Talk:Mark Levin

RFCU needed

I am curious. It concerns me that this all summed up to the statement that Media Matters is a "progressive watchdog organization for conservative information." That really tranlates to me as "media hacks spinning liberal talking points against the nearest conservative target." The only fact is that there is actual information here. There is spewing of poison that is driven by political ideology. I am curious where that is appropriate in a purported encyclopedia forum?

Now whether you are a fan or not, there is no need for the viscious rhetoric that is going left and right. I do not pile up with conservatives or liberals when I am trying to find some factual information. This may be why I look to information from publications like Liberty and Tyranny, as apposed to Wikipedia, when I need to know the answer to a question.

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book cover speedy deletion

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

Other Works

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate Insertions without Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inciting Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Levin Show "criticism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted editorializing

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

Neutrality question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticisms Redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation

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

1. Is David Frum a reputable source?

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

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

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

5. Is the text in an appropriate place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Is David Frum a reputable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Is the text in an appropriate place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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