

Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups [source(s)]. Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton, John Podesta, provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002 [source(s)]. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals [source(s)]. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Provided those [source(s)] support those statements (and I believe they do) I like this paragraph a lot. Given the current length of the article this certainly can't be considered undue weight. Rapier (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking better. Where would this go in the article? Can I see the proposed 'ref' details? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, except that comma after Clinton is incorrect. (Podesta isn't the only former Chief of Staff.) I think the refs are listed above and have been discussed extensively otherwise. Croctotheface (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Badmintonhist. Looks good to me as well, but I was wondering if "helped create Media Matters" should be included as well (taking directly from one of the NYT sources) since it seems so significant. Drrll (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, with almost everyone on board, I would leave well enough alone. Croc is right about the comma. As for Salty's question, I would combine the "Funding" and "Staff" subtopics into something like "Founding" and substitute the three sentences above for the first sentence now in the "Staff" section. Maybe You could do the formal referencing, Drrll, because I'm lousy at properly citing internet sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable version?

Here is the version proposed by Croc, then modified by Badmintonhist to include Podesta material, along with sources. SaltyBoatr or someone else may want to add another source for the last sentence:

Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups. Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.

The sources look fine to me. I wouldn't go out of my way to include an ideological source such as National Review, but in this case if the info is also contained in "The Hill" article, I see no problem. Thanks, Drrll. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please get rid of the commas around "John Podesta." He is not the only former Clinton Chief of Staff. Croctotheface (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nicely done Rapier (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)