Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pace of editing changes

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the editing changes made by the anonymous editor, does anyone else believe that the pace of the editing needs to slow down considerably? Drrll (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have no intent to step in front of this runaway-train editing by what appears to be an SPA with a rather coquettish approach to discussion. Comment in talk - wait 10 minutes (if that long) - declare consensus - edit. Rather amusing actually. There's always plenty of time for post-storm assessment and before/after comparatives are only a few clicks away...as well as total reversion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there Drrll. Rapier (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, this kind of editing practice won't win Mr Anon (m)any friends here. Especially at a potentially contentious article like this one, editors should be aware that material often reflects a compromise that was laboriously hashed out over a long period of time. Now, some of the changes made seem reasonable enough to me. For one, do we really need to quote entire paragraphs of our sources? General practice is just to cite them, right? The Byron York article in particular, considering that it was published by the National Review, seems kind of suspect to quote at length in a footnote. Croctotheface (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem in slowing down with deletions. Now, can we all agree the Mark Levin and the whole tax exempt issue is without merit for well and patiently explained reasons? Expecting no objection, I've deleted that. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you offered time for there to BE objections... Soxwon (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Anon, I have already objected earlier. Please see and respond to my comments above in the Recent Controversy deletions section. BTW, you can still be anonymous and use a Wikipedia user name (perhaps as Mr Anon?). Also, please sign your Talk comments by adding four tildes (~) to the end of your comments. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My fault for not catching the posted objection. But I'm surprised to hear that Levin, after pointing out that he called Media Matters "brown shirts" and "a criminal enterprise" is not on the fringe. I added those accusations to Levin's lame and weak challenge to their tax exempt status? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The "brown shirts" comment was not directed at Media Matters. We could add his "criminal enterprise" hyperbole, but it's not leveled upon them by others, unlike the tax-exempt question. Drrll (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was in error regarding the brown shirts and made correction. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Byron York and MMfA's tax status

Here are quotes, per the citation, that show York making no such assertion, but merely drawing the distinction the Media Matters claims to be non-political are false, but he fails to find why their tax exempt status is in need of revision. He essentially has no opinion and only noted that others do.

Byron York noted:

Indeed, Media Matters has to be nonpartisan, if not nonpolitical. It is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable institution, meaning it is tax exempt and that contributions made to Media Matters are fully tax deductible. In a feature of the tax code that benefits groups on both the left and right, a contribution to Media Matters is as tax deductible as a contribution to the Salvation Army or the Red Cross.

York conclude with this:

Despite its political strategy, and its political orientation, it’s entirely possible that Brock and Media Matters are operating entirely within the laws that govern such institutions. Those laws have been used, and exploited, for many years by groups on both sides of the political divide. But is Media Matters, as it claims, not political? Not by a long shot.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's true that York, unlike Levin, doesn't say that their tax-exempt status needs to be challenged. He does raise the question, however, of whether they, like many other groups on the left and right, are too political to be tax-exempt. That fits in with the wording I most recently had in the article: "...and Byron York of National Review have questioned whether Media Matters is too political for its status as a tax-exempt nonpartisan organization." Drrll (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

York acknowledged that MMfA may well be "operating within the laws". What he thought about tax exempt status in general is beyond the scope of this article and a little vague since he makes no call to amend tax code. So rather than parse York's copy, and quickly end up in the ditch of semantics, i.e. is "exploited" a neutral word or one of condemnation, I've added York's views in detail since the earlier summarization leads to arguments. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to include the "entirely possible that Brock and Media Matters are operating entirely within the laws" without including his premise of the article, which is the question of of whether MMfA is too political to be a tax-exempt organization. I say include them both. As far as the other stuff you've added to the paragraph, I don't see the point in including the unrelated comment about Brock there, but more importantly, York did not say "that a tax exempt organization can be political as long as they are not partisan"--he says that MMfA MAY be entirely lawful and that many organizations, including MMfA, "exploit" the law. Drrll (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the " "operating within the laws" and included other quotes of York's. I hope they make clear where he stands, and doesn't stand. Also added more at start of paragraph to make clear that York and Levin have very different opinions of Media Matters lawfulness. Mr Anon

Proposing moving "Tax exempt status to above general reception. It's not really a reception issue as it is a legal one, and it doesn't seem to been a widespread controversy. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Mr Anon

As Mr Anon, I've been editing Wiki articles for some time, and this is the first controversial article I have approached, besides the Alcoholics Anonymous article, which doesn't approach the greater level of apprehension given to Media Matters edits. I appreciate the mild and patient comments and edits of other editors which have been helpful.

In the interest of allowing other editors to better evaluate recent edits, and as I already said do and have already done so, I've stopped making deletions. Furthermore, I'm planning to stop adding and augmenting content, to, again, allow other editors time. But also because the improvements I wished for have mostly come about. Well, except for the leaving in of the AIM controversy, which I just don't get why it is included, since it received little notice elsewhere, as well a better accounting of the O'Reilly controversy to give an idea of what's at issue. In my view, it's a lot of nothing over clumsy wording by O'Reilly that drew more offense than it should have. The controversy seems to be over whether comments were presented out of context or not.

Recently added and restored (I believe SeanNovak mistook my additions for deletions, and I've posted on his Talk page an explanation for my restoration) my augmentation and improvement of General Reception. The Steinberg article contained additional material which, when added, made the text following the heading General Reception to actually better reflect what is the general reception of Media Matters taking care to note criticisms beyond idealogical.

The issue of MMfA's tax exempt status has been well discussed and I appreciate and have attempted to take into account points made by other editors, especially when they noted when I was wrong. Consequently, I've added to this section relevant overall views of Mark Levin via a vis MMfA. Also regarding tax exempt status. In my view, Levin is an emotional, fringe source, who due to a lack of consensus on this, needs to be left in the article. Levin is greatly bettered by York in interpreting the tax code. In that regard, I have tried to make clear what Byron York's position was by adding quotes of his and avoiding the contentious summation that he had questioned the status. I think quoting him accurately, but not at too much length, lets the reader easily decide what York meant. This should satisfy differing perceptions of what York intended, while establishing that Levin and York are not in agreement as to MMfA's lawful tax status.

The Don Imus controversy was improved by adding more detail, including the apology and suspension as well as the role of advertisers to show how great a controversy it was.

Earlier edits on the Rush Limbaugh controversy made more clear what happened and added RL's explanation to the National Review of his motives in editing the transcript at issue. If someone could find and include reliable sources explaining why this controversy is a little silly, it would improve the section. For the Kincaid controversy section, which, to be candid, in its earlier form poorly described the issue and the dialog, I clarified by adding more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for delaying edit stoppage so I could add more to the Tax exempt status issue and remove disputed inclusion. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Do we really need to discuss this?

Obviously it should be mentioned that Dr. Whats-her-name used the word "nigger" in the context of a discussion of that very word. An IP keeps removing that info without a non-ambiguous reason given.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits make/made it unmistakable: readers can read quotes from a discussion regarding usage of a word and know that there was a discussion without needing to be told so. With my edits, the readers can also also deduce that Schlesinger thought that she should be able to say "nigger, nigger, nigger", which she justified with the offensive over-generalization that "Blacks guys say [nigger] all the time." Also, making it appear that the discussion was on only one topic is misleading; other related topics, such as interracial marriage and more subtle offensive forms of dialog between blacks and whites, were at issue: another reason to avoid bloating the section with sign posting. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Editors should be told the context of the quote without having to look up the conversation elsewhere to find that out. The discussion was about the word nigger when she used the word nigger, not telling the reader that and solely telling them "She had a conversation with a black woman where she began using nigger repeatedly, despite the woman's objections, and then said Black people do it all the time" is a gross mischaracterization. Her comment on interracial marriage is already added.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this section so long? It is twice as long here as it is on her article. Arzel (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the IP just keeps adding and adding and adding...Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this section belongs at all. First, it violates WP:WEIGHT. Second, it says MMfA published the transcript, but so what, no connection is made between what MMfA did and what Dr.S did. WP:SYN problem? I recommend removing the entire section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr Laura herself singled out MMfA because they broke to story and, in her view, did the most to, violate her First Amendment right. In short she blamed them primarily for her troubles.69.228.156.201 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Okay. What is the WP:RS for that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As to weight. Others have advised Wiki arguments relying on vague, pipelined citation of Wiki policies. If there is no greater issue bedeviling America than race relations preceding it's founding up to the present, I wouldn't know of it. One of the most popular radio host in the U.S. plans to quit her show due to MMfA. It is not a minor matter, and a Pokeman argument will not make it so. 69.228.156.201 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

"As to weight. Others have advised Wiki arguments relying on vague, pipelined citation of Wiki policies."

Not a justification for your actions, saying others do it too.

Instead of reporting the whole controversy here, it should be mentioned somewhere else in the article that they broke the controversy and then a link added to Laura's(can't spell her last name) page.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised to learn that I have relied on "vague, pipelined citation of Wiki policies" in addressing the issue of weight. It would have been better to address what I actually have relied upon: my specific arguments for giving it weight. The Pokeman reference, if disregarded lessens none of my rationale. A reminder, the longstanding section is for MMfA generated controversies, and if Dr Laura's mess doesn't belong, then none the others do. BTW, Dr Laura's page regarding the incident is atrocious and shoddy. Somebody (besides me, who is only interested in MMfA issues of significance) should try and help out.69.228.156.201 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

"A reminder, the longstanding section is for MMfA generated controversies, and if Dr Laura's mess doesn't belong, then none the others do." You said it, let's start cutting. I think the Bill O'reilly section is a good section to show how these sections should be appropriately weighted here, instead of going into every little detail about a controversy covered on another Wikipedia page the focus is on MMfA breaking the story and if the respondents made a response to MMfA then including that and MMfA's counter response. Most of these controversies go way into detail and that is certainly no reason to just keep allowing the inclusion of ridiculously long and negative pov narratives of the controversies.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass truncation of Dr Laura section

Mass deletions of cited material reliant on vague pipelined references to Wiki policies, lead to edit wars, especially when there is disregard of an active dialog on the MMfA Talk page holding my arguments the significance and inclusion of the Dr Laura controversy vis a vis MMfA. Since the MMfA Wiki page is watched by cooler heads, it might be good to wait for them to speak.

The editor of the current section announced intention was to only mention that Media Matter's broke the controversy, and then link to Dr Laura's page. But the section nowh inexplicably contains the Laura's - completely irrelevant to MMfA - defense and her incredibly high regard for herself, while giving no clue as to the scale of the controversy. BTW, the N-word controversy was documented no differently or extensively than the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy.69.228.156.201 (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Then it is undue weight at the Rush Limbaugh section. The only relevancy to this section here on the MMfA page is to show that MMfA broke the story and that Laura specifically mentioned them and stated her reasons for quitting in relationship to them. I left out her criticizing MMfA, and put in her most neutral comment regarding MMfA as well as her reason for retiring. Perfectly neutral.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be concise. It's not necessarily an issue of WP:WEIGHT per se, but an issue of editorial judgment and use of WP:Summary style. MMfA has, by its very nature as a self-declared "fact-checker of conservative misinformation", been involved in many controversies, so the summaries should be as brief as possible, linking out to other articles as appropriate. This edit was an improvement, IMO, shedding many of the specifics, reducing it to a brief summary, and linking to the Schlessinger article. The follow-up edits by Wikiposter0123 and BigK_HeX, leading up to here, further improved this subsection. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've further copyedited that subsection here, and replaced a couple relevant citations. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, Kenosis. I said before to remove the section, but now it should stay in, and thanks again to Kenosis. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite welcome. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this rendition as well.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying "N-word" only only for the advantage Dr L and her supporters, and that of no one else. Added material specific to MMfA, especially DR L's accusation that MMfA's call for a boycott deprived her of her civil rights. I'm not aware of any legal arguments that support her, but if there is one, it should be included. It is a serious direct - or indirect - charge against MMfA that Sarah Palin has also very publically agreed with and promoted, thus very much making it a part of the controversy.67.124.11.235 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

This section is growing again. It is larger than the section on her own page which is supposed to be the "further information"....which is ironic since there is more information here, and if anything readers there should be directed here. Why is this being given more weight here than one her article? Arzel (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be reasonable to just move the additional stuff over to the article on Schlessinger? ... Kenosis (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That does seem somewhat reasonable. My question would be what IP67 is looking to accomplish here? Arzel (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As an interim measure while it's being discussed, I've again cleaned the section up a bit here. IP67 appears quite likely to be the same person as IP69 (who signed many edits and talk posts as "Mr. Anon"; both are from the same location--either IP address should please correct me if I'm wrong). What I think I see here is that "Mr. Anon" is asserting (and please correct me further if I've gotten any of this next stuff wrong):

(1) That there's a WP:NOTCENSORED issue w.r.t. the n-word (which, by the way, some very influential African-American leaders are calling for a complete cessation of its use, whether on HBO or anywhere else). I have no personal preference, and I should mention that WP:CENSOR is a cherished tradition within WP. On the other hand, virtually everybody who speaks English knows what "the N-word" means. And,
(2) If I understand correctly, "Mr. Anon" appears to be asserting that the First Amendment issue is relevant because Schlessinger is implying, if not saying outright, that MMrA has no right to do what it has done and that she has the constitutional right to say what she chooses without interference of any kind from MMfA.

Bottom line, to me at least, is that for MMfA this is just one of many controversies in which it regularly gets involved. For Schlessinger it appears to have been, according to several RSs I've read, a radio-career-ending development. Which is, in significant part, why I think any further expansion of this section should be pursued over at the article on Laura Schlessinger, not here. Thoughts? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really a radio-career-ending development as she definitely could have kept going. The whole second paragraph can go, there is nothing relevant going on. The IP has argued that this is some significant 1st amendment charge she has levied against MMfA, but she seems just to be saying she should be able to speak without partisan watchdogs attacking her and trying to manipulate what they say. You have one commentator saying this was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights but it doesn't seem a point she has stressed, nor does it appear to be a point that others have picked up on. If she started a lawsuit against MMfA or a boycott with that as her basis, then it would be notable, but right now its just distracting and I'm left after reading it thinking "what was the point of this paragraph".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"she seems just to be saying she should be able to speak without partisan watchdogs attacking her is" Is an inference far removed from she actually said, and the latter is what we go by around here. On Larry King she said "I want my First Amendment rights back, which I can't have on radio without the threat of attack on my advertisers and stations." To Newsmax she was even more emphatic:

"But somehow on Friday, after 32 years on radio, 17 syndicated, I was just nominated for a Marconi, I was just listed top seven of the most important radio hosts in all of radio history, ratings are great, everything's going well… I sat down at my desk and said 'I'm done trying to help people in a situation where my First Amendment rights don't exist, where special interest groups and activist groups can make a decision to silence you. It's not American, it's not fair play."

That should take care of the claim that it doesn't seem a point she has stressed. As to nor does it appear to be a point that others have picked up on. So, howzabout that Sarah Palin?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not notable. She clearly is not levying some charge of illegality against MMfA, just stating that MMfA and other watch dog groups don't allow you to speak openly and freely without fear of having advertisers attacked. See WP:NOTNEWS on why every little comment someone has made isn't included in Wikipedia. Two or three sources does not equate to the widespread and continued coverage that you should be able to provide to show enough notability for Wikipedia.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter0123, point of information: The talk-page convention is to use colons to indent our comments in such a way as to make clear we're on the same thread as the prior comment, and to outdent only when starting a new thread, or, when outdenting an existing thread, using e.g. "{{od}}" to make clear we're still on the same thread. Thanks, ... Kenosis (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, how do you create that line showing that you are on the same thread for when your post starts being to squeezed together?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One initial way is to copy-and-paste the following placed within quotation marks (not including the quotation marks): "{{od}}". The brackets left and right of "od" or "outdent" are often called "open brace" and "close brace"-- on the keyboard they're placed directly above the square brackets second and third rightmost keys on the second-from-the-top row (or third-row-from-the-top if you include the narrow row of function keys), and require simultaneously depressing the "shift" key to engage them. The older established way was to indicate within parentheses something like "outdent" or "unindent", and this is still equally well understood by most. Hope that helps. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ...
Incidentally, the double open-brace and close-brace are used to identify all Wikipedia templates, of which this is just one of many. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :), Although, lol, I know where the squiggly brackets are. :PWikiposter0123 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL as well. "Squiggly brackets" is a much more easily understood name for 'em :-) So now you've helped me out too, and it's back to substantive issues.Kenosis (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What Schlessinger said is all we have to go on, and we are not allowed to analyze, interpret or color it. Regarding "illegality", the section does not mention it at all, or imply it any more than Schlessinger has. It is not clear exactly who she feels deprived her her First Amendment rights, and if anyone should be charged with anything, it's only clear that she has loudly made the assertion that the boycott initiated by MMfA led her to her decision made while declaring "I want my First Amendment rights back."

An editor insisting we shouldn't take her literally (an apparent tacit admission that the First Amendment issue is so ridiculous, and seems to operate on the baseless conclusion that she could not have meant it seriously) hasn't a leg to stand on, unless there is a reliable source showing her to admitting to employing hyperbole. I have many sources, more than "2 or 3" now required - a distinct and unexplained changed criterium from an editor who had misinformed us that the validity of the First Amendment issue is not "a point that others have picked up on."

In the face of a receding goal post, here is a brief list of those arguing what is the status of Schlessinger's First Amendment rights. Jon Stewart (""Who knows so little about the constitution and the first amendment? Who thinks that the way to be a more effective voice for your followers is to quit your job?"), Sarah Palin (via Twitter and Facebook) , NPR, the Huffington Post, the New York Daily News, Philidelphia Daily News, Alanta Constitutional Journal, the Chicago Tribune etc... If that isn't enough, see Google for many more examples. Many of these make the fundamental distinction that Schlessinger is woefully ignorant about the First Amendment, and their numbers prove that this is a notable controversy.

Linking to Wikipedia policies is a poor, and lazy way to make an argument. Please cite the pertinent points form these links, and detail how they bear on the discussion, so we don't have to guess what the argument is or isn't. 67.124.11.235 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

"Linking to Wikipedia policies is a poor, and lazy way to make an argument. Please cite the pertinent points form these links, and detail how they bear on the discussion, so we don't have to guess what the argument is or isn't."
Not visiting the link(not, I've only linked to one) and demanding the one who posted it explain it to you is a poor and lazy way to ignore it.
WP:NOTNEWS:
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion(emphasis mine). For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities(emphasis mine) is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

If you're too lazy to click on the link I provided and read those four whole sentences then I see no reason for me to go scouring the internet looking for these articles you've mentioned but not linked to and only given me the name of their publisher to go on. Don't be lazy, link us to the article.(if you've actually read them)

Please note in particular these lines:

WP:NOTNEWS:

• most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
• Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of ... events

1. Does this seem to have enduring notability? Will MMfA still be discussing her "first amendment criticism" years down the road?

• ... routine news reporting on ... celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE:

• a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable.

WP:WEIGHT:

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

2.How significant is this criticism to the discussion of the N-word controversy, MMfA leading it, and her retiring? Significant enough that half of the section discussing these things deals solely with it?

Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability:(essay, not policy)

• ... the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability.

3. Do any of these sources portray her criticism as being notable?

I have placed forward three highly specific questions. Please answer them in your next post. Also please link us to the articles you are referring to or at the very least provide us their name.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2010

I appreciate the above citations and reasons given. When I did in fact look at them when they were referred to in pipeline form, I could not see how they should apply to our discussion. I now know that they could not, and that my readings were intitially close and accurate. I simply didn't want to enter a discussion having to guess what was being referenced.

There is a presumption of bad faith by an editor that implying that the articles cited by me proving the widespread and prominent notice given to Schlessinger's First Amendment reason may not exist or have been misprepresented. They are easily found via a web search, and do clearly dispute Schlessinger's grasp of US civics. (Ironically, the editor has already misinformed us without the most minimal of reference that Schlessinger did really quit for First Amendment reasons, and not anyone at all "pick up" with absolutely no citation, but has demanded higher standards of me.) Patient and mild and complete refutation has seemed to change the cirterium of notablility only.) There is also the baseless presumption that I had not looked at the cited policies. I did look and found them not applicable - so much so I had no idea why they were cited. (Ironically, there is also a Wiki policy about not making editing arguments mainly by linking to Wiki policies.)

.

None of the boycott's causes and consequences are trivial or "routine", the criterium that has priority per the above cited policies. We are not talking about something on the level of Bill O'Reilly bought a Barbie doll for a niece in Miami last week and signed autographs for all that asked. Earlier I suggested removing the AIM as well as the Bill O'Reilly sections (see "Suggested removal of minor controversies") because they were minor, but due to objections they were restored, a consensus obviously bearing directing on our current discussion.

I have already explained what is notable (not routine) about the N-word controversy, and in keeping with Wiki etiquette, I am obliged to not repeat the particulars, and I will instead only note in summation: a major media figure ("I was just listed top seven of the most important radio hosts in all of radio history") made a major career decision caused by the perceived persecution of a MMfA led boycott that she insisted left her without the right to free speech on tertiary radio (hello, satelite), as major advertisers repudiated her. Because , to repeat for empahsis, her ONLY (not one POV cherry picked) given reason for quitting tertiary radio is her perceived loss of First Amendment is indeed notable - and outrageously wrong (see the Jon Stewart quote above) -, and because it such an extreme example of playing the victim card it's hard to imagine any biographer not mentioning it. This is much like her anti-gay fiascoes which are still in circulation. You just don't say "nigger" 11 times, and then claim the criticisms and a boycott resulting from that are unfair " not American" and unconstitutional persecutions without gaining notice. The second paragraph hardly constitutes "half" (it's actually 1/4 by the word count) of the section. Nonetheless concision is always a good end and I have further attempted it. BTW, trying gain NPOV I was not able to find any source agreeing with the First Amendment rationale and explain how that that is so. They usually note acknnowledge the reason without going into it.

Finally, dictating the form of an editor's response must take, issuing insults while presuming bad faith are all unfortunate tacts which diminish civility - let's hope for it's restoration. 67.124.11.235 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Being condescending and attacking other editors won't get your "points" across any better, especially when your arguments aren't based in policy or supported by reliable sources, just as not directly any of my questions but responding they're "irrelevant" doesn't make you seem like you have an answer to them.

The CNN article you have sourced is listed under "celebrity news gossip", I cited WP:NOTNEWS:

• ... routine news reporting on ... celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

And your response is that it is so irrelevant that you couldn't possibly understand how anyone could make such an argument. Do you really think that is going to work, playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?

To reiterate:

WP:WEIGHT:

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

2.How significant is this criticism to the discussion of the N-word controversy, MMfA leading it, and her retiring? Significant enough that half of the section discussing these things deals solely with it? If you think so then provide a source which discusses the significance of her comment. A joke by Jon Stewart doesn't exactly support that.

Provide sources saying or showing the notability of her criticism regarding First Amendment rights, and acknowledge that the existence of sources does not prove the notability of the criticism.

I am giving you plenty of time to establish the criticisms notability, but if you don't then I'm deleting the second paragraph as it is up to YOU to prove these comments have enough weight which they clearly don't, and which you clearly haven't proved. It is not up to me to prove they don't have enough weight, I cannot prove a negative.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor could use what was pointed out as the correct ratio of the 2nd paragraph to the section of 1/4 so we are not delayed by misinformation. (After recent edits, it is now one the shortest of the reception controversies.) There is a Wiki policy against repeating arguments on Talk pages (e.g. the reposting of WP:WEIGHT) In keeping with that, I won't repeat notability arguments. The CCN citation is a video from the "Larry King Show", and it is actually says "celebrity.news.gossip" (the quotation of the editor's of "celebrity news gossip" is, intended or not, a fabrication). Using a URL to make an argument for classification, and I'm not sure if we want what a webmaster has decided to be in a URL to be regarded as valid and reliable commentary suitable for Talk arguments. The ball is in the other court, and the sources have listed and should be shown to not be notable actors. Because the First Amendment rationale is only reason Schlessinger has given for leaving, it would be an ommision to leave it out.

The editor provides no examples for my "Being condescending and attacking other editor", so I have no idea of what has given offense, and it is very strange that an editor called me "lazy" repeatedly would take exeption, and has offered no apology despite it being pointed that these are insults. If the editor is sensitive to comments that I view as gentle teasing such as "Howzabout that Sarah Palin", I will bear in mind the sensibility that what I view as gentle teasing is regarded as "attacking" and is unwanted. My being called "lazy" has not bothered me, but it is a Wiki issue, and it has lowered the discourse from energetic to insults and a presumption of bad faith. The Jon Stewart quote was illustrative and only for the Talk page, but Stewart is probably one the most important and serious media critic/satirist in the country. I still have no idea why the whole controvery is viewed as "routine" by the editor, and I am very much interested to know what the view is, since I have have already detailed why I disagree.

Since the validity of Schlessinger's First Amendment explanation for leaving the show is so at issue, I've removed it. I trust the informed listener will know it is an attempt to play the victim card. If they don't? Oh well.65.78.153.77 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

I can live with the current version. Lol to your series of weak justifications and blatant hypocrisy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Have it your way, but please take time to regard that insults and vague, shifting attacks are toxic and completley avoidable. 65.78.153.77 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

^^IronyWikiposter0123 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of edification: Irony is a conceit requiring intent. 67.124.11.235 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

For the purpose of other editors not being misled by your cracker jack definition of irony

"An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning." Your comment is ironic because its apparent and intended meaning is to convince others not to attack other editors, it doesn't convince however because your actual statement is both a not-so-veiled attack itself, and hypocritical.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My "cracker jack definition" and the one you quote are in complete agreement. Let's go on a presumption of good faith on both of our parts in this, and let me know what I should specifically apologize for and it will be forthcoming.67.124.11.235 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Reason for boycott call

Section gives no idication that MMfA went ahead with the boycott because they found it inadequate, and makes MMfA seem willfully choosing to ignore it beyond acknowledged 67.124.11.235 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Added more context, including joint statement, and POV word "contended", replaced with "said". Also added that MMfA, et al, called the apology "attempted" - a much more accurate decription than the neutral "noted" Dr L gave great offense and the caller Hansen has not forgiven her, mainly because Dr L never apologized for attacking Hansen's marriage "out of race" to a white man. That issue, however is not directly mentioned in the joint statement, and thereby is difficult to include even though it would document how circumspect the apology was.67.124.11.235 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

This section continues to have more weight here than on her own article. IP67, why do you continue to focus these events onto this page? The section here should be limited to a short summary of the event linking back to the primary incident. That this section refers back to her page for more information is not without a certain degree of irony considering that everything there is already located in this article. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Everything" is not located in the deficient Dr L article, and I have no interest in improving it, but I would certainly encourage others to do so.69.224.150.70 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

George Soros as a Main Contributor to Media Matters

Can somebody tell me in which of either of these two articles it mentions George Soros is funding the organization? If you read each piece, this assertion does not hold. Can somebody else verifies that?

1. ^ a b York, Byron (2004-05-28). "David Brock is Buzzing Again". http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york200405281333.asp National Review.
2. ^ VandeHei, Jim (2006-07-17). "A New Alliance of Democrats Spreads Funding; But Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt". The Washington Post. p. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600882_pf.html. Retrieved 2010-04-17.

Rilixy (talk) 10:43, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Soros is a major financier of the Democracy Alliance. The Democracy Alliance is largely fiscally responsible for MMfA and others. All of his money is funneled through, the second source explains it quite nicely. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The WP article currently says:

"It also has received significant funding from Democracy Alliance (funded in large measure by George Soros), MoveOn.org, and the New Democrat Network."

The first source in the National Review says:

Besides Buell and Hindery, donors to Media Matters include Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., who has contributed more than $7 million to the 527s in partnership with his friend, the financier George Soros.

The second source, an article in the Washington Post, says that Media Matters is backed by the Democracy Alliance, and says w.r.t. the Alliance:

Many of these contributors give away far more than the $200,000 requirement. Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization.

I suppose one could quibble about the wording, but offhand it seems fairly straightforward to me.... Kenosis (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

On multiple accounts you have failed to make the case for your premise. First of all, WP might be a reference to Wikipedia or Washington Post, so please try to expand the abbreviation for clarity.

Starting with the first source, Nation Review, and the excerpt that you selected, which is incidentally what I had zeroed in:

"Besides Buell and Hindery, donors to Media Matters include Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., who has contributed more than $7 million to the 527s [tax-exempt organizations] in partnership with his friend, the financier George Soros." [emphasis is mine]

Donating to MMfA and other 527 organizations that Soros happens to fund makes the relationship mutually exclusive. Just because Lewis is providing funds to organization A and also contributes to Soros' organization(s), say B, C, etc. (in partnership), it does not mean Soros is also making donations to A. The partnership clause doesn't necessarily refer to "all" organizations that "both" support. There is no concrete connection here and the article makes no attempt to specifically single out MMfA as the recipient of "Soros'" donation to this particular agency. The only firm assertion one can take from this statement is that Peter Lewis is one of the donors, not Soros.

The second article on Washington Post clearly indicates that the donations are being given to the Democracy Alliance (Soros') under certain criteria but it does not aver to the fact that the Democracy Alliance is indeed funding MMfA--you are missing a link here:

"Many of these contributors give away far more than the $200,000 requirement. Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization."

The article and the excerpt put forth here simply do not assert this fact. Rilixy (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your posts using four tildes ("~~~~", on the upper left corner of your keyboard).
..... Secondly, huh? . . . "makes [what] relationship mutually exclusive" ? . . . What "premise" ? I've stated simply that the wording w.r.t. this issue seems pretty straightforward. If you read the two sources you'll note that MMfA is among the more notable, significant beneficiary organizations of the Democracy Alliance. Presently the WP article says:

"It also has received significant funding from Democracy Alliance (funded in large measure by George Soros), MoveOn.org, and the New Democrat Network."

So what is it that you dispute? And how might you propose to word it other than the way it presently is worded? ... Kenosis (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you keep reposting the quote in the Wikipedia article as if that obvious has escaped you? Frankly, I don't even know whether you understood what I'm trying to get across from the beginning. Neither of these articles explicitly states George Soros is funding MMfA. I requested the two articles to be reexamined in which you put forth two excerpts from each of these pieces. I dissected both of them word by word to illustrate that such premise ("George Soros funding MMfA") does not hold true. You failed to rebut any of the points I brought up.

The quote you offered from the National Review does state that Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Corp, provides funds to MMfA. However, it only links George Soros as a partner that shares certain funding to the "other" 527 organization [with Peter Lewis]--not necessarily MMfA. That makes the relationship between George Soros and MMfA mutually exclusive. Read the sentence more carefully this time.

The way that sentence should be reworded is to take DA and George Soros' name out of the content because neither of those articles support such assertion. If there is another source that verifies such connection, then be it. Rilixy (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't care whether this parenthetical passage stays in the article or is removed (that the Democracy Alliance, which allocates funding to various liberal/progressive groups including a substantial amount to MMfA, is, as set in parentheses in the article, "funded in large measure by George Soros"). If you want to take it out, go ahead and take that parenthetical statement out per WP:BOLD and see what other participants think of it. But, IMO, the statement as present written doesn't introduce any apparent bias that is inherently non-WP:NPOV. It's well verified, having already been cited to two reliable sources. And the way it's presently written it doesn't appear to me to be an original synthesis, since one source is cited in support of the assertion that Soros contributes to the Democracy Alliance, and both support the assertion that the Democracy Alliance in turn contributes to MMfA. IOW, so what? ... Kenosis (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IOW, so what?

While it may be true, it IS synthesis. Find a citable source that says "MMfA is funded in large measure by George Soros" or something to that effect. Without that sourcing, the content is unsupportable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By "so what?" I meant that I don't see anything derogatory or controversial about a multi-billionaire contributing to a liberal/progressive group--seems to me it's not exactly a "gotcha" kind of observation. I do, though, think it's a much closer call on the issue of WP:SYN than some might think. There is no A+B=C here, where C is an original synthesis, but rather only an "A" which is cited to a reliable source (Democracy Alliance being a major funding source for MMfA) and a "B" which is cited to a reliable source (Soros' contribution to the Democracy Alliance) which is just what the article says. Nothing original about it. But as I also indicated, if you think it's objectionable, then by all means remove the parenthetical statement about Soros. I'd support its removal merely on the grounds it's irrelevant to the article. (IOW, so what if Soros is among its backers though the Democracy Alliance.) ... Kenosis (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording (removal of the content in the parenthesis) although I didn't make the edit myself. Rilixy (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly's opinion

This is a You Tuve video from Fox News that details how soros funds Media Matters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytLUp8Z8Vo Since Fox News is a leading news channel is this sufficent?Unicorn76 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This would appear to be a reliable source only for O'Reilly's own opinion, and not for any factual statement about Soros. And in any case, it would appear to be an uncitable copyright violation. RolandR (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it could be stated that Bill O'Reilly contends that Soros is the main contributor to MMfA, referenced to the April 23, 2007 broadcast transcript. Drrll (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

well how do you reference from a news show. And O'rielley shopwed how Soros conttributed. If Media Matters can be used as a source why not the Factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Zombi you removed the Soros connection, taking Media Matters word is not sufficent. I am restoring.Unicorn76 (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like after the sentence that ends "...through their contribution to the Democracy Alliance .[19]" we could add another sentence that says, "Bill O'Reilly has made similar claims on his FoxNews program," and include an appropriate citation. That citation would probably look something like "Bill O'Reilly (April 24, 2007). "The O'Reilly Factor". Fox. FoxNews. Transcript. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |city=, |episodelink=, and |serieslink= (help); External link in |transcripturl= (help); Missing or empty |series= (help); Unknown parameter |transcripturl= ignored (|transcript-url= suggested) (help)" Whether we link to the youtube video on not, I defer to the copyright gurus. But regardless of whether O'Reilly's rather predictable take on MMfA/Soros is included, we still should not be including him in the list of funders (like this), since it's disputed and explained in greater detail a few sentences later anyways. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First footnote on main page #19 shows tie in from Soros second O'rielleys shows how Soros contriibuted. It is sufficent, please do not delete again.Unicorn76 (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that this is disputed. To present it as though it were not (e.g. for example by inducing Soros without qualification in a list of know funders) violates WP:NPOV.Yilloslime ^T_C 14:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP vio

I didn't really want to have to play the WP:BLP-card since it's often abused, but since other lines of reason have failed, here we are. Note that WP:BLP applies across all articles on WP including non-biographies like this one. From WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." [my emphasis] Soros is a living person, and edits like this one, which include material that many people have challenged but lack inline citation, clearly violate this policy. This does not mean we can't mention the allegations that Soros is involved with MMfA, only that if we do, we must describe the controversy accurately and use inline citation. This is, in fact, exactly what the article does a few sentences later: "A July 2006 article in the Washington Post stated that Media Matters was funded indirectly by financier George Soros and Colorado software entrepreneur Tim Gill through their contribution to the Democracy Alliance .[19] However, Media Matters has stated that they have "received no funding from the Democracy Alliance,"[20] and denies having received any funding from George Soros, either directly or indirectly.[21]" So the article is fine as is: Soros's (alleged) involvement is described accurately, with proper sourcing, and in a way that avoids BLP-violations. I cannot see why anyone would feel the need to make non-BLP compliant edits like e this one when the material is already handled in a fully BLP-compliant manner a few sentences later in the article. Yilloslime ^T_C 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with you on this one. Soros shouldn't be listed as a definitive contributor to Media Matters since at most, according to reliable sources, he can only be said to be an indirect contributor. Like you said above, maybe we can say that Bill O'Reilly contends that Soros is a contributor to MMfA. Drrll (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree Soros uses these indirect ways to hides his involvement foot note 19 is sufficent when added to the YouTube video. Media Matters is not a living person.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that the section already had two long sentences devoted to the question of Soros' involvement, what does adding Soros to the list of funders á la this edit add to the article? Yilloslime ^T_C 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Language in lead.

It was discussed very extensively, multiple times, and went through an RfC. Consensus was to not put a "liberal" label in the opening description. Please see previous discussion (one of many) on the subject before attempting to add this again. (If you don't want to read through the whole discussion, and I don't blame you if you don't, just scroll down to the closing conclusions). Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We should change non partsian to partsian.They do not go after liberals which makes them partsian.Unicorn76 (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a conservative and was one of those involved in the consensus last time around. It was decided that the language used on the MMfA website itself when it states that it is a "progressive" organization that was working to expose "conservative misinformation" was enough to show its inherent bias. Any intellegent person can figure it out. Any fool that can't put two and two together probably wouldn't care anyway, because they would be believeing what MMfA peddles. Rapier (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

how convenient it must be to see your ideological opposition as so clearly one-dimensional. Try this instead: "Any fool that can't put two and two together probably wouldn't care anyway, because they would be believeing what [FoxNews] peddles." The difference is, MMfA engages in actual journalism, you just don't like them picking on the objects of your affection. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If Cato is a "libertarian think tank" why is Media Matters non-partisan?

Media Matters is at least as politically oriented as Cato, yet someone is trying to invoke the protection of wikipedia policy to pretend that it is non-partisan.

This is completely intellectually dishonest and I am willing to go to arbcom over this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.0.169 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Who it telling you that Media Matters is non-partisan? It is certainly not the Wikipedia article on the group. Anyone who reads as far as the second sentence can see that the article quotes the group's self description showing they are a progressive group. What the article does lack however is a lot of political labels designed to describe the group in language used solely by their opponents. --Allen3 ^talk 05:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, they literally call themselves "progressive" in their own website.

Secondly, it appears that the explicit labeling problem exists for Media Matters but not for Cato. Cato is labelled "libertarian" in the first sentence of the article even though they call themselves "classical liberal", and for heavens sake, Media Matters is at least as partisan as Cato. This would seam to violate the neutrality rules per only explicitly labeling right-wing organizations. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I think your violation notice is on autofire or something, I am getting notices every other minute on the same topic. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting out a call for objection here to edit to "progressive watchdog group" using the self description word linked to progressive politics. I know there is no set deadline, just putting this out, will wait a few days. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider moving this thread to page's end, per WP:TPG: "Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can easily be overlooked." -PrBeacon (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Will move it, anyways, notice of moving it in a few hours... 108.65.0.169 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to repeat the same labeling adjective in two consecutive sentences? The word you wish to add is already located in the second sentence in the article. As it is located in a quotation, it is not practical to remove it from its current location. Thus, an explanation of why we need to repeat this label should be provided before adding it to the first sentence. --Allen3 ^talk 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because no other openly partisan organization gets the second sentence self description treatment. Only media matters does because it is a liberal organization and apparently has different rules.108.65.0.169 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the lead for Fox News? They're barely called conservative in the 3rd paragraph because that label is qualified by their counterpoint. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Soros, again

The NYT mistakenly said that the Democracy Alliance funds groups, but the MMfA clearly showed that it is against DM policy to do so. A recent undo removed this citation while claiming to be showing all citations, even though the revert produced no citation from a reliable source accusing MMfA of taking money from Soros. Another revert will just generate and edit war. It would be better to discuss here what is at issue before doing so. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can think I live with your edit here, but I suspect that by entirely leaving out any mention of Soros, the article is inviting edits like this one. If and when that starts up again, I suspect that my language on the left here is going to remain the best compromise. To address your concerns that the WaPo article didn't explicitly say Soros funded MMfA via DA, we might make the following edit: "Washington Post stated implied that Media Matters was funded..." or cite the Washington Times or Bill O'Reilly (see above) instead. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I added that the WaPo stated that Democracy Alliance "was formed with major backing from billionaires such as George Soros and Tim Gill" with direct quotes from the article and without drawing a conclusion as to indirect funding of MMfA. Do you support this formulation? I suppose we could still add that Bill O'Reilly claims that they are surreptitiously funded by Soros, along with MMfA's denial as to any funding from him. I also tried to make it clear that the information on Democracy Alliance's method of funding was MMfA's take on it, rather than a simple statement of fact. Drrll (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I can live with this, but I think what I suggested above is better--it cuts to the chase and avoids the lengthy descriptions of what the various have said. But I think even better would be something like:

Bill O'Reilly, Phil Kent, and others ^{[could add cites to additional examples here]} have alleged that Media Matters is funded indirectly by George Soros through contributions to Democracy Alliance and other foundations. However, Media Matters has stated that they have "received no funding from the Democracy Alliance," and denies having received any funding from George Soros, either directly or indirectly.

(References are in here)

How does this sound? Yilloslime ^T_C 03:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow down

TAAMA has made 22 edits over a 4 day period, mostly within the most contentious section of this already contentious article. This does not allow anywhere near the level of review needed from other editors (I think most editors who see the frenzied pace just say "forget it" when seeing how much work is needed to review the changes in such a short period of time). There has been very little discussion by him of these changes here on the Talk page. I suggest we go back to an earlier version of the article before the numerous edits were made and ask that he limit himself to a couple of edits per day at the most. Drrll (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The edits are well noted in the summaries, have a look at them before reverting. The section is much improved with much more accurate account of how the DMA effects funds going to groups like MMfA (the Alliance is a cooperative that makes recommendations that members pick and choose from to make direct donations. The members are committed to donated in this manner with a certain minimum - which I can't remember, but they are not obliged to donate to all endorsed groups. Thus Soros has not given to MM despite the endorsement). The previous version missed the important nuance completely and made it seem that Alliance made direct donations. Also, citations were fixed, such as removing the POV of "significant" attributed Byron York's citation, or removed when they did not apply- the Washington Post citation. If you have any major quibbles, I'm more than glad to discuss them since I'm confident that my edits were all good faith edits. If you revert, I will have no trouble excercising the patience to reestablish them since they are all proper improvements. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New NY Times article on new donation & connection between MMfA and Soros

This [[1]]needs to be worked into article.--CSvBibra (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Change to advocacy

Media Matters is not a watch dog group it's sole purpose is to attack Fox news.Basil rock (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to describe things are they are represented by reliable sources, not to reveal new truths or to advance things as they should be. As for Media Matters being a watchdog group, here is a small list of media sources that describe them in that manner:

• Associated Press [2]
• Christian Science Monitor [3]
• CNN [4]
• Fox News [5]
• New York Sun [6]
• New York Times [7]
• NPR [8]
• San Francisco Chronicle [9]

Given the diversity and quantity of media sources describing Media Matters as a watchdog group, it appears that the term is appropriate. --Allen3 ^talk 00:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the description that the group gives itself on its own website is that it only watches for "Conservative misinformation", that bias should be made more prominantly in the lead. Rapier (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that the next sentence after "watchdog" indicates that the group is focused on "conservative misinformation," it is already prominent in the lead as the 2nd sentence of the article. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, my apologies. When I looked earlier I thought this information had been removed. Rapier (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:George Soros

Recently the category George Soros was created, and this article placed in it. Looking at the list of his philanthropic donations made me wonder what else would have to go in that category. On the basis of WP:CAT I would restrict Category:Person Z to organizations founded or primarily controlled by Z, not organizations donated to by Z. Xanthoxyl ^< 11:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Eric Burns in lead

Sometimes when I edit at work in my few minutes of free time I make small errors, like stating that Burns was the source for the previous source. He wasn't, he's the current president, and I knew that. I was simply misreading the code of the previous edit. In any event, the point is that Mr. Burn's media appearance have no bearing on the lead of Media Matters for America. Once could just as easily argue that we should be including the fact that Rupert Murdoch is frequently brought in as a panalist for various topics on virtually every network with a panel on the FoxNews article. It may be notable, but it isn't relevent to FoxNews. This is information that belongs on Mr. Burn's article, not in the lead of Media Matters. Rapier (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, if people really want this in the article that is fine by me, but it reads rather strangely. I mean, "the face of the organization"? Isn't that what the President of an organization is supposed to do? That's like saying that "John Smith is a sanitation engineer for BMI and is frequesntly seen picking up garbage at various homes around the city and dropping it off at the city dump". It's true, it can be reliably sourced, and may even be notable, but so what? You don't put it in the BMI article. The President of an organization is supposed to be the face of the organization, and if there are media appearances to be made then he makes them. This isn't notable to the organization, but it may be notable to the President. Rapier (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a big deal to me, but if we could trim it down to "representing Media Matters to news media", I could go with that. Specifying Burns as such is due to Brock being the notable founder, and the target right wing partisans choose to shoot at, so it is not that obvious who represents the organization, if one were to listen to, say, Mark Levin about MM. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but remember: This isn't an article about the right wing's response to MMfA. Simply stating that Mr. Burns is the current President should be sufficient, don't you think? Rapier (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Facts have contradicted me and Brock is quoted in the NYT regarding a 4 million dollar war chest. Go ahead and make your preferred edits. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Equality Matters

an editor has repeatedly added "what they perceive to be" to modify "homophobia" in the "Equality Matters" section, using the most recent edit summary, "Their definition of homophobia is very different from what it actually is."[10] Could the editor or anyone explain the difference the Equality Matters' definition of "homophobia" and the actual definition?   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it is MMFA deciding someone is homophobic, therefore the label matters. Soxwon (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that term could be applies to thousands of topics. The Catholic Church practices what it perceives to be Christianity. The Republican Party champions what it perceives to be conservative causes. Where would we stop?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A partisan organization labeling others with what amounts to a pejorative accusation is different than say someone who is considered authoritative on a subject pontificating on the subject. Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but we'd need a source which says so. Looking at sources, a common description of the group seems to be "a gay advocacy organization". Perhaps it'd be simplest to just rewrite the sentence to remove "homophobia" as it does not appear to be their sole focus.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another option would be to copy the lead from the article itself: Equality Matters is a media and communications initiative in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality. We could add a little of the other info from here.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters' definition of "homophobia" (i.e. opposition to gay marriage, etc.) is far different from the actual definition (unreasonable fear of gays). See the front page of the site which claims the Washington Times is being "anti-gay" when they say Don't Ask Don't Tell should remain in place. I have no problem with Will Beback's proposal above, since they don't appear to use the word homophobia in their description of themselves. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as there is little doubt that they are avid supporters of LGBT causes. Soxwon (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "In December 2010 Media Matters started EqualityMatters.org, a site 'in support of gay equality.'" NYyankees51 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia is more than 'irrational fear of gays' -- that is simply its linguistic origin. In current (extant) usage it describes a range of negative attitudes and feelings, as the WP article plainly says. Independent sources (e.g. [11] [12]) confirm this. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New Mission

David Brook has described MMfA's new mission. They are now focused almost entirely on FNC, and are actively working to sabotage FNC. The change in their mission will require some adjustments to several sections, but rather than making any wholesale changes I figured I would start here with some discussion. Arzel (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is what might Arzel be referring to. My impression is, besides all the chest beating from right wing blogs, MM is going to be more active against FOX, taking a cue from how it has targeted advertisers of Dr Laura and Glen Beck. I haven't seen anything to suggest they will stop reporting on Rush and the other usual suspects. Nonetheless this development is significant, but it is developing. At this point I don't see much being affected than an addition in a few spots saying something along the lines of" "MM has announced that it will become more active against FOX News and its parent company News Corp by... MM described this a..." I doubt wholesale changes in the MM article will result. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Politico" is a "right wing" blog? Perhaps even more to the point, Politico is a "blog"? Sorry AKA, they've long since left that occasionally-used pejorative behind. May I suggest the Wikipedia article? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No need. I well understood the distinction and did not refer to Politico at all in that context. Nonetheless, I can see how a reader in a hurry could would not catch that.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_28#File:Mediamatters.png

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How would NFCC apply to this, and what is the controvery? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow the FfD link (in section title) to see. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberal or progressive

Every mention I've seen in the media which applies an ideological adjective to Media Matters and all the other articles here I've so far seen refer to MM as a "liberal" group whereas the article itself refers to it by the more specific "progressive" label. Is there a specific reason or source for labeling it a progressive group here? If not would anyone object to my changing it to the broader "liberal"? TomPointTwo (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I understand the word "progressive" is used in their About section but I'm not convinced that they mean it in the traditional political sense. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Might want to check the talk page archives, we've been hashing this one out for years. There's a long-standing consensus to use the group's self-description. Gamaliel (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I re-read the archives; it seems to be revisited often. It's rather confusing for a reader who comes across the article after having read coverage of the group by outside reliable sources which almost universally describe it las "liberal" with the occasional "left-leaning". Would you, or anyone else, be opposed to adding "self described" before "progressive media watchdog group"? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While "self described" is technically true, it comes with the implication that while the group uses the term outside unbiased observers may or may not agree with its accuracy. As a result it appears to be butting up against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Expressions of doubt. --Allen3 ^talk 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Using "self described" is better, I think, per the long standing consensus. One problem is that "liberal" has become pejorative, as used by the right wing. And ideologically defined labels are very tricky, as it all depends on where one sits ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"). The model of a political continuum with conservative and liberal as polar ends is overly simplistic as well. See Political Compass and Political spectrum as examples. I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "unbiased observer", or very few of them, since mostly everyone inherently has a POV. — Becksguy (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been editing much lately, but the version I last remember had us quote their self description entirely. The text was something like, "Media Matters describes itself as 'a progressive media watchdog dedicated to monitoring conservative misinformation in the media'." One possible solution could be returning to that sort of construction. I suspect that it may have been rewritten in the current form because someone wanted to get "progressive" closer to the beginning of the article. I'd be against appending "self-described" because it needlessly implies doubt about that description. By all accounts, the description is accurate, since "progressive" denotes politics that are left of center. Croctotheface (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Having been involved in the last several discussions here on this issue I support going back to the "Self-described" qualifier followed by the text that appears on the MMFA website. Using this there is no way that soapboxers on either side of the issue can play games. SeanNovack (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that "progressive", when used in the context of contemporary American politics, carreis an actual meaning; it does not simply denote something as being "left of center". TomPointTwo (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why we should use "progressive". Do any reliable sources assert that they are not progressive? Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. At the same time I don't think anyone here is asserting they're not. The issue, at least for me, it common usage by reliable third party sources being different from how they're identified here. I understand that "liberal" is often used as a pejorative and so some may be hesitant to simply label them as such but we shouldn't let talking heads hijack parts of the lexicon and deny editors their use. I think attaching a prefix of "self-identified" or suffix of "commonly identified as a liberal" (or something similar) is appropriate to clear up confusion and best represent the terminology used by the preponderance of reliable sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect what is going on here is that some journalists are using "liberal" as a broad term to roughly mean "left of center" while MMFA is using "progressive" to more specifically describe their place on the left. Regardless, my position here and in general is that the self-description should always be used unless there is compelling evidence from reliable sources that the self-description is inaccurate. No one has presented any evidence of inaccuracy or any compelling reason why we shouldn't use "progressive". Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that position and I think it's reasonable. Again, though, the way the lede is written now contrasts with every RS I've ever seen on the subject and that's a problem. I have no issue with continuing to make clear their preferred verbiage but, for the sake of clarity for readers, we need to be more inline with how they're identified by independent sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I never liked the term "progressive", it hints at shame an embarrassment in being "liberal." (A weird, relative term. Many conservatives are extremely liberal when it comes to the defense budget, of which they have no suspicion that there can be any endemic waste and fraud they believe found in the rest of government, but I digress.) Because it is something of an affectation, I support adding "self-described", not that implementing that will stop wingnuts who think "librul" should be applied. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like progressive. It is a quick identifier that they are on the far left past liberal, and points out those that are embarrassed to use the word liberal. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you're unabashedly acknowledging that your edits to articles are informed by a desire to spout your personal political opinions and interpretations? Croctotheface (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Croc, that unfortunate line of interrogation, besides being unhelpful, is irrelevant - the matter seems resolved, and consensus is that "self-described progressive..." is the preferred phrasing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Where was this discussion? I don't see that consensus here. A number of editors have objected to the use of that phrase. Gamaliel (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As Gamaliel says, the consensus seems pretty solidly against appending that unnecessarily. But beyond that, my question is highly relevant to the discussion. If Arzel's goal is to use the term because it helps him use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his political opinions and not because it's best for the article, then that's a highly relevant piece of information to have when evaluating the merit of what he says. Croctotheface (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A little history: Way back in the day when this was first added it was done because of a debate I was having with some kid that was insisting that MMfA was "neutral" and didn't have any POV. I cornered him with MMfA's own self-descriptor and it was added then to keep this kind of argument from occuring again. MMfA admits it's bias, which makes it easy for us to state it correctly. It also prevents wing-nuts from claiming that the reason it never rips the Left is the the Left is never wrong. SeanNovack (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Something to think about: If we are to take a group's self description as being the one that this encyclopedia must adopt, than what is the rational in not also doing so for groups like "jewwatch.com", who reject being categorized as antisemitic yet are accurately labeled as such here, from also receiving the same treatment? Similarly, if using direct or implicitly biased wording like "self described" is something that potential editors should not be including in their contributions, then why should the page for Fox News Channel include in its introduction the equivalent implicitly suggestive statement, "Some critics have asserted"? After all, the word "asserted" connotes non-objectively factual content (however true its user may believe it to be), rather then actual objective fact. Were people to claim this to be appropriate simply because it is accurate that "some critics" have asserted it, than I propose we also allow the same wording to be used in the case of Media Matters, as numerous critics have made the assertion the it is a "liberal" outlet. I personally believe that including self-described assertions in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic source renders the source no longer within the realm of what is considered encyclopedic. But if that is the precedent we are to adopt, than it becomes a necessity that it also be applied to this case if we are to follow a uniform standard. The term "progressive" has, at least in the American context, become a de facto substitute for the more loaded (but fully synonymous) term "liberal". Whatever academically significant difference in meaning these two terms hold is irrelevant in regard to the common dialogue. The only reason to retain the term "Progressive" is to prevent the organization from being viewed as an opinion based source by shielding that knowledge from the average viewer by using a term that individual is likely not familiar with. It is not the mission of Wikipedia to consider the effects the information that it provides may have on the subject's public relations (within reason), and it is certainly not the business of this encyclopedia to actively conduct public relations on behalf of a subject. If anyone can provide a reasoned oppositional response to what I have said, it would be greatly appreciated given how contentious an issue this appears to be. Jasonryder1989 (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opening argument has been discussed before. In the case of organizations that are antisemetic, there are plenty of reliable sources that we can use to contradict the claim of a particular anti-Jewish group that they are not antisemetic. In the case of MMFA, where are the sources that contradict the claim that they are a progressive group? We've been asking for these sources for years here on the talk page, and no one has produced them. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

How about we identify MM as most often occurs in RS and then bring "progressive" back into the overall statment as seen on the About section? For example:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal advocacy group(Cite any of many RS) which describes itself as a "web-based progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."(Cite their "About" page) Set up as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Journalist Eric E. Burns has been MMfA's president since its founding in 2004.

This uses the identifier seen in the overwhelming majority of independent, third party reliable sources while preserving the Primary Source in a way that doesn't imply a degree of disbelief. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate proposal or a reason or are you being blithely dismissive because you think I'm a "wingnut"? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. What did you think of it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm glad to have been alerted so early in this discussion that I can disregard your opinion. In the mean time I'll wait for other editors who are committed about voicing serious ideas. Thanks for your candor. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, really, what did you think of it, or did you not see it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We would be much better off being neutral on labeling MMfA and using their self description. Using "liberal" has become a pejorative term, as used by the right wing, and therefore POV, in much the same way as they use homosexual instead of gay, in order to actively frame the issue to align with their agenda. Also, it's not an advocacy or liberal group just because it exposes lying and disinformation, as that's what media watchdogs do, even if it exposes mostly the right wing sources. It's like Willie Sutton's famous explanation as to why he robbed banks; because that's "where the money is". My suggestion is:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group which describes itself as a "web-based progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."(Cite their "About" page) Set up as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Journalist Eric E. Burns has been MMfA's president since its founding in 2004.

Or preferably leave the lede as it was, the result of a long standing hashed out consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed - With Becksguy. That was the suggestion made above — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs)
• Yeah, this is pretty much my take on it too. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed, in that it's acceptable as it is, though I have a slight preference for Becksguy's suggested compromise. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would be best to say that MMfA is described as liberal, since it is numerous times in reliable sources (far more so than being described as "progressive"). The New York Times alone, hardly a right-wing source, has called it "liberal" about 40 times. It seems silly to use in an encyclopedia an ideological advocacy group's self-description, especially without the "self-described" designation (imagine flatly calling an advocacy group that opposes abortion "pro-life" in WP). Drrll (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The NYT was a right-wing source (although the paper is overall centrist) at one point when it supported the invasion of Iraq after 911, and shilled for the Bush administration lies about WMD in Iraq, both major right wing talking points. It seems silly to refer to the MMfA as an "ideological advocacy" group when it's clearly a media watchdog group. Just because MMfA exposes right wing disinformation does not make it either liberal or an advocacy group. The American Family Association and the John Birch Society are advocacy groups. All political parties are, by definition, advocacy groups. Advocacy groups seek to actively change peoples political opinions and force change by various activities, such as boycotts, lobbying, making political donations, petitioning, organizing, and holding demonstrations. The NAACP is a advocacy group, in that it advocates for civil rights for blacks. There is a world of difference between advocacy and reporting. MMfA reports. Just because most of the reported falsehood and distortion chips fall on the right-wing side of the fence when fact checking statements, does not make MMfA liberal. — Becksguy (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NYT was a right-wing source, and the paper is overall centrist...! HA. Not sure where you are getting that information, but I don't know anyone that believes the NYT is a centrist source. Regardless, Liberal is a synonym of Progressive. By there own definition they are liberal, even if they try to cloud the fact with the different words. Personally I find it slightly ironic, since most that call themselves "progressive" are much further to the left than your basic liberal. MMfA is left of liberal, ie progressive. Also, the WMD belief was shared by both sides of the political spectrum, unless you believe that most Democrats (at the time) were right-wing. Arzel (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If liberal and progressive are synonyms, then obviously you'll have no trouble using their self-description. If they are synonyms, why bother changing the intro? Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Becksguy said that MMfA is not liberal or at least trying to make the argument that progressive does not equal liberal, I was just correcting him. Arzel (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And once again we venture into the realm of the silly with someone trying to claim that MMfA is "just a media watchdog group" and is not an advocacy group. When your stated purpose is to reveal "misinformation" from a side that you self-describe as opposide of your own stated idealogical stance then you are "advocating", whether you like it or not. That was the point of putting this stated bias in there. I give them credit for being up front about it, but not everyone is smart enough to read into the sources they use. SeanNovack (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Becksguy, if the NYT is right-wing/centrist, I'd sure like to know what news organization you'd consider as left-leaning! The Times, as well as other major news sources refer to MMfA as an "advocacy" group or an "activist" group and WP is supposed to be based on what reliable sources say. Actually, MMfA does engage in such activities as boycotts (as they did with Glenn Beck) and demonstrations (as they did at the Restore Sanity rally). They also run a sister organization unsurprisingly called "Media Matters Action Network," which plans political ads in 2012. Drrll (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not to get into an argument about the leaning of the times, but William Safire, who nobody would ever call liberal, was their chief editorialist at the time. Then of course, there's the whole Judith Miller affair. But anyway, I really don't understand the fervent desire of editors of a certain political slant to color the lede of this and other articles with subjective opinion. Best to stick with what we have, which is certainly neutral. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anything that says that Safire was considered the Times' chief editorialist (when he was there, as is the case now, the Times had far more liberal editorial columnists than conservative ones, and the official unnamed voice of the editorial page has always been liberal in recent decades). But what matters to this article is how the news pages of the Times reports its articles--and that reporting overall is definitely not conservative (despite the occasional reporter like Judith Miller who was not knee-jerk anti-Republican). The coloring of the lede is what is being done currently--uncritically accepting MMfA's self-description on its face, rather than using the description of the consensus in reliable news sources, including the Times. Using reliable news sources' description is being neutral, unlike using the subjective opinion of MMfA, which is certainly not neutral. Drrll (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How about:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog advocacy group described as liberal [cite any of the 40-odd NYT news articles that describe it that way] that is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" [cite their "About" page]. Set up as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Journalist Eric E. Burns has been MMfA's president since its founding in 2004.

Drrll (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why this would be preferable to what we have. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So then, you would have no problem in flatly describing a group that opposes abortion "pro-life" in the lead of its WP article, since that's how it self-describes itself?? Drrll (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea which article you're talking about, but it isn't anything that I edit. We're talking about Media Matters here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear in the point I was trying to get across, which is how ridiculous it is to use an organization's self-description verbatim in the voice of Wikipedia. Drrll (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, we have an article titled Pro-life movement. Anti-abortion movement is a redirect that points to Pro-life movement. Croctotheface (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Drrll: Obviously the NYT is not right-wing. I put that zinger in to illustrate the problem of unambiguously applying one word ideological or political labels to organizations, and have that label clearly apply fully across the board. Organizations, as well as people, are inconsistent and complex. The NYT somehow veered out to embrace a right-wing talking point on that particular subject back then. I believe it's centrist, or tries to be centrist, even though I know that there are those who see it as liberal. Not that it's important here anyway, as this discussion is about MMfA, not the Times. And to answer your question, The Nation is clearly left leaning. :-) And interestingly, their self description is used as well. — Becksguy (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme

Everybody please review the Archived discussions at [13] and [14]. This has been addressed multiple times over discusions that have lasted months. A consensus is in place to use "progressive", and the orgnizations's self-description to show that it is inherently biased. Mention in the body of the article that the organization is controversial was also done. At this point, please put down the stick and back slowly away from the horse. SeanNovack (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)