Talk:Mark Levin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nsaa (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 20 July 2020 (→‎Adding who makes claims about him: -). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mass-removal of reliably sourced content

The editor Springee mass-removed (i) reliably sourced content and (ii) the addition of RS to preexisting text, as well as restored (iii) content by non-RS, such as the Moonie Times, and (iv) restored obfuscatory and poorly worded text that confused readers. The changes by this editor, who is currently going from page to page mass-reverting any and all changes on pages of conservative figures (regardless of how well-sourced and DUE they are), were justified with some rambling nonsense about citations to "Buzzfeed" (despite no citations to Buzzfeed – which is a clear RS in any case) and claims by this tendentious rightwing editor that we cant say in Wikivoice that Obamacare leading to "death panels" is a falsehood. The changes by this editor should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material was added with a three word edit summary, "WMDs in Iraq", that didn't come close to address all the changes made. An experienced editor shouldn't make such poor edit summaries. As for the content of the changes, I object to using a low quality source like buzzfeed and thedailybeast to justify, in wiki voice, that a BLP subject is making false claims. The relevant text is:
During the Obama administration, Levin promoted false claims that the Affordable Care Act entailed "death panels", and called Obama a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer", and accused him of "seeking to destroy Israel".
This shouldn't be even a question. In a BLP any claim that the subject lied, mislead etc should be attributed and should be clear cut. That means we shouldn't accept, "Buzzfeed said..." either. Snoogan's bad faith accusations don't make a logically sound case nor do they follow policy. Springee (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(i) The "edit summary" in question is the title of the subsection that I first edited (before going on to edit other parts), and it's clearly distinguished in the edit summary with a lighter font, as any seasoned editors can tell. I added nothing to the edit summary. (ii) The text in question is all verifiably accurate (Levin did say these things, and there is no doubt except among feverish rightwingers that "Obamacare entails death panels" is a falsehood), and sourced to sources that are categorized as reliable on the RS perennial sources list. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the edit summary doesn't cover all the topics nor areas you were changing. Please review WP:ES. By adding the "falsely" you are suggesting that Levin may have knowingly lied when making the claims. If you want to claim others have said these claims are incorrect because XYZ, go for it. Again, you are using clearly partisan sources to claim the subject of a BLP in effect lied. Per WP:RSP Buzzfeed is semi-reliable. DB includes a caution when used for controversial claims related to BLP. I'm not opposed to an attributed claim but I oppose one in wiki voice. Springee (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(i) There is not a single citation to Buzzfeed News, unless one of the sources is completely mislabelled. If there were one, Buzzfeed News is a RS (per the RS perennial list: "There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable"). (ii) Daily Beast has this qualifier: "Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact". There is zero controversy over the fact that the "Obamacare entails death panels" is false, and that Levin said the things that he's on the record as saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Not sure where I got buzzfeed. But that raises another question. Why did you use the same DB citation twice? Ignoring that, the DB article is in the "Mad as Hell" section. That looks like an opinion section here. Again, we need to use caution when using DB for controversial claims related to BLP. Finally, why did you feel this was due for the lead? Anyway, I don't think either of us will convince the other. Springee (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The material is non-encyclopedic and I agree with the removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the changes? Or do you just instinctively support reverting everything I did? Do you also agree with the rationale that the content should be removed because it cites Buzzfeed News? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ask a deliberately deceptive question when you know that was a mistake I made. It looks like you are trying to play a gotcha game. Not cool. Springee (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Change "summa cum laude" to "magna cum laude". In Mark Levin's own book, "Plunder and Deceit," one reads: "He holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude, and a J.D. from Temple University Law School." Thank you, Martin 209.6.121.80 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 16:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

This source credits Mark Levin with graduating from Temple University magna cum laude: https://www.nationalreview.com/author/mark-r-levin/ At Kindle book location 2289 in "Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future" by Mark R. Levin, one reads: "He holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude, and a J.D. from Temple University Law School." I suggest changing this wiki page to say that Mark R. Levin graduated magna cum laude from Temple University rather than summa cum laude as the page is currently written. Thank you, Martin 209.6.121.80 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per the sources already cited in the article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding who makes claims about him

I tried to first ask [who?] that claimed he is "right wing", but it was removed with the comment "please read the sources". Then I put it in myself and it was removed with the comment "unreadable like this", removing content and quotes. It is a good practice to include the exact citation, who has made it in what source. By not providing the source it looks like something all agree on. Here we have thre left wing sources that describe him like that. Not one conservative have been used to describe/pace him. This looks like a hit on him by some of his political opponents. How can this be clarified. I would prefer that the right wing section will be taken out if the persons claiming it is named.

… He has been described as "right-wing" by Brian Stelter from the left leaning CNN in 2017[1], by Manu Raju in Politico in 2009[2] and by Michael M. Grynbaum in the left leaning NYT in 2017[3] and "conservative" by Matthew Haag in the left leaning NYT.[4]

  1. ^ Stelter, Brian (2017-03-06). "Trump's wiretap claim: How a conspiracy theory got its start". CNNMoney. Retrieved 2017-08-24. An incendiary idea first put forward by right-wing radio host Mark Levin is now burning across Washington
  2. ^ "Graham takes on conservatives". Politico. Retrieved 2017-08-24. Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it
  3. ^ Grynbaum, Michael M. (2017-11-21). "Fox News to Bolster Its Conservative Lineup With Mark Levin". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-22. that another hard-line conservative is set to join its ranks: Mark Levin, one of the country's most prominent right-wing radio hosts
  4. ^ Haag, Matthew (2017-04-07). "Trump's Far-Right Supporters Turn on Him Over Syria Strike". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-08-24. The radio host Hugh Hewitt said the missile launch was "justice for these children." Mark Levin, another conservative host, agreed. "We're proud of you," he said of the president. […] Laura Ingraham, a conservative commentator

Nsaa (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]