Talk:Media Matters for America

Liberal v progressive

Could any of the editors watching over this page please explain what is this nonsense about "progressive" being the "correct" term to describe liberal politics? Is this an endemic term? Furthermore, considering the universality of WP, if the term "progressive" has evolved over in America to such an extent as to become the only accepted word, should its use not be clearly qualified so that non US-based readers can understand that it's use applies, in particular, to American political language? I think US-based editors should remember that English has become lingua franca, that there are millions of native English speakers outside America, and that WP is meant to be neutral.--Ianonne89 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very wrong about non-US readers. In the UK at least, "liberal" has a long and honourable history in politics, and means something very different than it does in modern American political use. As a general rule, it is much better to avoid sticking labels on a subject, since that is an editorial judgement, and if a label is to be used at all, it should be one by which the organization self-describes. --NSH001 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the Talk archives where this issue has been discussed at great length, then discuss if you wish to attempt to reach a new consensus. Rostz (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning editors, precisely because in the UK "liberal" is a term widely accepted that does not have pejorative connotations, is that I don't understand why would America-centric editors claim that after reaching consensus, presumably among themselves, that term is not to be used, and is to be changed by "progressive." So what does this means, I wonder, that only Democrats are progressive? That Conservatives, or their American version, Republicans aren't? Liberal and Conservatives are not charged terms, in pretty much the same way of neutral Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, I'll ask again, why the need to differentiate along endemic political causes that are of no interest to the wider world? As a Brit, and native English speaker, I'd say non US-based editors should discuss this and try to maintain WP as a neutral source as much as possible. Until such discussion takes place, I'm reverting to plain English.--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Deficiencies in your understanding of the nuances of a different nations political system and terminology is not justification to change the used labels. Even if you do not completely accept the long standing consensus to prefer the organization's self-description, it is a clear and open violation of WP:ENGVAR to rewrite an article about a US based organization in British English. The simple fact is the UK meaning of "liberal" is not the same as the US meaning of the same term. --Allen3 ^talk 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You appear to be providing original research; sources? If your argument that "progressive" has distinct meanings between the US and the UK/rest-of-world, that's also true of "liberal", which has strongly negative connotations in the US (e.g. Who Are They Calling Elitist?), so that gets us nowhere. According to MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
In any case, it's unclear what part of WP:NOT your undo comment refers to, but procedurally you must follow WP:BRD to achieve new WP:CONSENSUS for this change, employing WP:DR procedures as needed rather than edit-warring - note WP:EW/WP:3RR in the event you're unaware of it. Rostz (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to all. Thanks for calling me deficient, that'll certainly add positively to the discussion, won't it? Folks, I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in a long and protracted debate about US-centric nuances of certain terms of the English language. That great invention called the dictionary suffices in my opinion. The term liberal does not have negative connotations anywhere but in America, it seems, and I am not the one saying that progressive has distinct meaning, rather whoever agreed to it is. Because in other parts the meaning is not the same, I think it would be appropriate to qualify the term, and I don't see the harm in doing so. In any case, none of you have given a clear explanation as to why "progressive" is the correct term to describe exclusively "liberal" organizations, politicians, etc. Perhaps some of you can point out where can one read literature on appropriation of terms for political reasons in America.--Ianonne89 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you might want to read through the archives of this talk page for further explanation. This has been discussed to death and consensus is clear. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Progressive is simply a rebranding of Liberal or maybe a return to the term from the early 20th century because of implied negative connetations regarding the word Liberal. It also allows Liberals(Democrats) to claim that they are moving forward with progress while conservatives(Republicans) are regressive and moving backwards. It is quite clever. Convervatives tried to rebrand themselves in the late 20th with neo-conservative(new conservative or compasionate conservative as it were), but the Liberals were able to quickly turn the word into Neocon, which has a nice bad sound to it, probably similar to the supposed bad sound of Liberal. As a result you have Liberals strongly claiming that they are actually Progressives (a distinction without any difference) and Conservatives have completely dropped Neocon. So if you want to piss off the left call them a Liberal. If you want to piss off the right call them a Neocon. Here is one quick recent read [1] Arzel (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a somewhat oversimplified, mostly incorrect assessment from a biased editor. Regulars here have come to expect nothing more from ax-grinders. El duderino (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is just such a shame that simple things, like calling things according to dictionary definitions, are ever so difficult to achieve in WP, specially considering "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopaedia." WP:COMMONALITY. I have read some of the previous debates, and it seems that consensus was reached among the American-based participants, hence it is far from clear. As a matter of policy you guys are entitled to to be bold, though turning WP into a US-centric encyclopaedia, where only your local colloquialism and vernacular are to accepted does the overall purpose more harm than good. As per implied negative connotations of the word liberal, perhaps in America, certainly not in the UK, or anywhere else, as far I can tell. Though I'd appreciate if US-based editors can convince me otherwise.--Ianonne89 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an American organization, so just as we use American spellings and American English, we recognize the American implications of words and phrases. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argumentation is utter nonsense, this is not an American encyclopaedia.

Unless there is a change in consensus, and there is none yet, it's time to walk away from the dead horse. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with the "American" consensus. So which will it be, an entry amenable to an international audience, or one where US liberals impose whatever current term of their preference, much as their government does in pretty much any other issue? Behold the community spirit! --Ianonne89 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion that the opposition to your desire to impose British English upon an article about an American organization is based upon political bias on the part of those who do not agree with you. One obvious problem with this theory is the same people arguing to use the organization's self description have made similar arguments with regards to other groups and individuals that have nothing to do with Media Matters or left-wing politics. See Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 7#Conservative? for one of my personal examples. --Allen3 ^talk 00:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You may consider it "utter nonsense" but that's the way it works on Wikipedia. Please read MOS:ENGVAR for further explanation of this. American and British English variations differ in vocabulary (soccer vs. football), spelling (center vs. centre), and occasionally grammar. We use the one relevant to the subject (in this case, the United States). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Chaps, I'm afraid you're not getting it: this isn't about supremacy of versions of the English language WP:COMMONALITY, but about qualifying a political term alien to non US-based readers of WP. This has got nothing to do with political tendencies, as Allen3 has rightly argued, but rather to attempt to make, not only this entry but all, readable and understandable to people that are not aware of the evolution of terms in America's political jargon. Thus I ask, what is the problem of qualifying it? Why the stubborn and illogical imposition? What harm can "this organization describes itself as progressive (a term preferred by US liberals) and monitors media ..." do?--Ianonne89 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's not primarily about US versus non-US usage (though less the UK than Australia and the Continent) - it's because we tend to use the labels a group uses for themselves. So we don't call the American right "reactionary", we call them "conservative" even though that's nowhere near the common English meaning of the word. As for "progressive" versus "liberal", in a US context - in terms of usage, there's a lot of overlap, but there are distinctions which are a little more than semantic. It isn't our job to dissect people's ideological claims...especially when the distinction between the two terms tends only to be meaningful on to insiders. Unless we have a preponderance of reliable sources which argue the A is actually "x and not y", it's inappropriate for us to replace self-identification with our own judgement. Guettarda (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't our job to dissect people's ideological claims...especially when the distinction between the two terms tends only to be meaningful on to insiders. Bingo! That's my point, if it is only meaningful to insiders, why not qualify the term so that the rest of the world gets the nuance? BTW, nothing to do with our own judgement, but rather with using commonly accepted definitions.

• This seems similar to the dispute about "pro choice" or "pro life." The use of terms such as these is a way of subtly sidelining your opposition. If you're pro-life, what, does that mean that your opponent is anti-life? Or pro-death? These terms are adopted as part of a political struggle. It is similar to "progressive," is it not? It indicates that the opponents are regressive, or opposed to "progress." I suggest that in Wikipedia's language, when the organization is first characterized, we use "liberal" and link it out. Then in a later sentence bring in the self-description which uses this politicized term. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to the politicking associated with the promotion of various viewpoints; I thought there was a big brouhaha about the pro-life and pro-choice issue I mentioned above, and the pages were renamed so as to not have such propagandistic connotations. Am I wrong?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're wrong. Please see progressive, since you seem unfamiliar with the concept. Guettarda (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say lets qualify the term, by saying "an organization that describes itself as progressive (a term preferred by US liberals) that monitors media..." --Ianonne89 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda answered with a non-answer. I suggest the "describes itself as..." qualification. But I wouldn't inflict what may be potentially perceived as a tendentious parenthetical on the reader in the first sentence of the page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has just decided to make that change, against the consensus in this section. See new discussion section below: Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#.22Self_described.22_as_Progressive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin photo mistake

Just wanted to bring an incident up that I feel belongs in the "controversies" section, story at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/media-matters-honcho-sorry-after-blasting-drudge-for-trayvon-photo/?intcmp=related SeanNovack (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That would probably fall under WP:NOTNEWS. And anyway, it doesn't even have anything to do with MMoA (other than the fact that this person is associated with MMoA). You can count on Fox News writing a similar hatchet piece at least once a week but those articles don't automatically become "controversies" and get included here. It would have to be a bigger issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes the Fox news article a "hatchet piece"? Or, put another way, what are the characteristics of a hatchet piece and where are they displayed in this article? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes it newsworthy at all? Fox and MM0A are at war with each other, after all. An attack article from Fox is not the basis of any sort of "controversy" in this article just as an attack piece by MMoA isn't the basis for a new section in the Fox News article. It would have to be a larger issue, reported on by reliable third-party sources. Or in journalistic terms, the story would need to have legs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. You've asserted the Fox article is a "hatchet piece". I've asked you to identify what makes it makes it such. I'll follow up with asking what makes it an "attack article", as you've now identified it.TomPointTwo (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You're getting off the subject. The point isn't the definition of "hatchet piece" but that it has no relevance whatsoever to this article. But if you want to learn more about hatchet pieces or attack journalism in general (particularly the practices of the Murdoch press, which includes Fox), there's a wealth of info out there. This one is an interesting place to start. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, didn't we already have this exact same conversation above about an almost identical Fox News article? I hope we're not going to have to go through this every time Fox launches another volley. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a part of the subject at hand, it has to do with the reliability of a source. You've casually maligned the source but now you're refusing to back your pejorative characterizations. Should we just ignore your assertions in the future as off-the-cuff and unsubstantiatable or are you ready and willing to back them when asked? So again, please explain your dismissal of the article as a "hatchet piece" and "attack article". Unless, of course, you'd like to retract your outbursts. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Outburst? Alright, calm down. As I said, the issue in question isn't reliability of the source, it's the relevancy to this article (which is none). I'm not going to argue semantics about whether specific quotations or wording constitutes an "attack," that would take us way off-topic and lead nowhere. But you really have to place the article within its proper context. It's just the latest in a series of disparaging articles by one or the other side of a self-described "war" on each other. Fox puts out one of these articles every week or so. MMoA, publishes a hatchet piece against Fox with even more frequency. It's going to continue for some time, so get used to it.

The fact that other news outlets don't find it newsworthy should tell you something. We've noted the beef between the two organizations in the article, but we don't need to lard it out with an ever-growing list of attacks from one side or the other. If something in the future rises to a higher level of notability (ie., if the non-involved media picks it up and it becomes an issue that MMoA is forced to deal with) then we can discuss including that. But this (and similar future articles by Fox, of which there will be many) do not rise to that level. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sean, as usual, is showing the good sense to gain consensus on the article, and I appreciate that. So here's my 2 cents. This one is goofy: a MMfA editor in a personal tweet-which MMfA will not claim as their view-confused a fake photo foisted by Michelle Malkin-who apologized for her mistake. The Drudge photo the MMfA editor meant to fault still may or may not be one of Trayvon. (Did Trayon have a gold grill?) In short, a MMfA dude kibitzed on his own and did not fly it by MMfA first.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting if it was in fact the case that the second photo in the two Fox showed was rarely if ever used in media coverage, and only the first was, and Fox was drawing attention to that fact. That, and Fox's complaining about it, would warrant a line, in my view, in the relevant article. It would seem helpful to our readership to very briefly note such factoids. If we're only talking about this fellow cussing out Drudge.. obviously that is not worth mentioning. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-story of tweets. Agree with Looney that it's a nothing more than a petty attack piece on a Drudge critic. Bringing up charge of anti-semitism has nothing to do with the mistaken photo. El duderino (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaked Internal Memo Whitewash

The section "War on Fox" under controversy is a bit misleading. It starts talking about stuff from 2010, but the leaked memo clearly shows it all started in September 2009. [2] The stated reason in the memo has nothing to do with Fox. According to the writer of the memo, "Simply put, the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more." This is important information to include in the writeup yet the Wikipedia article is totally missing this and more. Instead, the section seems to focus on attacking Fox News. Kinda missing the point of this whole leaked memo thing. JettaMann (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP is about reliable sources, and though the Daily Caller has an axe to grind, I'm inclined to accept the memo as valid. But so what. What happened due to the memo besides beefing up security? Is the memo notable? Did its suggestions become official policy, or were they just somebody from MMfA name Frisch blowing smoke. Who is Frisch? The Daily Caller is mum. The memo is hardly a smoking gun, and including it in the article will be tricky. It's all looking like water cooler talk to me. Good luck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the leaked memo revelations about Media Matters should have its own section before the War on Fox section? It clearly seems to be the whole reason for MM's "War on Fox". Or should the leaked memo information be at the start of the War on Fox section? JettaMann (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, for reasons I gave, and I would acknowledge and account for those objections. As it is, you got a lot of nothing that may feed conspiracy theories, but is not up to WP standards. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not even worth discussing until there is a reliable source (which Daily Caller is not). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the Daily Caller a reliable source? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I would call it a RS, but I just don't see much in the story. Again, look at what I said about it. Those questions should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs)

It's not a reliable source because it doesn't meet any of the criteria of a reliable source. It's Tucker Carlson's attack blog, not a news organization and has no reputation for fact-checking or journalistic standards. Its articles are primarily opinion or analysis and as such are reliable only to the opinions of their authors, not factual material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you have a negative personal impression of the Daily Caller but I want to know what specific material it has published or actions it has taken that are in broad enough violation of the criteria of WP:RS to render it totally inappropriate for sourcing. So far you've simply made declarations of personal displeasure, unbacked accusations of unsuitability and a few observations that have nothing to do with the policy on reliable sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that Tucker Carlson's blog does not have a clear and specific partisan agenda, is neutral, is reliably vetted for accuracy and impartiality, is completely verifiable, and "has a reputation for thorough fact-checking," then you might be living on a river in Egypt. Yes, I have a negative impression of the website, but for reasons of journalism, not ideology. I have the same impression of similar websites on the left. The Daily Caller is no more reliable than The Daily Kos, which is to say, not very. Often these websites aggregate information from legitimate news sources (in which case we can verify it and go from there) but that's not the case here. Are we to simply take their word for the veracity of this information? You're attributing infallibility to a highly fallible source. But to turn your question around, just because you have a positive personal impression of the website doesn't mean that it's automatically a RS until somebody "proves the negative" to your satisfaction. The burden of proof falls on the person wishing to add questionable material, not than those doing the questioning. That's how Wikipedia works, and with good reason.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'll defend the source, but what are you going to do with it? I don't think you can make anything of it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you can look at past discussions on WP:RSN where there is some debate about TDC's partisan angle. The link above [[3]] goes to a page summarizing the memo and giving TDC's spin on it. Where is the memo? Are we to take their word for it? I'm surprised that User:AKA is "inclined to accept the memo as valid." I'm not. El duderino (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a forgery, but a non-entity is more like it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand those reasons. This is given: The "War on Fox" was notable enough to warrant a section in this article. The memo is unarguably FACT, no matter what source. Yahoo News and other news sources picked up the story, and they are reliable. It was written by the Media Matters founder. The memo itself slightly predates the "War on Fox", and quite obviously is what kicked off the War on Fox. So I really don't understand you trying to say that it is "a lot of nothing" and "conspiracy theories". No conspiracy. The memo is plain fact. It is the sole reason for the "War on Fox" which has been deemed relevant enough to put in this article. JettaMann (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it's not "unarguably fact." I have yet to see a reliable source that confirms it is even true. (Yahoo News is not a news organization, by the way. It's simply an automated aggregation of content and sources.) But, as The Artist AKA explained above, the bigger issue isn't sourcing, it's that there really isn't anything relevant there anyway. Wikipedia doesn't exist to repeat Tucker Carlson's conspiracy theories. There are plenty of blogs in the echo-chamber that are doing a fine job of that already. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions so we're going to have to do some hand holding by knocking them off one by one. This memo kicks off the War on Fox, correct? JettaMann (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What questions are you referring to? I just read your last post again and there aren't any questions in there, just declarations of your own opinion. As for whether this "kicks off the War on Fox," no, that cannot be said to be correct. It may be your opinion (again) but no reliable source has indicated as much. Also, you're ignoring the central points made by myself and several other editors as to why this isn't appropriate material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not correct? If you found a memo by Hitler saying "I'm going to invade Russia in September" and then in September they invaded, wouldn't you say the memo had something to do with the decision to invade Russia? I mean, I suppose if you ignore reality then it might be possible not to see this, but reality is kind of smacking you in the face with a brick on this one. And no, this is not my opinion, this is the research and conclusions by the Daily Caller. The referenced article clearly talks about how Media Matters went after Fox in numerous ways following this memo. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Spare the hypothetical. Tell us precisely what would you add to the article based on this source. We have no idea so far. Only this could change my view. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is going in circles. Daily Caller is not a reliable source. And per Godwin's Law, this discussion seems to have reached its conclusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You keep asserting, without providing any evidence, that the DC is not a reliable source. I have to disagree.William Jockusch (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You may personally like it (and obvious you agree with its opinions), but that's irrelevant. It doesn't meet any of the criteria of a verifiable reliable source. Simply saying "yes it does" isn't much of an argument. Maybe you can explain why you feel it does meet the criteria using specific reliable evidence. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The majority of editors here appear to feel that it is partisan, but reliable. In light of that, if you wish to change minds to the assertion that it is not, you have the burden to do that.William Jockusch (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, as always, you can't start with an assumption of acceptability until someone proves the negative. It's up to you to prove the positive. And, as the editor seeking to add material, the burden rests entirely with you. That's how Wikipedia (and basic logic) works. But it's a moot point as there isn't consensus to add it anyway, regardless of whether you like the source or not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lively noticeboard discussion supporting reliability [4]. So, now that this objection has been shot down, do you have any other Wikipedia policies you want to try? William Jockusch (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You posted a dead link, but I know of no RS/N discussion in which there was a clear consensus that Tucker Carlson's blog meets all the criteria of a reliable source for factual material. Anyway, this argument has come full circle several times, Godwin's law has already been broken and no consensus exists for adding this material. At this point, it's just gotten tedious. I see no point in responding further. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's funny, the link works fine for me in both Firefox and Chrome. Anyway, now that Loony has bowed out, is there still debate about whether or not the DC is an RS?William Jockusch (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See [5]. The somewhat old discussion on this topic seems to have ended. The laste poster stated the opinion that the Daily Caller is a WP:RS, with no further commentary. Am I misconstruing this? I add this note in response to the recent addition and then revert to the article. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you're misreading that discussion entirely, and you seem to be basing your conclusion on a single comment by one editor, which you're misunderstanding. In that discussion, it is never agreed that Daily Caller should get a blanket RS designation. And quite a bit of evidence is offered as to why they shouldn't be considered RS. The discussion ends because the source itself was no longer used exclusively in a specific article and was no longer an issue for the noticeboard.

In this case, RS was not the only issue with this material, as you can see from the discussion above. For William Jockusch to suddenly claim consensus simply because other editors have grown weary of responding to the same arguments is tendentious. We don't reward the WP:FILIBUSTER in content discussions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, see my post above, asking you if you had any other objections you wanted to raise, now that RS had been knocked down. I'm sure you reverted in good faith and simply forgot about my post above. However, as you are surely editing in good faith, I'm sure you will realize that you now need to self revert your reversion, as you had 5 days to raise an new objection and did not do so. I'll cross post this to your talk page.William Jockusch (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There's simply no way in a million years that The Daily Caller could be considered a reliable source for anything other than quoting The Daily Caller itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all RS has not been "knocked down," it's unclear why you believe that, but read my comments above for further explanation. You seem to mistakenly believe that there was community consensus to give the blog in question a sort of blanket RS certification (when in fact, the opposite is true). And your belief that editors need to continually raise "new" objections (or by default you get to claim consensus) is just bizarre. Just because you wear out other editors with the same arguments, doesn't mean you "win." That's called filibustering. Talk page discussions often trail off, particularly when the arguments aren't going anywhere (as in this case). That doesn't mean that the other editors have changed their minds. They just have more important things to do than repeat themselves.

A couple of important notes on how wikipedia works (which, frankly, have been explained to you previously): 1) There is no time limit, Wikipedia is not a job. 2) As the editor seeking to add material, the WP:BURDEN is on you to first find reliable source and then achieve consensus before adding that material. This is particularly true if other editors have already raised objections. And in this case the material in question also raises WP:BLP concerns, so the rules are even stricter. In the absence of anything new, it's unlikely that there will be consensus to add this material so please don't just unilaterally add it back in once again. Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Could you clear something up for me, as apparently I am a little thick. Are you still contesting RS or not? And if so, are you saying that you can simply contest RS indefinitely, without giving any reason? And since there is no consensus, nothing can happen, as you are contesting RS? Is that your position in the matter?William Jockusch (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Without giving a reason"? What? Okay, why don't you start by going back and reading this entire thread again if you can't remember why I and other editors object to your edit. As I said, at this point there's very little patience for repeatedly explaining things. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Self described" as Progressive

It seems the issue discussed here Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#Liberal_v_progressive has raised itself in a new way with this [6] edit. While I understand the policy-based argument for the change, a simple Google News search quickly finds reliable sources that describe Media Matters as a "Progessive" organization, e.g., [7].

• I clearly must be missing why this seems to be a hot button item (I try to avoid political articles for just this reason).
• Rather than revert, at some later time today I'd like to update the lede to include the reference I noted and remove the text "describes itself as", consensus willing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It's was weird language anyway and not correct as the self-description follows immediately after that. I don't see any compelling reason to rehash this argument yet again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thanks again for the reply and note on my talk page. The link you have suggested is an opinion article and therefore not sufficient per WP:RS. Do you have any other links that would qualify? If there is no link, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to label an organization as progressive because that is WP:OR. As for Loony's claim that it is redundant, I must disagree. The self-description does follow, but based on the current wording, Wikipedia is calling the organization progressive in Wikipedia's voice, without any sources backing it up. If you can find a source I would gladly concede. 74.198.87.108 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe has now reverted my ((fact)) tag and put in a source which I explained above is invalid as it is an opinion article. He included in his edit summary "please see talk page". However, he has not provided any explanation on the talk page and very obviously has not read my post on this talk page where I explained why the opinion article is invalid. He even went so far as to post an edit warring warning on my talk page, even though I have not made even 1 revert so far on this article and do not plan on making any whatsoever. If he does not self revert on the other hand, I will be forced to seek administrative intervention because his uncollaborative and deceitful actions are against Wiki policies. Cheers 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Before making good on your threat, I would suggest you read the sentence you where inserted the {{fact}} template in its entirety and examine the preexisting citation located at the end said sentence. If you take the time to perform this simple task you will see that it is Media Matters itself that makes the claim the group is progressive. --Allen3 ^talk 20:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Allen, thanks for that. If you look above, you will see I made that exact point. It is Media Matters who calls themselves progressive. That is why the sentence I originally inserted clarified that they are self-defined as progressive. The current wording has Wikipedia calling them progressive in the encyclopedia's voice with no {{WP:RS]], which is why this whole dispute started. We cannot objectively call them progressive just because they call themselves progressive. That's WP:OR. 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your emphasis on the term being self-defined is that it is an expression of doubt (i.e. they claim to be X but other unnamed sources are in disagreement). There has never been any doubt that MMfA is aligned with the Political left of American politics. The only debate has been whether we should use the term they chose to describe themselves or a political label preferred by those opposed to the group. --Allen3 ^talk 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems entirely unnecessary to emphasize that they self-define as progressive. How else are they defined in reliable sources? The "progressive" appellation is by now widely accepted and I don't believe is construed as a biased term in itself. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I provided a reference inline, as well as two more below. Before I add the one's below, do any of these satisfy your concern? I also note again the consensus here Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#Liberal_v_progressive on the acceptability of the appellation "Progressive" being acceptable in the article. Of course, consensus can change, but I've not seen that happen yet. If you are still dissatisfied, may I suggest:

• Ceasing the personal attacks you've made here, on my talk page, and on Talk:Max Blumenthal‎ (diffs available, but they're all right on those pages). Note: I'm not concerned - you're unhappy, and I'm sorry about that, but it diminishes your position.
• Discuss here with other editors to see if WP:CONSENSUS can be reached, and not spread the discussion to other pages.
• If still dissatisfied, we can open an RFC on the topic here.
• Using WP:RSN on the various references I've provided is another reasonable approach.
• Finally, there's the WP:DR process.

Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, consensus on this talk page (referenced above) also supports the description of the organization as being Progressive. Also see a discussion here with the same editor Talk:Max_Blumenthal#Media_Matters, where I provide two more potential sources:

• [8]
• [9]

P.S. To the IP, as I noted in my response on my talk page, please no personal attacks. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

While I find it pointless to continue discussing this with Joe since he keeps ignoring my points and bringing up irrelevant things like WP:NPA (beats me how pointing out that I will seek admin intervention to his edit warring is a personal attack...), I must point out the irony here that Joe keeps bringing up previous consensus in earlier discussions on this talk page. It is clear that he has not really read those previous discussions, for one, because he keeps linking to sources that do not qualify as WP:RS, and that has already been pointed out in the previous discussions by other editors. While I am trying very hard to WP:AGF here, it is becoming increasingly difficult based on this pattern to avoid reaching the conclusion that this qualifies as WP:TEND. 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to summarize where things stand at this point, Joe has reinserted the previous wording of the article ("is a politically progressive") and when I put in a ((fact)) tag, he put in an opinion article as the source. This is not a WP:RS. Joe then brought 2 additional sources to this talk page, both of which fail to be WP:RS (as has been noted in previous discussions on this talk page). So as of now, the sentence is still not properly sourced and as a result the article suffers from WP:OR. I do not plan on joining Joe's edit war by reverting him, but will wait to see what other editors say about this. Allen seems to agree with me above. Cheers 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not edit warring.

• Could you point to where the 3 citations I've provided (one inline, two above) were agreed by WP:CONSENSUS to be not WP:RS? Apologies if I missed that.
• I also don't read Allen3's comments as being in agreement with you, but perhaps he could comment.
• See also my thoughts above. If sufficient comment to establish WP:CONSENSUS is not reached in a reasonable time, going forward with those other approaches would be my suggestion (starting with an RFC here). JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth from a drive-by article watcher, I do not think there are any POV or other issues with the current lead, which describes MMA as a "political progressive" organization. I also don't think it would be difficult to find links to substantiate that. The "political" is a bit redundant though, because the term progressive, when used to describe organizations such as this, only refers to the political context. In fact, are there any other modern widespread uses of this term? Prog-rock. That's all I can think of. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily Caller Investigations

I have read through the article and the discussions and the Daily Caller investigations are not in the article nor has anyone really talked about them here. I plan on constructing a piece in the "controversies" section that at least addresses the fact that the Daily Caller has led investigations against MMfA and unearthed several important controversies (here is a link to the initial investigation: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/?print=1). I realize that because MMoA is an ardent progressive group that we have to be careful of neutrality; however, I think it would be a blow to neutrality if we did not include this. I might be mistaken, but I believe someone already brought up that the current "controversies" are really just MMfA's efforts to bust high profile conservatives whereas if you look at "controversies" on the Drudge Report page--aguably MMoA's conservative equivalent in some ways--there are "notable stories" and then a list of real "controversies."

So (1) I suggest that we change this so that MMoA's "notable stories" are not under the heading of "controversies" (it confuses the reader, certainly this one) and (2) we make sure we cover the real controversies surrounding MMoA, especially the Daily Caller investigations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.152 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because Tucker Carlson goes after MMfA on a regular basis doesn't mean that it's a "controversy." For starters, you would need references from a reliable third-party source discussing this as a controversy, not simply the original editorials that he ran on his blog. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen your replies on this discussion so far Loonymonkey and it is hard to deny that you have a favor towards Media Matters. In any case, it would be foolish and misleading not to at least mention that the Daily Caller has investigated MMfA and if there is a consensus that these investigations have not exactly come to fruitation, then we will also mention that. Also, to counterargue you notion that because the Daily Caller "goes after MMfA on a regular basis doesn't mean that it's a 'controversey,'" I am quite confident that every media outlet with a liberal-slant goes after Fox News every day so with that logic, why mention that MMfA started a "War on Fox"? All I am suggesting is that we separate the "controversies" and "notable stories" and then discuss the legitimacy of the Daily Caller investigations in the "controversies." The fact that this media outlet has colluded with the Obama Administration and the Daily Caller has some evidence to back this claim is certainly enough to mention it in this article.

Whether you agree with their opinion or not, it still isn't notable enough to include here. What's the controversy, exactly? Is it that they were written about by The Daily Caller, or is it the substance of the DC's articles? In either case, you would need to go to a reliable third-party source to establish that this is in any way noteworthy. Also, DC is not considered a reliable source for factual information, so you would also have to have better sourcing that supports the factual claims. What you are proposing is turning a section of this article into a coat rack of criticism. That's exactly why "controversy" sections are discouraged and are gradually being dismantled across the project. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the statement that "DC is not considered a reliable source for factual information" based on? Was this decided by the community at the reliable source noticeboard on several occasions, and that is the working consensus until a new one forms (say the editorial management changes and they have reinvigorated policies)? Where there documented cases of falsifying factual information such that they are no longer trustworthy? Please illuminate this. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is no. The Daily Caller has not been judged at RSN as a not a reliable source. That is an assertion without foundation, as quick search reveals. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have zero involvement with this but Loonymonkey or anyone else around here should not say such unfounded things. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded? It has been discussed several times and there has never been a consensus that they should be considered a reliable source for factual material. They're a political attack blog, not a journalistic outfit. They meet none of the criteria for a reliable source (particularly when dealing with WP:BLP issues which are much more strict). They're no different than Daily Kos on the left; that is, they're reliable for their opinion, and as an aggregate of other sources, but cannot automatically be considered reliable for factual material not otherwise corroborated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You changed the claim from saying that DC is not considered an RS for facts to saying that there has never been a consensus that they should be considered an RS for facts. Either way, if there's no consensus that they're unreliable then the people in the dispute should take this to RSN. The fact is that source reliability differs for different claims. My view is that when we argue we should be specific and precise. For example, provide some links that prove your point. Saying that a source that has what appear to be normal editorial processes is not reliable for facts, as a blanket statement, is problematic for a number of reasons. For example, do they not sometimes provide interview audio for the interviews they do? Or they provide detailed descriptions of the calls they do? Then it would be to suggest they simply fabricated this material, which seems on its face not a credible claim. They are a conservative news website - that makes them politically on the right but it doesn't show that they're unreliable for any facts. Anyway, that's all from me. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, WP:RS was the lesser issue, the bigger problem was WP:WEIGHT. But addressing RS, no, they're not a regular news organization. At best, they're a tabloid (and a fairly over the top one at times). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They are in the White House press pool. There is no doubt that they are partisan, but then so is Media Matters, and it is treated as an RS. The DC should therefore also be treated as one.William Jockusch (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the two is huge. Media Matters for America archives and reports on batshit insane stuff done by the right wing, whereas Daily Caller actually produces some of the batshit insane stuff MMfA reports on. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Political partisanship is different to whether a source can be used as an RS, the inclinations of Wikipedia editors aside. It seems that this conversation is not having much of a concrete impact on what's going on this page, though, so I suggest specific cases of use of DC be brought to RSN by concerned parties. I'm done. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my IP address is showing up as I comment, but just in case I am the person who created this discussion. Sorry that I have not re-revisited this discussion in some time, but I really wanted to avoid this disgraceful partisan poo flinging. Loonymonkey mentioned that we should not have "controversies" sections, meanwhile the page about the Drudge Report is riddled with criticism while the MMfA page looks spotless except for one short quip. It is my philosophy that when you come to Wikipedia, a lack of information is just as powerful as the presence of information. If some third party user were to research MMfA on Wikipedia, it would appear that there are no controversies and MMfA is just "progressive" organization trying to dig up dirt on the right. This is clearly wrong and the Daily Caller has spearheaded the investigations and other sites have reported these investigations also. Just because Loonymonkey has decided that he does not like these organizations is no reason to keep this information from the users of Wikipedia. Now, I really have no idea how you guys generally go about editing pages--ie if we need to form some sort of "consensus"--but I think it is time to put it to a vote or time to start drafting a section for criticism/the Daily Caller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.152 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections suck, because they become magnets for crap. Notable, significant critique (which this is not) can be woven into the article appropriately, but it should not be given its own section. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Another story of Media Matters' collusion with the Democratic Party.

Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press is a notable story and should be referenced somewhere in this article. Here is the primary source, containing the emails received by The Daily Called after FOIA request. Just an FYI, I will not respond to any ridiculous assertions that The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source, considering that it is a premier contemporary news outlet. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)