Talk:Media Matters for America

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)

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)

National Review Mislink

Two editors reversed citation of NR article with mislink wrongly saying it lacked citation. The article contains the mislink, and that is citation enough. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the NR article with the mislink found in the original included:

"If you go to this link, you can read the entire exchange."

As correctly maintained in my edit, the link leads to a transcript of Sept 28, but the NR meant to link to the transcript of Sept. 26 since the excerpted transcript quoted by the NR is from the earlier date of Sept. 26. The NR has neither corrected the mislink or its erroneous assertion that, if properly executed, it would lead to the "entire exchange." Media Matters has thouroughly documented the unanounced and unexplained edits of Limbaugh's transcript and audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.218.27 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK, the above, as explained, is clearly evident in the original and absolutely correct, but it relies on my analysis without a source. No reliable sources seem to have caught the errors, and no comments attend the NR article, it's not for inlcusion. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.218.27 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I was about to formally raise the issue of WP:SYN/WP:V/WP:Undue but you have already seen the light. As long as I'm commenting, this article appears to contain a fair amount of coatracking for MMfA opinion rather than content on MMfA itself. I think this needs addressing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was premature in my assessment as the content still appears in the article. That MMfA attempted to make an issue of the alleged NR "gaffe" inre the completeness of the transcript is unsupported by third-party sourcing that would satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE. This article is not supposed to be a coatrack of MMfA opinion. The current content is unsupported and should be deleted if adequate third-party sourcing is not provided. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the idea is that this is all a little too much paid to a minor affair, I'm all for editing the section down to the key facts, rather than documenting the disputes about the facts. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

...and I'm for demonstrating that all content within the entire section rises to meet WP:V/WP:UNDUE with requisite third-party sourcing. Even assuming this content could cross that threshold, {{content}} looms as well. Why is this content relevant in an article that is supposed to be ABOUT MMfA, not their opinions? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What opinions? Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Opinions/ JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) assertions of fact...take your pick. You should demonstrate, with third party sourcing, that content is adequately attributable to reliable sources other than MMfA itself. IOW, what other reliable sources gave a hoot about MMfA's assertion of Limbaugh's purported chicanery and made note that would raise this content to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE?

However, that's even a cart before the horse. Why is this content appropriate for an article that is supposed to be ABOUT MMfA? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One question at a time, please. I'm concerned that my edits may have left in MMfA's opinions, and I want to know what they are specifically. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All fixed. Now you can deal with assertions of fact. Better yet, why is this content relevant? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To take a suggestion literally, I'll select the term "opinions" without expecting any objection from the grantor of this perogative. Now, to "deal with" the alleged, but so far unspecified opinions: I will need to know what is being alluded to - but in detail. With that done, by the one has made an issue of opinions twice, or by anyone else wishing to be helpful, improvements are possible. My attempted close reading and sleuthing for opinions have so far come up empty. In any case, it would be good to have my now thrice made inquiry regarding this begged for question addressed satisfactorily. Since opinions parading as fact simply have to go, there may be neither a cart or a horse to place or talk about. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Recent Controversy deletions

Deleted: Tax exempt status. Citation has nothing about Gibons "questioning" tax statue. The citation of Mark Levin is actually a link to the news agregator Newsbusters which has a link another site which links to a video of Levin calling MMfA "brown shirts" while questioning their tax status - waaayy outside of reliable source territory. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Newsbusters reference specifically mentions the questioning of their status as a nonpartisan organization, and points to an audio clip of Levin questioning their tax-exempt status. I also added another reference questioning their tax-exempt status. Drrll (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Newbusters only mentions/reports, without comment, that Mark Levin, an unreliable source(see above), questions the status, and the added citation seems to view Levin as a demagogue, so they have no part in the questioning of tax exempt status themselves. It is unclear as to why York is included since he in no way brings up the issue of whether MMfA should have tax exempt status.

Conservative reception should not be a vehicle for fringe positions. The Progressive Reception section, while weak and probably a good candidate for removal as well, doesn't sink that low. Mr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comments by Newsbusters aren't required to source that Levin questioned the tax-exempt status. Nor does it matter how MMfA characterizes Levin to source his comments about the status. York does question the validity of MMfA's status. The very title/subtitle of the article questions about how political MMfA is: "Media Matters: We’re Not Political: That's what they say. But a look at the record shows otherwise." Then, within the article: "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."

Levin, while conservative, is hardly fringe. He is published regularly by National Review, has 7 1/2 million regular listeners to his radio show, and has published a book with well over 1 million copies. Molly Ivins was much more fringe than Levin. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The other edits involve trims, clarifications, and placement issues. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.156.201 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Suggested removal of minor controversies

The O'Reilly and AIM paragraphs covers controversies that barely deserve the designation. They did not reach broad circulation or become consequential as did the controversies with Limbaugh and Imus. Seeing them go would be an improvement. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ironically that describes almost all of the citations to MMfA on other pages. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, completely. You want to remove those trivial "controversies" as well? Rapier (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The Limbaugh affair, though silly, got widespread,national attention while Imus lost his show. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deleted Kincaid and O'Reilly controversiesy. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reverted back to previous edition. Mr. Anon, you deleted nearly 20% of an article less than a day after you brought it up based on your opinion this information was not needed, after two other editors disagreed with you. Sorry, but just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to blank it. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. I suggest you go back and read the policies and proceedures. Rapier (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the Kincaid controversy is definitely questionable for inclusion. As I've said before, I think that it's notable (in the plain English sense, not the WP:N sense) in that it's a fairly strong criticism...yet I don't know that it's received coverage in secondary sources. I'm not an absolutist with respect to considering secondary sourcing either necessary or sufficient to include material, but as time goes on and Media Matters becomes more established, episodes like this one tend to decline in significance. One odd habit of WP is the inclusion of material that was newsworthy for a time but has little overall significance to the article. This looks like it might be one of those.

Regarding O'Reilly, that's certainly a major episode with respect to MM, so it should go in. However, the current version focuses more on O'Reilly's difference of opinion and criticism than in the role that MM played in reporting on O'Reilly's original comments. The article could certainly be rewritten to increase the focus on the non-criticism stuff. Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever opinion any single editor may have, it is very important to note Croc's previous point: What we have in this article currently is the result of literally months of heated debate and compromise. Substantial edits need to be well thought out, based on verifiable facts, and agreed upon by consensus. This isn't something that will occur in a matter of hours, as people have real lives and don't live and die waiting next to their computers to be able to make edits on Wikipedia. A reasonable amount of time would be 7 days with no replies or with only strong support. This allows the vast majority of potential editors the opportunity to be able to voice their opinion, and nobody can claim they weren't given a chance to reply. Please keep this in mind. Rapier (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

General Reception

If this section seems sparse, that's because it was originally. Removal of tangental Rothenberg citation and placing the of Jeff Gannon scandal in its own section had their affect of made this more apparent. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unless someone wants a more substantialy developed General Reception section beyond the current progressive approbation of the site, it should go since it's not much at the moment. Mr Anon — 69.228.156.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think there should be a separate section for "Reception" that includes progressive reception, conservative reception, and analyst Rothenberg's comments (no need for subsections, since each part is so small). The notable postings needs its own section. Drrll (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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