Jump to content

Talk:Mark Levin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m corrected typo
Line 87: Line 87:


The "conspiracy theory" language ought to be restored. That would be consistent with [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The "conspiracy theory" language ought to be restored. That would be consistent with [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::The "conspiracy heading" should not be restored. What [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) is attempting to do is to marginalize and prejudice Mr. Levin's positions and statements by characterizing them as "conspiracy theories" and "fringe" beliefs. By leaving the neutral title as simply "Deep State", readers can make up their own minds about the positions.-[[User:JohnTopShelf|JohnTopShelf]] ([[User talk:JohnTopShelf|talk]]) 19:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::The "conspiracy theory" language should not be restored. What [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) is attempting to do is to marginalize and prejudice Mr. Levin's positions and statements by characterizing them as "conspiracy theories" and "fringe" beliefs. By leaving the neutral title as simply "Deep State", readers can make up their own minds about the positions.-[[User:JohnTopShelf|JohnTopShelf]] ([[User talk:JohnTopShelf|talk]]) 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:40, 11 July 2019

Omitting that Lord and Coyne are conservative partisans

One editor keeps making changes that obscures that Jeffery Lord and John Coyne are conservative partisans. Failing to note this misleads readers into thinking Levin's 2019 book has received mixed reviews when in fact it's been panned by nonpartisan reviewers in reliable sources but lauded by partisans in non-reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the text omits that Lord and Coyne are conservative partisans, then the reviews do not belong at all in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, can you please instruct Dcflyer to abide by WP:BRD? The editor refuses to engage on the talk page and keeps edit-warring newly added content into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The one-sided bias advocated in editing this article is amazing. Multiple editors have attempted to balance the content. Not just DCflyier. Yet, instead, this article is becoming more and more a one-sided hit piece. What ever happened to NPOV? Does it not apply to this article? Tag-teaming, to claim a one-sided POV is acceptible, is not how WP is supposed to be. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very very coincidentally, Mark Levin is complaining about this.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levin's military service?

Why do the unanswered questions about Levin's military service keep disappearing? 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

He is nicknamed “the great one”

Some user named snooogams or somthing took out that he was nicknamed the great one. That is an actual nickname away, and you would know that if you took the time to look it up before you remove content that might “offend you“. Just because you disagree with this man does not mean he cannot be nicknamed “the great one”. Hopscootchica (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DcFlyer's edits

DcFlyer can make the case for his recent edits here. I reverted the edits that add statements by Levin from a C-Span interview (unclear why these statements are notable - we should use reliable secondary sourcing) and give a misleading impression that the NPR review was mixed when it was scathingly critical. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede should cover his pro-Trump commentary

Including his promotion of Obama wiretapping conspiracy theories and criticisms of the Russia probe. A substantial part of the body is devoted to this, and it's part of his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep state "conspiracy theories"

Sources that say Levin pushes conspiracy theories about the Deep State:

  • The Atlantic: "Levin and Breitbart’s conspiracy theory"[2]
  • TIME: "Most references from the President himself have been more subtle, alluding to conspiracy theories, like Saturday’s tweet-storm accusing Obama — without any evidence — of wiretapping Trump Tower before the election... Breitbart, the far-right website Bannon used to run, has published numerous articles about an alleged “Deep State” aligned against Trump, including one recapping conservative radio host Mark Levin’s theory that Obama loyalists are waging a “silent coup” against Trump. That article was widely speculated to be the source of Trump’s wiretapping accusation against Obama."[3]
  • WaPo: "the administration conceded that the president was basing his claim not on closely held information, but on a Breitbart News story quoting the conservative radio host and author Mark Levin... But in conservative media, where the claim originated, Trump has gotten credit for cracking open a plot by a “deep state” of critics and conspirators to bring down his presidency. And the perpetrator is former president Barack Obama...
  • ABC Australia: "The question is whether the conspiracy is real or just an unsubstantiated theory... Breitbart's senior editor-at-large Joel B Pollak laid out conservative radio host Mark Levin's case that a "silent coup" was taking place. The article claimed the Obama administration ordered surveillance on Mr Trump prior to the election... However, the claims regarding surveillance by the Obama administration remain unverified and unsubstantiated."[4]

The "conspiracy theory" language ought to be restored. That would be consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "conspiracy theory" language should not be restored. What Snooganssnoogans (talk) is attempting to do is to marginalize and prejudice Mr. Levin's positions and statements by characterizing them as "conspiracy theories" and "fringe" beliefs. By leaving the neutral title as simply "Deep State", readers can make up their own minds about the positions.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]