Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

External links section

Is there any reason there is only one link? I know that is not a reason to add more but was curious. It seems that this site's articles are in alot of El sections.(I am not sure that serach tool is accurate, fwiw) Anyways, carry on :) Tom (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I'd guess we're trying to adhere pretty strictly to WP:EL; articles about polarized topics tend to be subject to excessive link creep... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually love it. I figured that was the case. It sort of surprised me. Hopefully I haven't open a can of worms :) Could we apply the same to other articles as well :) Anyways, thanks, Tom (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Intentional or unintentional bias?

After reading much of this discussion page and then the subject page itself and the corresponding page for Accuracy in Media I have to question the neutrality of the two pages. I normally don't enter into these debates, but I found the obvious bias between the two pages rather disturbing. It's hard to believe the articles can't be written in a similar fashion, with balanced coverage of their positive and negative aspects, similar headings, etc. Toddinpal (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow the Accuracy in Media article, but I think this would fall into WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Each article is edited (for better or worse) on its own merits, not to provide "balance" with another article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit that article, so I'm not sure what's going on over there, but I did check the article a little while ago to see how the lead described their politics. It appears that AIM takes the position that they are not ideological, but many secondary sources say the organization is conservative. Therefore, the article represents both points of view there. It's clearly a different case for here, where the organization does not choose a description that is disputed, even though some people prefer to use a different word to describe it. Croctotheface (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why we've recently had an influx of new editors who seem to think that articles on Wikipedia are mated pairs / tit-for-tat ? Olbermann-O'Reilly, MMFA/AIM, etc.? Wikipedia is not an ideological battleground. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that these editors want the encyclopedia to be NPOV. ATren (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it neutral to treat different cases the same? There's a big difference between an organization that is clearly ideological (AIM) denying that they are ideological and an organization that uses an accurate term to describe their ideology. Croctotheface (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean correlating two otherwise unrelated articles. WP:NPOV says absolutely nothing about multiple article context; each article is evaluated individually (as they should be). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"accurate term" - And who makes that determination? Editors or sources? You are implicitly assuming that one is accurate and the other is not, which is itself a POV. My suggestion, to consistently use the self-identification in the opening sentence, then use alternate labels in subsequent discussion, ensures that an editor's POV on the "correctness" of any particular self-label is not carried into the article. ATren (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Determining the accuracy of article content is not any kind of NPOV violation. Allow me to let you in on something: editors make subjective and opinionated determinations all the time; it's necessary for the encyclopedia to function. That a given piece of text is not neutral writing, for instance, is a matter of opinion, not fact. As far as your proposal, if there were some reason to quote someone who referred to MM as liberal, then it would be appropriate to put the term in the article. In fact, the word "liberal" shows up three times in the current form of the article for basically this reason. Croctotheface (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, editorial decisions must be made, but we should restrict the editorial decisions to suitability of sources rather than accuracy of the claims made in those sources. My solution picks reliable sources and reports their words, without making judgement on the appropriateness of those sources. And when an editorial decision on sourcing must be made, every effort should be made to be consistent, even across articles if those articles are part of the same debate. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is often cited in these cases, and perhaps that's a valid reason for not changing "this" article because of "that" crappy one, but it should NOT be used as a reason to maintain "that" crappy one in its crappy state. That's what I experienced in my last foray into this debate.

Certainly, it's difficult to bring multiple editors from multiple articles together and reach an overall consensus, but I believe it's necessary to avoid POV issues in multiple articles on the same general topics.

(By the way, I checked one conservative article that I thought was problematic before, and it's better now, more in line with what is in left-leaning groups, so maybe things are better now than before. If I have time I may repeat the survey I did last year.) ATren (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise reliable sources can be wrong on the facts. It's hard to take seriously the notion that we can't decide that a given reliable source is accurate in one particular case or not. If newspapers were right all the time, they wouldn't issue daily corrections. Croctotheface (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting 'liberal' (comment requested)

I know this has been discussed but I think the recent NYT article sourced in the lead is suffecient anough to label it liberal. The article uses phrases like 'highly partisan', 'left-leaning', and 'Media Matters has given the Democrats a weapon'. The article is not an editorial. -Zeus-^u|c 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

sources: sourced liberal liberal left-wing liberal liberal

Why should the word "liberal" be preferred over Media Matters' self-description of "progressive" when the two terms have nearly identical meanings in modern usage? There are good reasons why Wikipedia's usual practice is to use a group or individual's self-description when practical. The currently used term of progressive is directly verifiable to the group itself and avoids the bias of having Wikipedia editors choose between the terms favored by the political right and the political left. It should also be noted that the two times the word "liberal" is used in the article you cite, neither use is in reference to Media Matters. --Allen3 ^talk 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

From wikipedia:

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating progress, changes, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

In this case, I believe that liberal more accurately describes their viewpoints. The fact that the actual word is not used in the article, which I never said it was, does not change the fact that the words used in the article are more synomous with liberal than with progressive.

There is also the matter to consider of severity; there can't really be any denying that mmfa is a very partisan organization, and calling them 'progressive' lends them an air of cross-partisinship that I feel is inappropriate for this context. The word progressivism is analogous to the idealogy of traditionalism, not conservatism. -Zeus-^u|c 20:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources: liberal liberal left-wing liberal liberal -Zeus-^u|c 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody who is familiar enough with politics to be interested in reading an article on MM is going to be confused about what "progressive" means in a modern political context. There is at least an argument (which I suspect you will find unpersuasive, but I'll mention it anyway) that "progressive" refers to present day left-of-center politics that is less in the tradition of the New Deal than what we would term "liberalism." However, the bottom line is, as Allen says, that specifically choosing a label that the group does not choose for itself is not neutral writing, except perhaps in a case where their chosen description were inaccurate. "Progressive" used in a modern political context is plainly accurate. This is the same reason that we would not refer to a self-described conservative group as "right wing," even if there were a number of sources that used that label. Croctotheface (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Crock and Allen have hit the nail on the head. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading some arguments at the Bill O'Reilly talk page, and they are arguing over conservative vs traditionalist. Since he calls himself traditionalist, but news organizations describe him as conservative, the lead is using the word conservative. Given the high consensus there, I am applying the same rationale here. -Zeus-^u|c 03:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit the Bill O'Reilly article, but this would definitely be a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The consensus for this page is not formed by what happened there. There isn't any reason to apply your own editorial description to the lede. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not my editorial description, I have provided sources (see above). -Zeus-^u|c 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the source proves anything about the "liberal" label, it certainly has a lot of good information that should be included in the article. I would just add some of the main points of the source to the article. Bytebear (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zeus that there is inconsistency, and I've raised this issue before. But there is a group of editors who refuse to make it consistent one way or another. "Consensus" has deemed that certain groups are trusted to label themselves, but others must be labelled according to what third party sources call them. It's very much a POV issue, and it's exactly why Wikipedia should not be trusted as a source on political topics. ATren (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the case that "certain groups" are "trusted" to label themselves; in general, we should be rather deferential to the way that groups describe their own politics. If there is some kind of difference between the word that a group uses and the words that show up in sources, we should then ask ourselves if the label the group chooses is accurate. If Media Matters chose "conservative" or "non-partisan", then their self-identification would be sufficiently questionable that it would be appropriate to reference other labels. However, "progressive" is more than accurate to identify their left-leaning politics; as I've said before, it's arguably more accurate than any other label. Would you agree that it would not be appropriate to reject a group's self identification of "conservative" in favor of "right-wing" simply because "right wing" appeared in a lot of sources? Croctotheface (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The analogy between right-wing and conservative is not the same between progressive and liberal. The actual mirror version is traditionalist vs conservative. I have shown other locations where consensus has called them conservative, even when the person specifically says that he's not. Media Matters has never denied the name of liberal, and I think that it is a useful comparison. I also think that some arguments saying 'I don't think anybody who is familiar enough with politics to be interested in reading an article on MM is going to be confused about what "progressive" means in a modern political context' are complete bull. I thought the point of wikipedia was to make it easily accessible to anyone. When there is no loss of accuracy, and sources are available, we should use the more commonly known word to describe them, even if they don't. -Zeus-^u|c 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the point before and will repeat it. The term "progressive" has been referrenced as a euphamism for "liberal." It is POV to use the term "progressive" it it is trying to hide the fact that the group is, in fact, a liberal orgranization. I will also point out, that Wikipedia's policy on referrences is that they all should come from third party sources. So, even if they are self proclaimed "progressives", you need a third party to note that fact. I don't mind the intro citing their own "About Us" but it should be balanced by third party sources as well. Bytebear (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to both, quickly, in one shot. Zeus, "traditionalist" is a term used by only one prominent figure that I know of, Bill O'Reilly. I don't know of any organizations that describe themselves as "traditionalist," and O'Reilly himself denies that the term basically encompasses a similar kind of right-leaning politics that the term "conservative" does. There is no such argument about "progressive." If anyone here attempted to advance the notion that "progressive" did not refer to left-leaning politics, that person would not be taken seriously. Regarding the idea of "euphemism," it really seems that Bytebear is trying to rewrite the article to force a label on Media Matters because its political opponents prefer it over the one that MM chooses for itself. If we agree that both terms are accurate, there is no good reason to use a label the group does not identify with. Arguably, "progressive" is more accurate, as it refers to a sort of post-Reagan, post-Clinton brand of politics that is less in the tradition of the New Deal than what we'd call "liberalism." Croctotheface (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Both terms are accurate, but even you say that they don't mean the same thing. We have a lot of sources calling them liberal, so we have to mention that they are often called something different then they call them selves. -Zeus-^u|c 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they've been called a lot of other stuff (left wing, left-leaning, independent) in reliable sources. And, for that matter, I'm sure that O'Reilly has been called a "blowhard" in reliable sources, too. You're saying that everything has to go in the article? Croctotheface (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have to put it because there is a discrepancy between what they call themselves and what WP:RS do. If O'Reilly was quoted as saying "I am not a blowhard", I am sure it would be qualified with sources that contradict it. -Zeus-^u|c 21:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Croc, the point is, whatever is chosen it should be consistent. It currently is not (at least not the last time I surveyed it). If third party sources are used for O'Reilly and AIM, third parties should be used for MM. If self described descriptions are used for MM, they should also be used for O'Reilly and AIM. Either choice is acceptable, as long as it is consistent. What I would suggest, for all of these articles, is a simple statement in the intro with the self-description, followed by alternate descriptions (if any) from reliable media in the second paragraph. That way, all groups are consistently represented as how they view themselves and how other reliable sources view them. ATren (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really a "discrepancy" so much as different sources that uses different terms. You make it sound as if no third party sources use anything but "liberal," but a lot of them use "progressive." The question is what need do we have to use a different term that carries basically the same meaning. It seems to me that the people pushing for "liberal" regard it as less flattering and want it in the article because they think it makes MM sound worse. Regarding consistency, we have no obligation to report only self-descriptions, but when the self-description is at least as accurate as any other term, as "progressive" is in this case, there's no reason not to use it. AIM's self description is plainly inaccurate, and O'Reilly's is at best open to question. In this case, we're dealing with terms, liberal and progressive, that mean basically the same thing, and to any extent that they are different, "progressive" is more accurate anyway. Croctotheface (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is less flattering, and that is the point. They choose a word that makes them sound better, even though in their operation there isn't really a meaningful distinction. That's like a terrorist calling himself a 'freedom fighter'. Yeah, they might mean the same thing, but one is explicitly chosen for a decided lack of shock value. That's the problem I have here. -Zeus-^u|c 04:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) I can't speak for others, but in my case I don't care one bit how MM's description "sounds". What I do care about is that there is an obvious POV problem here which undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia. A while back I looked at about half a dozen groups (think tanks, etc) from both sides of the political aisle. Most of the conservative organizations had "X is a conservative" or "X is a neo-conservative" using 3rd party sourcing, without any mention of their self-identified ideological stance. For the liberal organizations I looked at, they were nearly all of the form "X describes itself as..." with no regard for third party labels. It was clearly inconsistent, but when I tried to make it consistent, I was accused of whitewashing or POV pushing by a very powerful editor. So I gave up because I don't need to get into a pissing match with the cabal. But when someone else notices the obvious inconsistency (as they seem to do at a rate of about once a month) I chime in again in the hopes that this obvious problem can be rectified. Anyway, this discussion has my cabal radar beeping like a sonofabitch so I'll leave it at that. :-) ATren (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is a difference between self-descriptions that are accurate and those that are either inaccurate or misleading. Without making any promises, if an organization that self-identifies as conservative were described in its WP article as neo-conservative, I would probably agree with you that it's better to just go with "conservative." If that's at issue at another article, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll investigate it and quite possibly lend my voice to your side. But the org you cited here, Accuracy in Media, says that they are not ideological, which is plainly inaccurate, and as such it's appropriate to use third party sources to characterize their politics. Croctotheface (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to take this to the mediation cabal tomorrow. I don't see any possible outcome coming from this, we have been butting heads on pretty much the same issue since the beginning. -Zeus-^u|c 05:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I just posted it at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-13/Talk:Media Matters for America. We'll see how it goes. -Zeus-^u|c 05:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(removing indents) I'm going to take a break for this for now. I think that my participation has kept other editors (especially those who agree with me) from chiming in. I just want to be clear that your goal is to overturn the present consensus, which has come down against using "liberal" several times in the past. It may be helpful for some of the editors from prior discussions to weigh in again. Croctotheface (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.", but some critics and observers have identified them as liberal. {cite here}". -Zeus-^u|c 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the term "liberal" is being seen by some editors as derogatory, and therefore POV, but the fact is, many non-Conservative neutral sources use the term in a neutral way to describe this ogranization. If editors here see "liberal" as a negative term, that's their problem, but it does not change the fact that it is a common term used by neutral sources to describe Media Matters. Bytebear (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Who ever said it was derogatory. It is instead a right-wing term being used to describe a left-wing organization. This is analogous to using U.S. English to describe a British subject. Until someone can provide a coherent explanation as to why this group needs to be described in terms preferred by their political enemies the current wording should remain. --Allen3 ^talk 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is a right-wing organization? I had no idea. Beyond the sarcasm, since when is liberal a right-wing term? Should we remove every instance of the word liberal and conservative from wikipedia? Besides, I don't see any of the sources that I posted as 'their enemies'. How about a compromise? What if we put in the lead a direct cite from the new york times article, that they are "highly partisan"? -Zeus-^u|c 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Allen didn't say that only right wingers use "liberal", just that it's the term right wingers prefer over "progressive", about which he's clearly right. You've already conceded that your goal here is to use the term that you think reflects less favorably on MM, and now you want to introduce an even more loaded phrase into the lead of the article. I think this pretty much proves Allen's point, but you may have also inadvertently shown the fundamental weakness of the "but it's in sources!" line of argument here. Lost of terms are in sources, including "progressive", and we are not obligated to put every single one of them into the article lead. The group's self-description is accurate in characterizing its politics; there's no reason to diverge from that. As I've said before, Rush Limbaugh is frequently attached to the "right wing" label in reliable sources, yet his article only uses "conservative". Is this problematic to you? Should we go in there and make it clear that he's frequently described as a right winger? Croctotheface (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now we're 3-1 to include the term, so I think I am going to go ahead and add it later today (the version I posted above). -Zeus-^u|c 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting your 3-1 figure, but it's neither true nor relevant. We don't decide content by voting, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY for further explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC):::::::::I don't see any vote; I see a 75% consensus. that's the number of people that have been active in the discussion and have an opinion. -Zeus-^u|c 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we're having this fight again? Count me in as using the self-description as always. Can someone someone finally explain to me why "progressive" is an inadequate description? I don't understand why this issue keeps popping up repeatedly. Concur with Allen3 a couple comments above. We don't have to match the wording from talking points of the right. Gamaliel (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just have to comment on something above. The term "liberal" is NOT "the term right wingers prefer over 'progressive'". That is just bullshit. Please don't take offense as this is not a personal attack. I don't call bullshit often, but this one stinks to high heaven. If editors are not going to be honest about the history and usage of the term "progressive" then there is no point in debate, because the debate will be inherantly flawed by ignorance of the facts. Bytebear (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I also concur with Gamaliel, Allen3, and the forty-bajillion other editors who have equivocated the same position before -- there has been no meaningful explanation of why the politcally-charged "liberal" is necessary when "progressive" is accepted and preferred by the source. To John Everyman, "liberal" and "progressive" are likely indistinguishable. The real issue here is that "liberal" is a codeword with extreme negative connotation within the far right movement (see usage by Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Glenn Beck, etc etc etc), which is surely why we see this aggressive campaign to insert "liberal" (which, otherwise, doesn't carry much distinction from "progressive" in real-world usage). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are using a fringe theory to justify POV. There is no real world negative conotation to the word "liberal." There is nothing in the Liberalism article to warrant your conclusion. By your own admission the words are interchangable, and so I conclude you are arguing I don't like it. That argument just doesn't fly. Bytebear (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's because that article is about liberalism, not about the world/label? If you sincerely don't think that right wingers use "liberal" to cast aspersions on people, you're not paying attention. But you didn't address Blaxthos's real point: why is it that "liberal" is SO necessary when the group's self-description already accurately describes its politics? Croctotheface (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia uses the most broad terms possible, and because Wikipedia does not reference first or second person sources, but third person sources. So what a group self describes is less important than what the genaral media and academic world defines the group as. Bytebear (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So we should make sure the lead of the Rush Limbaugh article refers to him as a right winger, right? There are plenty of sources that do. There are likewise plenty of sources that describe Media Matters as progressive, so the idea that we are somehow ignoring secondary sources is just false. I don't really know what you mean by "broad" terms: both are equally broad. You do not seem to dispute that "progressive" is accurate, so I still fail to see a compelling reason to use a word that, as Blaxthos has pointed out, is politically charged and considered pejorative in some circles. Croctotheface (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you can discuss the Rush Limbaugh article there. Second, "Right Winger" is not the most common term for his political leanings, so no, that would not be appropriate. The term "progressive" was invented about 20 years ago as a euphamism, because some liberals felt that term was tarnished. But none of that matters. We do not state facts or opinion as that is OR, but rather, we present things others have said. If you have sources that call them progressive, then present them (and I am ok with their self declaration). But you need to present more than that for balance. I am all for the idea of saying "So and so describes the group as a liberal organizayion" or something similar. And, to ensure NPOV we should include such a statement. The simple fact is that the term liberal is far more prevelant in academic circles than progressive. So, too bad if you think the term is negative. it is still the most common and the most correct. Bytebear (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But I still don't see why we should. You acknowledge that their self-identification is accurate, so there's no neutrality problem. There's no need to add something for the sake of "balance" if it's already perfectly balanced as is. Croctotheface (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality problem is that you are only using their self descibed label and ignoreing academia which labels them as liberal. Your POV is that you don't like that term and so you want to supress it. It is not balanced. Please review NPOV policies. Bytebear (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But why does an accurate term need to be "balanced"? If it's accurate, it's not out of balance. As I said, there are plenty of secondary sources that use plenty of different terms. There are plenty of secondary sources who use the same quote that we do to identify MM's politics, which is really the best practice. Croctotheface (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Best practices says to use the most common and broad term. That is to use the term "liberal", not "progressive". Bytebear (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, best practices says that if a term is contentious (clearly this one is) then use plain, neutral language. There's no need to spoon-feed your opinion to the reader. They can make up their own minds pretty quickly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And you don't think spoon feeding them "progressive" a euphamism isn't POV? Give me a break. Bytebear (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You insist that it's a euphemism - so what are they trying to disguise here? If liberal is not a pejorative, as you insist it is not elsewhere on this page, why would they use progressive as a euphemism? You can't have it both ways. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(removing indent) Again, neither term is more or less "broad" than another. I'm not convinced that "liberal" is more common either in terms of general usage or references to MM, but you still seem to be missing my point here. We agree that their self description should remain; it's odd to add that other groups describe them as "liberal" when we already have "progressive". Considering that most people understand them to mean basically the same thing, it's strange and unnecessary to add a similar term for the sake of "balance" when the text is not out of balance to begin with. FYI, this'll be my last comment here for a little bit, as I don't think an extended back and forth between two editors is helpful or illuminating for anyone else. Croctotheface (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've come here as part of the RfC. As a Briton, the word "liberal" as used in the US does strike me as have negative connotations, or at the very least it's much more a term used in a scornful context by rightwing publications and commentators. Certainly in election campaigns it's been used as a scare word. (As a note, "liberal" in the UK has, until recently at least, kept its older meaning of being in favour of individual choice as a principle). So I would suggest "progressive" is better. It certainly balances better with the word "conservative". (Many conservatives are liberals in the older sense of the word). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point -- most Americans tend to forget (or just don't understand) both that the meaning of the word "liberal" long-precedes the modern American usage, and that the meaning of the term varies significantly in a global context. With that in mind, "liberal" has a lot of different meanings; "progressive" is a much more precise and accurate term. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it is also Original Research. Tbe term "progressive" is not in general use. It is only used by liberals to soften the term from some perceived negativity. Until it becomes pervasive across both parties, it should not be the defacto description of this group. We can say what they believe them to be, but in the general sense, there is no such thing as a "progressive." There is only liberal and conservative (at least when describing the two major factors in American politics). Bytebear (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:OR, which governs content (article namespace), not discussion on what content is appropriate (talk pages). There is not a lack of sourcing regarding "progressive", thus by definition it's not "original research". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

President Obama and plenty of other left-of-center people use "progressive". Its usage is extremely general. We have a Wikipedia article on it; this is a general knowledge encyclopedia. The notion that quoting a group's accurate self-description is "research" is just preposterous, and if you're going to argue that there's "only" liberal and conservative, I question where it is you're getting your information. "Progressive" is not in general usage on, say, Rush Limbaugh's show, but as others have pointed out, that's because he uses it as a pejorative. Croctotheface (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that (1) "liberal" has multiple meanings outside a United States-centric context; (2) "liberal" is (mis)used pejoratively by people of an opposing ideological view; it makes absolutely no sense to choose the ambiguous/confusing/connotative "liberal" when "progressive" is accurate, uncontested, and is virtually synonymous to anyone outside of the circles that use it as a pejorative codeword. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of your points are invalid. 1) This article is about a US centric organization, and therefore US centric terms apply and 2) as already stated, the pejorative argument is invalid, as it is a fringe theory, and mainstream and academic sources do not use it as such. What Rush Limbaugh thinks is irrelivant. By the way, there are liberals fighting for the term over progressive[1][2] Bytebear (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A "fringe theory"? Come off it. I pointed out the British use of the terms only to give background to the outsider's view of how "liberal" is used in American political discourse (i.e. there's something of a surprise to hear it bandied about as a catch-all insult). If it's a "fringe view", why does the current American secretary of state consider Liberal to be a negative term? [link here] She prefers the term progressive, too. I cannot see any reason for insisting on liberal as opposed to progressive unless one wants to exploit the negative connotations in America of "liberal". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good article, but I hardly think it bolsters your argument. If anything, it proves my point. Mainstream, "liberal" is preferred. And by the way, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT applies to Hillary Clinton too. Bytebear (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice attempt to sidestep the issue. the point I was making is that your claim that it is a "fringe theory" is wrong, unless you want to argue that Clinton is not a notable person. Indeed, if you read wp:fringe properly, the notion that liberal has negative connotations clearly is not a fringe theory.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That article talks about how "liberal" has become a loaded pejorative codeword used by people on the right to demonize those on the left, but not used much by the left itself. Far from proving your point, that sounds like what those who disagree with you here have been saying. It's hardly mainstream if none of the Democratic candidates wanted to identify with it but instead went with "progressive". Rather, it sounds like "progressive" is the mainstream word there. Croctotheface (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the article talks about how some on the left feel that "liberal" has become a loaded pejorative codeword. But that is their opionion. The article also says that the word "liberal" was used several times in the democratic primary debates (hardly a right wing forum). Just because the candidates are playing to the fringe, does not mean that it is still not fringe. "Progressive" is not the mainstream. It is not used by anyone on the right,it is not used in academia, and it is not used by the media (except in stories about how the left is using it). Bytebear (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not serious, are you? That article QUOTES academics using "progressive". That article IS a media piece that uses "progressive". The fact that people on the right use liberal more or less exclusively hardly vouches for the neutrality of the term. As Gamaliel said earlier, you can't have it both ways. The basic question here is why do we need to use "liberal" when everyone agrees we should quote MM's self description, which uses "progressive". Sometimes, your rationale is that "progressive" is a euphemism, but if that's so then by definition it's replacing something with negative connotations. Other times, you assert that it does not carry any negative connotations and therefore does not pose any neutrality problems. Croctotheface (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say that "everyone else agrees" when clearly they don't. Even the article says so, "The two linguists disagree, however, over the implications of dropping the word liberal in favor of progressive." Yes, I agree with the article when it says, "They are running from the word liberal as fast as they can", and I agree that the democrats are rebranding themselves. Everything in this article says the democrats are doing this, to benefit themselves. And clearly you are too. and that is POV, plain and simple. To sum it up, the article says this, "The only difference between 'liberal' and 'progressive' is that liberals think there is one." (Note the use of the term liberal, not progressive). And that is what you are doing. Pushing a POV because you think there is a difference. Bytebear (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If, as you insist, liberal is not a pejorative, why are they "running from the word" and trying to rebrand themselves? Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want my reply to bury Gamaliel's very pertinent question, which deserves a response, but I want to point out that Bytebear is quoting me out of context. "Everyone agrees" comes from the line "everyone agrees we should quote MM's self description," and as far as I know, everyone does agree that we should do that, including Bytebear himself. The question then becomes why is it necessary to ALSO say "liberal" when we're also going to have "progressive." Bytebear, if you're right that they mean essentially the same thing, why are you so adamant about creating a redundancy? If you think there is no difference, why is it SO important that the article specifically use a term that the organization does not use to identify itself? Incidentally, the word "liberal" already appears three times in the text, so it's not as if anyone is on a crusade to purge it from the article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is, "why is it important to use the term 'liberal' over 'progressive?' The answer is simple. Wikipdeia is an academic entity, and as such it should use academic terms. The term 'progressive' is a euphamism being forwarded by liberals. As such it is not neutral, by it's inception. But, as proven time and again the term 'liberal' is used neutrally, both academically and in news articles, proven by sources ironically provided to try to prove the opposite. I could as easily say you are on a cruisade to supress the term 'liberal,' since you seem to agree that they are equal terms. But I have yet to see an academic or news story that supports this. 'Progressive' simply is not an academic term, nor is it neutral. Bytebear (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First, as Gamaliel said, the word really can't be neutral if anyone feels the need for a "euphamism" (sic); by definition, a euphemism replaces a word with negative connotations. Second, Wikipedia is a popular publication, not an academic one, but the notion that academics do not use "progressive" is simply false. Finally, you seem to have misunderstood or ignored my final sentence: if I am on a crusade to suppress "liberal," why didn't I delete the three times it's used in the article? There's simply no good reason that the term needs to be in the article lead. It's already in the article three times, the lead already contains a term that is both accurate and sufficient to describe their politics, and the notion that some publications use a different word to describe MM's politics is simply not important enough to be featured so prominently in the lead. Croctotheface (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(od)Just to chime in for consensus... Plenty of RS's use the word progressive. It is in common use in today's American political discourse. It is more specific and therefore more accurate than liberal, which does a service to our readers. thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not seen evidence of that. Even looking at the Media Matters articles which use "progressive" extensively all reference articles that use "liberal". Do you have any academic evidence to support your WP:OR? Bytebear (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't address why you haven't seen "evidence" of a widely used term. Why are you ignoring the link helpfully provided 1" above your reply which addresses your concern? --guyzero | talk 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. Here is a source from the article [3]. It uses the term progressive dozens of times, but not one from an external source, only in self description. However, if you look at the sources for the article, they all ues the term liberal (e.g. 1 Dave Astor, "Dems Win, Liberal Material Doesn't," Editor & Publisher, January 1, 2007.) So, it seems the only people using the term 'progressive' are liberals. I have yet to find one neutral example using the term. I am not saying they don't exist. But they are far outweighed by the term 'liberal'. So to say that both are equally common is rediculous. Oh, and if you want to compare search engine results, "liberal politics" has twice as many results. 1,190,000 compared to 549,000. Bytebear (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not about comparing search engine results.. it is about demonstrating that the term is in wide use (bonus link) as that appears to be part of your argument. Your exercise above does not prove that it is not in wide use. --guyzero | talk 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not in wide use amongst academics or news outlets. This I have demonstrated in my many examples. It may be in wide use amongst democrats, or left wing organizations, but that simply makes my case for POV stronger. Bytebear (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So all of the thousands of books and scholarly work just linked to you is all part of a liberal POV push and should be disregarded? I suggest perhaps seeing if the RFC or Mediation brings in some other input, but consensus seems to remain as "progressive". With regards to use among .edu: "progressive politics" 7,700 hits vs "liberal politics" 5,120 hits. --guyzero | talk 22:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the top listing(s) on Google is a by a Russian author or discussion European politics, does not bode too well for your argument that this is common in American politics. Oh, and a search on .edu for "conservative politics"[4] only returns 3780, so what? Bytebear (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to comparing search engine results. Bytebear, how many editors have to disagree with you before you'll consider that consensus is that your position is incorrect? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't start the google searches. I would remind you to assume good faith, and review the events before accusing me of anything. Bytebear (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, you've provided your arguments and many people have spent time to answer them. There is an open RFC and Mediation which might give you more input. Until then, consensus is the more accurate term of "progressive" is in the lead. thanks, --guyzero | talk 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The only arguments I have heard are variatous of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Can you summorize for clarity the arguements that don't flow along that vein? Bytebear (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Consensus is clearly established in the discussion above, so no need to repeat it so that you can disregard it another time. The onus is on you if you want to change consensus. Please use the DR process and/or accept that consensus is against you, even if you don't agree with it. --guyzero | talk 00:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be more efficient if you took the time to ready the multitude of policy based and interrelated arguments in this section and the Propose putting "Liberal" or Progressive in the opening line section above. This will prevent any of the many valuable insights and reasons from being lost during a summarization process. It should also be noted that while you may not be willing to acknowledge these arguments, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a valid defense against them. --Allen3 ^talk 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just call a spade a spade. Liberals are using the term "Progressive" to re-brand themselves because of a percieved negative pejorative against the word Liberal. In a sense a "Progressive" is nothing more than a new liberal, much as during Regan conservatives tried to re-brand themselves away from the word Conservative. This slight of hand won't last long, it won't take too long and Progressive will take on the same meaning as Neocon and you will have the same editors fighting tooth and nail for the opposite point of view. I say leave it as progressive, the progressive view is far left of the straight liberal view, and soon enough the rest of the US will make the same connection. Arzel (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you've spoken in favour of consensus, but I think you're engaging in revisionism here. Reagan quite deliberately called himself a conservative. At that time Conservatism was the "in" thing. Also, given that Hillary Clinton calls herself "progressive", I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's to the left of "liberal" quite so easily! (And to remind bytebear - I cited Clinton's preference of the term not as an example of "I just don't like it", but to counter your assertion that preferring "progressive" is somehow a marginal or obscurantist view.) I should also like to point out that any reference to google scholar hits needs to separate out "liberal" in the American political sense with the term as it is used in political theory. Some of the top hits are for discussions of John Rawls et al.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to use both progressive and liberal in the lead. e.g.:

Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. It is self-described as a progressive research center that monitors conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. They have been described by The New York Times, other reliable source, and another reliable source as being a left-leaning liberal organization.

Phrasing would need work, but including both their self-identification and how they are identified by others results in a more neutral article. -Atmoz (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two responses to that. First, any "They say X, but others say Y" formulation is not neutral basically by definition; you can see the entry at WP:WTA on words like "however" and "despite" for the reasons why, but it basically leaves readers disinclined to believe the self-description. It's worse to use "liberal" in the voice of the encyclopedia, of course. Second, I just don't see the neutrality issue with using their self-description, as nobody here has contended that "progressive" is inaccurate. If it's accurate as is, there's no neutrality issue. Going out of our way to use "liberal" as well introduces a redundancy for essentially no benefit. Croctotheface (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. What if Mao Zedong had self-described as a progressive? Would you be arguing that the encyclopedia should describe him as progressive and not communist? It benefits the reader to know how a group self-identifies and how others see them, especially if the others are seen as independent. In my view the NYT is not using the word liberal in the same sense as Limbaugh or Fox Noise. There are differences between liberalism and progressivism. We do readers a disservice by not including both in the description of this group.

"No benefit" depends on your perspective -- if you're a Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly type, going out of the way to use the word "liberal" is what it's all about... :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is also not NPOV to say X says 1 and Y says 2. Because that's what they say. If you really don't like the dual approach, then you should use reliable, secondary sources independent from the subject as described in WP:V, and not what the group self-identifies as, because that is a primary source that is not independent from the subject. I said my wording could use work, but even so it did not use either of the words "however" or "despite", so your claim that I did is a red herring. -Atmoz (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep your ad homs to yourself. Thank you. -Atmoz (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, it'd only be an ad hominem fallacy if the post was encouraging editors to disregard a particular point because it came from a particular editor for a particular reason. The submission was clearly labeled "tongue-in-cheek" humor, though the underlying point is still valid... guilty conscience? :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally despise categorizing anyone or anything as "liberal" or "conservative" because it is disingenuous, typically inaccurate, it does a diservice to all, and is one of the problems with modern politics. Why not describe this organization just the way it is, and let the readers decide for themselves how to classify it? After all, the discussion on how to classify this organization can and would last forever. --Bsmithme (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Break

Let me take this one a step further... If you concede that "liberal" and "progressive" have roughly the same meaning, then what purpose is served by insisting "liberal" be used? I again posit that, granting the equality of the terms (with which everyone seems to agree), the only reason to continue to insist upon "liberal" over or alongside the self-described (and admittedly equal) "progressive" is to try and use it as a pejorative buzzword (which is only common in conservative circles). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blaxthos. well said. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I will throw it back at you. Why do you insist on "progressive?" If they have roughly the same meaning, why are you removing categories that will help readers find this article? Bytebear (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Half a year later and you're still working on this, Bytebear?  :) "Progressive" is uncontested, as their self-chosen descriptor; "liberal" is contested. Since they've been dormant for so long, you might want to refresh yourself by re-reading the section(s) above for the unabridged version. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how you throw out terms like "uncontested" when clearly that is untrue. Progressive as I proved a year ago is a euphemism used by the group to distance themselves from the more common and more widely used term. The Category feature of Wikipedia is to help people find articles relating to a particular topic. Calling this a liberal organization is perfectly acceptable, and more than appropriate. If you want a reliable source, how about the LA Times? "The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America..."[5] or the Washington Post. "Liberal groups such as NDN and Media Matter..."[6]. You can say they call themselves progressive, but that is not a third party source, and therefore, unreliable for categorization. From what I can see, reliable third party sources call them a liberal ogranization. Bytebear (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the guidelines for that category (not this article) are that organizations must self-identify as such. That category went through deletion discussion (in which many other similar categories were deleted for being arbitrary) and it was decided that it is useful as long as it is only used for organizations that self-identify or profess (big "L") Liberalism. This article does not fit that criteria. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to that particular guideline? Bytebear (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bytebear, it's pretty clear from your comments here today that you have absolutely no interest in listening to what other editors have said. When you use words like "proved" to describe your opinion--an opinion that basically nobody else ascribes to--it's hard to see that as anything other than a refusal to listen to or engage with other people's views. When you repeat the same argument (they've been described as "liberal" in sources) that's been addressed and responded to dozens of times already, it's hard to see you as someone who operates in good faith. And when you return here every few months to strike up the same debate, it's hard to see that you have even a modicum of respect for anyone else's viewpoint. In light of all this, I have a hard time seeing why other editors should take you seriously. Croctotheface (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

When another editor claims that the criteria for adding a category is in violation of Wikipedia policy, I want to know specifically where that policy is. I am still waiting. as for the category in question, I have provided two neutral reliable third party sources that should simply end the debate. The counter argument appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And now you are claiming because you don't like it, that you can ignore good faith? If you have a reasonable argument, then present it, but I have yet to see one. Wikipedia is based on presenting references to back up your claims. I have done that. Because you don;t agree with their definition does not negate their existence and it does not change the policies of Wikipedia. Bytebear (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the WP policy that governs use of categories. Without one, the use of reliable sources as Bytebear had done would seem to rule.--Drrll (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Bytebear, the fact of the matter is that you're simply refusing to hear other editors. This is long settled; try though you may, your quarterly attempt to inject your preferred "liberal" descriptor is no more valid now than it has been every other time you've tried this. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear the other editors quite clearly. They are taking a primary source (MMfA) over third party sources because they prefer the term "progressive" over "libeal". That is POV plain and simple. It's not that I prefer "liberal." It's that the LA Times, CBS, ABC and a plethora of other reliable sources prefer "liberal." It is simply inaccurate to say that it is invalid. To say "it is long settled" does not refute the fact. It distracts from it, by pretending that the facts are not facts. And even if consensus was met at some time in the past, consensus can change. But this is not even a matter of consensus, it's a matter of providing sources to verify your position. I have done so. You have not. Bytebear (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TO answer Drrll's question, the policies on Categorization can be found here. Specifically the issue at hand is covered in this statement: "An article should be placed in all the existing categories to which it logically belongs ..." Bytebear (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bytebear, the point is that you're raising the same arguments now that you raised a few months ago, and a few months before that, and so forth. They failed to obtain a consensus every single time. No new information has surfaced since then to suggest that consensus may have changed. I see little room left to conclude anything other than that you're not operating in good faith, and that, as Blaxthos said, you refuse to hear other editors. If you want an actual reply to your arguments, you can refer to the previous discussions. I see little reason to rehash them yet again, since I have no doubt that you'll simply refuse to hear them again. Croctotheface (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is some protectionism going on with this page. I will ask for some outside opinions. Bytebear (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there are people who disagree with you and you can't let it go. Seriously, how long has this been going on? You haven't added anything new to the consensus, you haven't shown how it is invalid, you haven't shown how MMFA's self-description is invalid, you haven't shown and reliable sources demonstrating that it is invalid, and you haven't shown how your preferred term would be superior to that self-description. The only thing that's changed is that some people decided to start the edit war all over again. Gamaliel (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have shown how the term "liberal" has been used by third party sources. You seem to think that I am arguing against "progressive" in favor of "liberal" but in fact, I ma saying both are accurate. I have acknowledged their self description by adding the category Progressivism to the article myself [7]. It seems to me I am not the one who is not hearing the other side. Bytebear (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not one of the arguments you've advanced here is new. This debate hasn't gone your way any of the times you've tried it before, and your response has been to ignore what others have said and then come back here screaming about it a few months later. Why should anyone engage you on the same exact argument yet again? If this discussion doesn't go your way, will we just be back here another few months from now? Or will you accept the consensus and leave the issue alone? Croctotheface (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

More protectionism with no real evidence to present. Yawn. I would be more inclined to your position if you actually presented one. The only arguement I have even heard was the rediculous one about categories only containing "self described" monikers using this discussion as "proof." The only problem is there is no discussion of the topic in the discussion and it was concludes as "no consensus." So, either present a compelling reason because just saying you have consensus is tiring. Bytebear (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia policy on Consensus: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Bytebear (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all your arguments the other times you've raised them. You can just read the rest of this talk page to find my viewpoints. I see no purpose in repeating them, since you've chosen to ignore them time and time again. So I'll ask you one more time: if this discussion doesn't turn out the way you want it to, will you be back here in another few months making the same arguments yet again? Croctotheface (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the mainstream media adopts the term Progressive over Liberal, then yes, I will request inclusion of verifiable information that is essentially being censored at the moment. Bytebear (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kind of weird that you use the word "censored" when the word "liberal" shows up in the article three times. In any event, while I admire your candor, I'm not sure how to view this except as a pledge to refuse to hear other editors. You are essentially promising to engage in tendentious editing, which really accomplishes nothing except to waste other editors' time. Croctotheface (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what else to call it. You acknowledge that the media calls them a liberal organization, you concede that the article can label them as liberal (three times aparently), but you refuse to allow a category that will help people find the article stand. What else should I call it? Bytebear (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(removing indents) Helping people find the article has nothing at all to do with censorship. The word "liberal" is in the article three times. If that comports with your definition of censoring the word "liberal" out of the article, then I really don't think it's possible to have a productive discussion with you. On the merits, there was a discussion about this category here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_25#Category:American_liberal_organizations; the discussion resulted in no consensus to delete the category, and both of the "keep" opinions referred to the fact that organizations can self-identify as liberal, so this category did not pose the same problems as the "American liberals" category, which had been deleted before. Now, I don't expect that their rationale or that discussion (or much of anything at all) will change your mind. You've said as much. However, it does address the topic, it is a response on the merits, and if your response is just going to be to repeat your opinion about press coverage ad nauseum, then I really have to question whether you're well suited to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Beyond that, it really is ridiculous to engage in disruptive editing and tendentious arguments because you can't stomach that other people disagree with you on something like this. Croctotheface (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Generally speaking, Wikipedia policy is to use self-identification for such matters. I agree the category doesn't belong. Dayewalker (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a link to this policy but have not found it. Please provide it before claiming it as fact. Bytebear (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't know if it is an official policy. I have seen it in effect on various political pages for years, though, including Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Keith Olbermann. If a subject self-identifies, that's what I've seen as what wikipedia goes with, otherwise it's a process of comparing the subject's stated beliefs against popular definition of terms, which becomes original research and synthesis. Dayewalker (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you except policy does state that articles should include ALL categories which are appropriate, and that includes popular definitions. I would also point out that your exampls fall under WP:BLP which has a much higher level of scrutiny than this article. Bytebear (talk)

MMFA isn't a liberal group. Liberal implies support of a political party. They attack conservative misinformation because as a progressive organization they believe that the distortions, lies and omissions of relevant data poisons our national discourse. Progressive implies a political philosophy, not a political party. On top of that, "liberal" has, undeniably, been derided by many people on the right side of the aisle, and the use of that word is preferred by those on the right because of the spin they have put upon that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.139 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the group MMfA be categorized as a liberal organization?

There is debate as to whether Media Matters for America should be described and/or categorized as a liberal organization. See talk above for more details. Bytebear (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. On a category page, articles are listed without explanatory text, or any context all at. Rightfully, the standard for inclusion should be high, i.e. it really needs to be obvious and undisputed that the category applies, since we can't include text explaining the nuances of the situation. So if the liberal label is too controversial to use in the LEDE of this article, then we certainly shouldn't throw the article in the category "liberal organizations". Yilloslime ^T_C 07:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. The group describes itself as "progressive." Calicocat (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No - This has been covered ad infinitum. The group does not identify as liberal, which is why we don't use the descriptor in the introduction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No The use of categories does not circumvent the requirements for articles to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. Thus the multitude of well established reasons for not labeling this group with a name used only their political opposition still apply. --Allen3 ^talk 11:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No For the reasons previously stated in this poll. Skywriter (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No For the reasons given by other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. When Fox news gets the category "Conservative political organizations", then we can talk. Until then we should use the self-identification of the organization. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• No Per CalicoCat. Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you all need to review the RfC policy. It is not a vote, and it is not a signal to gather up the usual suspects to reiterate your opinion. I am looking for outside opinions. none of the opinions above are from uninvolved editors. Please review the policy and if you have previously discussed the issue, then you should not be included in this RfC. Bytebear (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that all who commented above are somehow involved is silly and false when a quick search would tell you otherwise. You wanted comments from uninvolved editors, several uninvolved editors have commented. That you don't like it isn't license to bash or dismiss folks who are participating in your RFC in good faith. Regardless, editors who have edited MMfA before are certainly eligible to participate in an RFC on the matter. --guyzero | talk 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the point of an RFC is to bring in fresh perspectives, but in the end those must be weighed against the existing consensus. The statement of views by existing contributors does nothing to prevent a new contributor from adding his or her opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) With all due respect Bytebear, you seem to be ignoring comments based on your own views. And why would ever having discussed the issue before preclude an editor from commenting on an RfC? That would mean you would also be unable to comment on this issue. Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, does he just make stuff up as he goes along? My full thoughts on the matter may be found here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, it's even more important to realize that if previously involved editors didn't comment, I'm confident that Bytebear would say that only editors who commented on his latest attempt should "count." Croctotheface (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a previously uninvolved editor the above debate is way to WP:TLDR. But there is clearly no consensus as to whether it is appropriate to call this organisation a liberal organisation or not and there does not appear to be a consensus in the reliable source from what i could see, therefore in my view it should not be included in the category as the category has no way of documenting that controversy Ajbpearce (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from another previously uninvolved editor Bytebear, I do not believe I have edited this article and certainly not in recent times.Skywriter (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting clarification. The RFC seems a bit imprecise. Before I weigh in, I would like to know which of these (or which combination of these) is being asked:

• Should the word liberal be used to describe Media Matters, as attributed by notable/reliable third-party sources, in addition to self-description as progressive?
  • If so, should this be done in the lede section?
  • If so, should this be done somewhere in the article, but not necessarily the lede section?
• Should the article be added to the category Category:American_liberal_organizations or not? (Or are we talking about some other category?)

Thanks, CosineKitty (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CosineKitty, this RFC has nothing to do with using "liberal" in the introduction. That issue has been settled numerous times via RFC, in which consensus has always been that "progressive" is the proper wording for the introduction as it is uncontested and used by the organization itself. The only question here is whether it's appropriate to apply the "Liberal Organizations" category to an organization that does not identify itself as "liberal". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. The specific issue was adding the category Category:American_liberal_organizations. My understanding was that if a specific category does not exist (i.e. American Progressive Organizations). And, it seems, this "self identification" for categorization (and for lede material) is simply inconsistent within Wikipedia policy and practice. I guess when I hear "it depends" I have to ask, what does it depend on? Bytebear (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that category, and currently it includes only 11 pages. A quick sampling of the how those organizations describe themselves shows mixed results. For example, the Institute for Public Accuracy self-description never uses the word liberal but frequently uses the word progressive. I could be missing something in this case, but overall I have to agree that most of the "liberal" organizations listed describe themselves using that word. Incidentally, I read some of the lengthy discussion above. I have to point out that progressive in American usage goes back to the early twentieth century and has a clear meaning identified with leftist politics. Whether one is a euphemism for the other is debatable. It certainly is not the case that progressive was invented in the last 20 years. However, I think the two words are interchangeable in modern American usage, with liberal being better understood. I couldn't find any equivalent category for progressive organizations. It is interesting that the Conservative organizations in the United States category has 147 articles linked. Clearly the liberal tag is ruffling feathers, but that is the only category available that seems to embody this group, and it apt. I can't see why not to include it there. Disclaimer: I'm not liberal/progressive/left-of-center/whatever myself, but I can't see why I would be so upset about being called liberal if those were my views. Bottom line: I say put it in the American liberal organizations category, and if somebody wants to rename the category itself to "progressive", you would have to make the case that it is more helpful to someone trying to find information than the existing category name to persuade me. I just think more people know what liberal means, and it does mean the same thing as progressive. I feel this way for exactly the same reason that I changed "refuse collection vehicle" to "garbage truck" in another article, even though the company's self-description used the former term. CosineKitty (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you really need to ask why it is that organizations or individuals would generally not self-identify as liberal and instead choose another word that, to most people, means basically the same thing. I think that the answer you'd find is that during the 80s, there was a concerted effort made among conservatives to turn "liberal" into a dirty word. You can find examples of George H.W. Bush, for instance, calling it "the l-word," which suggests that "liberal" is so offensive that it should not be used in polite company. If this is the case, then in choosing to label the organization as liberal, when they don't choose that word for themselves, we would essentially be doing the work of people with opposing political views.

Another possibility is that the words don't mean precisely the same thing. I think that for at least some people, "liberal" denotes left-leaning politics that are closely associated with the New Deal and other social programs administered by the government, while "progressive" refers more to left-leaning politics associated with small-d democratic social movements, such as the 1920's progressive movement or the various social movements from the 1970s. If this is the case, then we're choosing a label that's less accurate for no good reason.

You've raised another argument here, the notion that using liberal might make the article marginally more accessible to readers. I'm not convinced that's true; I have no idea as to whether more people would know one term or another one. I think there's a fairly good chance that a number of people have misconceptions about liberalism because there of the aforementioned campaign among conservatives to make the word synonymous with everything that's bad in the world. I don't see any evidence that readers would find the article more comprehensible because we use the word "liberal" in this or that location. Croctotheface (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that someone went ahead and created a "progressive" category and started adding articles, including this one, to it. I guess I am OK with that. I never really paid much attention to categories in the first place, so I'm not sure how much effect it will have one way or the other on the usefulness of the article. The fact that both categories exist is like having categories for orange-red fruit and red-orange fruit; it's more about branding than objective truth. I wonder if you put both categories side by side and asked the average reader what the difference was, they would be stumped. I sure am.

But seriously, I would be interested to know if there is any Wikipedia policy about the doctrine of self-naming, versus widespread instances of reliable sources using a different name. Suppose (I'm making this up for an example) proponents of Intelligent Design declare themselves group of scientists. Would Wikipedia be constrained to referring to them as scientists, even if actual scientists pointed out they were thinly-veiled creationists trying to subvert actual science? CosineKitty (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the status of any policies or guidelines on the subject, but I can speak to my own views. I've said elsewhere on this talk page (and it may be in the archives now) that we should generally choose labels that groups or individuals choose for themselves, provided that those labels are accurate. If Media Matters said that they were centrist or conservative or did not have any political leanings, then that would be plainly inaccurate, so we wouldn't be obligated to (and in my view, we should not) uncritically say that. However, since "progressive" is at least as accurate as "liberal," and it may be more accurate for the reasons I described above, there's no reason to deviate from the label they choose for themselves. This is particularly true given the context and connotations that "liberal" carries for certain people. Croctotheface (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, you have convinced me! :) I think we are on the same page. (See my comments below in response to closing this RFC.) CosineKitty (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Depends. It's progressive. If a cat for that already exists and is applied here, that's the right cat. However, if not, then liberal would apply. So my answer is, it depends. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• From the RFC: I think the main point is that the leaning of the organization is conveyed. Above the NYT and Guardian are WP:RS that characterize MM and as noted it characterizes itself as "progressive", and all three are basically in agreement. Now concerning "liberal" there is the problem that in some countries it means left-wing but in others right-wing. Aside from that there are many ways left to skin the cat. I don't see a problem with saying they have "links to the Democratic Party" or are "left of centre" but saying "progressive" as they do themselves may be simplest. For the reason described above I don't feel the category "American liberal organizations" is the best idea around. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

• The community has spoken clearly and unequivocally (and virtually unanimously) on this issue multiple times. consensus is crystal clear; continuing to act as if there is any doubt would seem rather pointy... I move to close this RFC as a snowball. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with closing this and leaving the article as it is now. The consensus is indeed clear. I am still curious though about self-identification of a group being the primary way Wikipedia should refer to a group. If the answer is, no it is not WP policy, it's just what makes the most sense for this article, that's fine. If it is policy, I would like to see that and read it for future reference. Because we all agree (to varying degrees) that the two words liberal and progressive have roughly the same denotation, self-identification makes sense in cases where the connotation is in dispute. I would hope that in (other) cases where a substantive and deeply controversial difference in labeling applies (e.g. whether Intelligent Design is science or theology), both self-identification and well-sourced opposing identification would be presented. CosineKitty (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally this seems to be the general consensus amongst a loose grouping of articles. I think it came about as more of a common-sense approach than a verbatim quote from policy, but rest assured that over the years the formulation has been adjusted and vetted as editors brought policy considerations to light. Personally, I would support incorporating such into policy, however I think for the most part it's better to leave particulars out of policy unless it becomes a serious point of dispute. In this case, save one editor, there isn't really any question. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper Research

I tagged this section as advertisement for one simple reason. It is unpublished research and probably violates self-publish. I am unable to find any evidence that this research has been peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal of anytype. This is a problem because the research presents its results as a statistically valid study. If it has been published then I don't have a problem, but if not the section should be removed. Arzel (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The television "studies" present the same problem. I find no evidence that they were actually published in a peer reviewed journal of any type. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that says we can only report on research if it's peer reviewed? My expectation is that we report on lots of books that are not peer reviewed in any way. Wouldn't coverage by reliable sources, which exists in abundance, satisfy WP:V, which seems to be the only relevant inclusion criterion? As far as why the material deserves weight, it's highly indicative of the work MM does, and it's been considered worthy enough material that it received coverage in newspapers and the like. Croctotheface (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This much different then a book, this is supposedly scientific research. This particular research has all of eight news hits. One of which is MMfA, and at least three of them calling the study flawed. One source used the study to show that it is not biased. One source used the study to point out who was the king of op-ed (George Will), and one source actually reported on the study. One source is a pay-to-view, so I don't know what they said. The point is, almost noone found this study very noteworthy, so why is it included here? Furthermore, almost half the reports thought the study was flawed in one way or another. Finally, the research was not published in the sense that scientific research is published. It was really nothing more than a press release which they call a study, so again I ask, why is this particular nugget notable? Just because MMfA says it is? That isn't how WP works. Arzel (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are not "again" asking anything; your first action was to slap a "reads like advertising" tag on the section and say that because it was not peer reviewed, we can't include it in the encyclopedia. Again, there's no reason to use that standard here. In response to the "all of eight news hits" argument: first, that string actually returns 19 results, including the separate articles that Google's algorithm included as "related." But the bigger response to "only 8/19 hits" would be "it has 8/19 articles covering it!" That actually satisfies WP:N's standard for a standalone article, as the topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The fact that op-ed writers believe that MM's criticism of op-ed pages is invalid doesn't somehow mean it can't be mentioned as part of their body of work; it means we represent the critical opinion as well, as we have with the Diaz piece. Croctotheface (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not understanding the relevance of scientific research in this situation. Research, within science, is for most purposes worthless unless it is published in a peer reviewed journal. You are correct that that I missed some of the related articles. Ironically, most of those articles (that are free to view) call the study crap and biased. Also interestingly, one of the biggest complaints was that they didn't refer to the left as liberal, they used "Progressive" instead. Look, I am just saying that the section reads a little fluffy (less after my recent changes), and after looking at additional references, it would appear that the msm view is that the study is flawed and biased. Arzel (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the research is peer-reviewed or not is irrelevant to this article. This is an article about Media Matters, remember? We're discussing their actions. Other than the fact that you don't like it, I don't really see what your objection to discussing it is. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS doesn't just apply to people. Arzel (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The report clearly generated reaction and printspace in a variety of reputable newspapers, making it notable in itself. I think your use of the google news search function is inappropriate. if you search for the title of the report on the simple web search, then a much larger number of newspaper reactions are found, and I wouldn't say it was generally negative. As for peer-review as a criterion of notability, a good deal of rspectable think-tank research is never peer-reviewed and is also self-published, so we have to use another criterion, and the level of media coverage of the report seems the best. This article does not approvingly quote the survey as evidence, it quotes the survey as an example of notable Media Matters activity. I really don't understand how you can say that the mainstream media view has formed but at the same time deny the report's notability. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vsevolod's point about how to use search results is a good one. This is the second time that this has happened here: I presented search data as evidence that something or another exists in sources. I could have linked each article individually, but the search string is more useful for someone to do their own research. Then, someone else responds by saying that some other search string returned more hits or did not return hits or whatever, and that somehow proves something. Counting hits really isn't productive, for a bunch of reasons that aren't worth discussing here. But comparing results for search strings on Google really does not prove anything, and my linking to a search string was in no way meant to invite that kind of misguided argument. Croctotheface (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Arzel, you seem to be forgetting that this is an article about Media Matters, not an article about whether or not media bias exists. Media Matters' research is discussed in the article because it is a notable action by Media Matters. Whether you like it or agree with it isn't relevant. Further, your arguments against inclusion (that MM's research isn't reliable because it's not peer-reviewed appears to be original research on your own part. --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Misinformer of the Year

I have been asked to point to where, in the first paragraph of the link I emphasised, it states that misinformer of the year is awarded to people pushing a conservative agenda. The link is here and the relevant bit the first paragraph, as I indicated in my edit summary. Here is the first paragraph, with the important bits in bold.

Since our launch in May 2004, Media Matters for America has monitored, analyzed, and corrected conservative misinformation in the news media 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our staff recently reviewed the misinformation we've identified and corrected during those eight months in order to choose our first annual "Misinformer of the Year."

I hope that's clear. Note the use of the definite article in the last sentence (i.e. "the misinformation") to indicate that the award is given for the dissemination of previously mentioned "conservative misinformation." I did not quote the site directly because I felt it would violate WP:NPOV by effectively citing the MMA position favourably. Sorry for sounding stroppy, but I feel my edits were reverted on the fly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your text is fine; if others would prefer text that uses the precise "conservative misinformation" language rather than "pro-conservative," then we should do that. Croctotheface (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with questioning the wording (although I personally think baldly stating "conservative misinformation" is possibly POV). I just find accusations of OR/synth a bit odd when we're talking about an organisation set up to analyse conservative bias that openly states in the links given that the award is for conservative misinformation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As there's been no reply by the person requesting we talk about it, I've put the edit back in. I still think "pro-conservative" is better, because they also cover attacks on liberals, not simply material in support of conservative positions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)