Talk:Media Matters for America

A tentative tally

First, it's nice to see no revert war going on. More importantly, I believe 3 wish to use "progressive" without a "self-described" qualifier, and 6 wish to use "self-described", including those, or at least myself, who can accept either. Of course, I may have miscounted, and I welcome corrections. I also may have missed twists and turns, as well as nuances in positions. Even so, the sentiment seems to favor or accept "self-described." I also believe most positions are intractably in place. The only result of more discussion will probably be continued digressions about WMDs, NYT's ideological bent and other topics. Since WP is no democracy, and unless a bunch of lurkers jump in, how do we get the apparent consensus accepted? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to Croc's earlier suggestion?:

Media Matters describes itself as "a progressive media watchdog dedicated to monitoring conservative misinformation in the media." Drrll (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused. The current lede states:

"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a progressive media watchdog group which describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Set up as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock.[2] Journalist Eric E. Burns has been MMfA's president since its founding in 2004."

Where is the issue with this? I'm not being sarcastic or difficult, I've just lost the points of contention SeanNovack (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to clarify. The two main choices seem to be:

1. "progressive"
2. "self-described progressive"

I think positions have been articulated well, and most are agreeable to the second choice. In short, there is an apparent consensus in favor of "self-described." I'm lean towards that presumed consensus, but I could live with either choice; I'd just like to see the matter settled.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anon...nice to see you again, BTW. We usually disagree on things, but rarely are things disagreeable. In this case I have to agree with you in that I really don't care either way. My main point of contention with the entire lede is that I want to ensure that the self-description stating that it focuses on conservative misinformation stays in place. Too many uninformed editors have come in attempting to portray MMfA as a neutral Media Watchdog group, and the only reason that it only talks about conservative issues is that there aren't any problems on the other side of the aisle. SeanNovack (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

TAAMA is right. Currently we are saying flatly in WP's voice that MMfA is progressive--the preferred term that MMfA uses. And currently, that is not even quoted or sourced to MMfA. We should make clear that this is MMfA's description of itself. What would be preferable, in my view, would be to provide a sourced description of how reliable sources actually describe it rather than being a mouthpiece for MMfA. Drrll (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The current MMFA about page reads "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". Adding the first five words to the current quote in the article should satisfy all concerned. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how about preceding that with "describes itself as..." rather than saying it is. Drrll (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The quotation marks clearly indicate that it is a self-description. Any more would be larding up the intro with unwarranted doubt. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be "describes itself as...". The quotation marks by themselves don't unambiguously indicate who is being quoted, especially related to the word progressive. No one has any problem with the second sentence. — Becksguy (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding. In no way was I intending to include the quotation marks In the lede, I was trying to present the two apparent choices. Moreover, just to be clear, I agree that it would be POV to employ the q marks. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lede, deletion of content

I reverted a recent change that both altered the wording in the lede and removed content from the body of the article. The changes were related to the preceding debate, but I don't believe there was a consensus for all of the changes.

The use of "media watchdog" in the lede has been discussed earlier and I did not see consensus for changing it to "research and information center".

While some of the paragraph that was deleted was "redundant" to the lede, some content was outright deleted without discussion. Since the lede serves as a summary for the entire article, it is not unwarranted to have some redundancy there.

There seems to be some support for changing the opening sentence to say that MMFA "describes itself as" progressive, but I did not see a strong consensus. I would like to revert to the previous version until there is consensus for the changes. I would find it helpful if edit summaries were clearer and described all the changes being made and if fewer changes were made per edit. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the edit I made, the only content I removed that wasn't redundant was "Media Matters for America defines 'conservative misinformation' as 'news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.' The rest was almost a verbatim restatement of what was just said in the very paragraph preceding that paragraph.

Actually my preference is to keep "media watchdog" in the lead with the descriptor that is used most often in reliable sources to describe Media Matters: "liberal" (used in reliable sources over 6 times as often as "progressive"). It doesn't make sense to use the unattributed preferred term of an advocacy group in Wikipedia's voice in the opening sentence. I know of no WP policy or guideline that indicates that an organization's self-description is to preferred over reliable sources. Despite the numerous reliable sources in non-conservative publications, there is obviously no consensus to use "liberal," nor in putting progressive in quotes (would look like scare quotes). Since the lead sentence already said "describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media I thought that it would be clearer and cleaner just to extend the quote to include "progressive."

I take your point about fewer changes being made per edit. That would have also made clearer my rationale in the edit summaries. Drrll (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response Drrll. I agree with keeping media watchdog in the lede. I'm more concerned with the description being accurate than it being self-described or not.

I think given the dysphemism cycle that the term "liberal" has been going through that there is increased sensitivity to that term being used in a potentially pejorative manner. If, as you say, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" are not used in equal measure to describe the organization, I think we should take that into consideration.

I consider your proposal that the quote be extended to include the "progressive" label completely viable as well. I was hung up on the wording as I think that "describes itself as" is weaker than "is". Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal" vs. "progressive" in non-conservative, non-opinion reliable sources

I know that this issue has been argued incessantly here, and as Gobonobo pointed out, "liberal" is often used pejoratively, but the fact is that major non-conservative, non-opinion sources overwhelmingly describe MMfA as "liberal." WP is supposed to be about following reliable sources. I have done some research into this using LexisNexis, searching for instances in which "liberal" or "progressive" appears in the same sentence as "Media Matters." Here are the results:

'Major World Publications' (does not cover The Wall Street Journal): 192 "liberal", 30 "progressive"

USA Today: 7, 0

The New York Times: 43, 3

The Los Angeles Times: 3, 0

The Washington Post: 34, 6

Drrll (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment on the merits of describing Media Matters according to the consensus of top reliable sources? Here are the results of two other important sources not covered by 'Major World Publications':

Politico: 57 "liberal", 11 "progressive"

NPR': 12 "liberal", 0 "progressive"

An editor removed the change from "progressive" to "liberal" "per the objections of many editors stated on talk over a number of years of discussion." First of all, was there ever a consensus for "progressive" in the first place, or simply a number of editors objecting to "liberal"? If there was a clear consensus, as we know, consensus can change. Please provide a policy-based reason to go with the designation that an organization prefers, or at least demonstrate that "progressive" is preferred over "liberal" by good reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And have you done research into how many times they are mentioned without being labeled with either term? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that "progressive" is inaccurate or inadequate with good reliable sources. No one has done so over the several years of discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue. The issue the that the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources cite them as a liberal organization. That should be the end of the discussion. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So their self-description should be dismissed out of hand without any effort made to demonstrate how or why it is supposedly inaccurate? No, that's not how we write an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The MOS advises editors to "follow the sources":

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

Drrll (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue at all. MMFA is a reliable source for matters concerning itself, a source which is echoed by a number of secondary sources. Other secondary sources do not echo this description, but no source has been presented to prove this description is inaccurate or explain why another is preferable. You can't be following the sources if no such sources exist. Gamaliel (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it addresses the issue--head on. The MOS quote above calls for "high-quality" "secondary sources", something that MMfA is not. As far as presenting a source to prove that "progressive" is inaccurate, MOS lays the burden of proof for noncompliance with "current English usage" on those who advocate an alternative: "unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources." That definitely explains why "liberal" is preferable. In addition, using an organization's preferred designation is not being neutral, as required by WP:NPOV. Lastly, the sources I referenced are hardly conservative. Instead of Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News, or Washington Times references, I have NYT, Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, and NPR references. Drrll (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is using the self-description "not neutral"? How have you "definitely" demonstrated that one is "current English usage" and not the other? By some passing references in secondary sources? So why dismiss other contradictory references in secondary sources? You are making a whole bunch of unexplained and unproven assumptions here. Gamaliel (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Would we describe Fox News in their article as "Fox News is a fair and balanced cable news network"? It seems reasonable that "current English usage" would be the preponderance of descriptor usage in reliable sources, preferably by high-quality reliable sources ("can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources"). Top-tier reliable news sources like the NYT and WaPo describe MMfA as "liberal" overwhelmingly over "progressive"--see above. LexisNexis' 'Major World Publications', populated almost exclusively by reliable sources use "liberal" in the same sentence as "Media Matters" 192 times, versus 30 times for "progressive." The narrower search for just "liberal Media Matters"/"Media Matters a liberal"/"Media Matters the liberal" vs. the "progressive" version yields 30 results vs. 4. Even the broadest LexisNexis 'All news' search, populated by tons of non-reliable sources as well as reliable ones, uses "liberal" almost 3 times as often as "progressive"--1397 vs. 552. If you know of a better way to demonstrate "current English usage", please provide it. Drrll (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up again and again. There are plenty of sources in the Fox News article disputing the "fair and balanced" description (which, by the way, is a slogan and not a description of political orientation, which is at issue here). There a no sources here disputing the accuracy of the progressive self-description. Counting up passing mentions in an arbitrarily selected group of publications is not a proper method of disputing this self-description. Reliable sources - the content, not an arbitrary tabulation - are what is needed here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously what is the big deal? They are interchangable within the context of the current political environment. Progressive = Liberal. If anything Progressive = Extrememly Liberal, just put them both in the lead. What they call themselves and what they are generaly referred to. There really is no debate that MMfA is a liberal website. Just because MMfA is trying to confuse the public as to their political leanings doesn't mean that WP must as well. As I have stated before I don't have a problem with the progressive self label, since it clearly identifies them with the far left, but I also don't see a problem with adding liberal since they are essentially the same thing. You may call it an Oar or a Paddle but they are both rowing to the same political side of the river. Arzel (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Gamaliel, the WP MOS calls for a "clear reason to do otherwise" in not using the dominant usage, not for proof that an alternative is inaccurate. Your suggested implied method, if I am understanding you correctly, of determining "current English usage" by analyzing the complete content of all possible reliable sources (as compared to LexisNexis' selection) is so impossibly unworkable that it renders the MOS language meaningless. LexisNexis is not just some "arbitrarily selected group of publications"--it is the largest available database of English news sources, covering over 4000 news sources. Drrll (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed in another forum the limitations of Lexis/Nexis and specifically the "Major World Publications" search. Lexis/Nexis is a wonderful tool for finding reliable sources, but it is itself not an RS or a proper statistical or lexicographical measuring tool. So your methodology is not one that is backed up by RS or the MOS or policy. Note that the MOS is a style guideline and even if your interpretation of it is correct, it does not override NPOV, RS, etc. Many like Arzel have objected here to the use of "progressive" in such terms as he describes above: "MMfA is trying to confuse the public as to their political leanings". To substitute "liberal" for "progressive" would endorse these linguistic conspiracy theories and violate NPOV, promoting that particular view above others, including MMFA's self-description, all without a proper RS. This is the fact that everyone who proposes this change has avoided like a dodgeball champion: There a no sources here disputing the accuracy of the progressive self-description. So I would ask the same question Arzel does: "Seriously what is the big deal?" Why are you so dead set on making this change with no reliable sources? What's wrong with MMFA's self-description? Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What linguistic conspiracy theories? The definition of liberal is "( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform." Progressive is a synonym of Liberal. I didn't realize that dictionary.com was part of a conspiracy. I see no problem including the synonym of progressive given that they are usually referred to in that manner. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the burden of proof is with the individuals proposing using the non-dominant usage, not with those proposing using the dominant usage. I am "so dead set" on following the consensus of hundreds of reliable sources as opposed to using a group's preferred designation. What sort of source do you have in mind that would support the change to "liberal"? Drrll (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An imperfect analogy was the birthdate discussion at Jeane Dixon, where multiple reliable sources offered different birthdates. She offered an inaccurate birthdate during her life. So which one do we pick? Arbitrarily picking the one that was mentioned in the most sources was out of the question. Other editors wanted to change the birthdate she offered based on conjecture or the world of a professed relative. I objected to changing this without reliable sources. With some work I found some sources which discussed her date of birth in depth and concluded with reference to official records that the date was inaccurate and presented the real date. I offer this tangential story because I think it illustrates what I had in mind:

• Reliable sources that dispute facts instead of offering different facts in passing.
• Reliable sources that discuss the facts in dispute and describe in detail which fact is correct.

I hope my rambling gets across my thoughts properly. Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of a series of RS, over time, citing a dated and inaccurate birth date. This is a propnderrance of reliable sources in the relevant field making an assertion about the nature of an organization. The only point of debate is what has you so bothered with citing those sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What has you so bothered about using the self-description? Why is it inaccurate? Where is the reliable source that says so? I don't agree on a number of assumptions being made here:

• "The preponderance of reliable sources says liberal." No, many reliable sources use one or the other, some use both. I ran two L/N searches just now and received hundreds of results for each term in the same sentence as MMFA.
• "A Lexis/Nexis search is the proper tool to measure what common English language usage is." L/N is a tool to find sources, not to measure them and to make decisions based on those measurements. This would fail the most basic of statistical or linguistic standards.

This is pretty much the same situation as the birthdate. In the Dixon article, various sources provided different birthdates. A higher quality source provided the correct birthdate and explained why that birthdate is correct. Like that article, the proper thing to do here is to find that high quality source disputing the self-description, if it exists. What we are doing here is the equivalent of adding up the number of sources which named each birthdate and picking the highest one. Obviously, your results would differ wildly depending on what sources you had (and even L/N searches vary wildly depending on the parameters) and is no way to insure the contents of the article are accurate. Gamaliel (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

After looking over an awfully large number of sources, I don't think that there actually is a source that discusses MMfA's political orientation in depth. How about either a solution along the lines that Arzel proposed: "Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal / progressive media watchdog group...", or:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group. Often described in news stories as liberal, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

Drrll (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much that I object to this, it's more like "why the heck do we need this?" I haven't seen any demonstrated need for this type of awkward construction. If we were to agree on something like this in principle, I would object to the particular wording of this sentence. It would be just as accurate to say the reverse, that it is "often described in news sources as progressive". Gamaliel (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your response sounds an awful like WP:IDONTLIKEIT Arzel (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess you missed the parts discussing factual accuracy of the proposed edit and the lack of demonstrated need to contradict MMFA's self-description. Gamaliel (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why "do we need this?" I (and I believe Arzel) meant either of the two solutions as a compromise. They are more awkward than what you want--"MMfA is a progressive watchdog...", or what I want--"MMfA is a liberal watchdog...", but either solution is an improvement on what we have now (saying definitively in WP's voice that MMfA is exactly how MMfA describes itself, while my preferred version, favored as I believe by sources, also picks a definitive description using WP's voice). You're right that it would be just as accurate to say that it is "often described in news sources as progressive", but it is far more representative of the sources, no matter how you slice them (up to only utilizing the best news source, the NYT). Plus, for the second solution, the sentence makes much more sense in contrasting the two descriptors than in contrasting the same descriptors with "Often described in news stories as progressive, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."" Do you have any improvements to the two solutions or alternative solutions yourself? Drrll (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how either solution improves on what we have now. Gamaliel (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So you won't accept any compromise on the language in WP's voice that MMfA is exactly and only how MMfA defines itself? Drrll (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm merely opining that to me, your presented "solutions" are to a "problem" which I do not think exists and are not superior to the existing version. I've repeatably stated the criteria I feel are needed for us to make a statement contradicting MMFA and I'm open to other wordings should anyone present them. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to add, not just specifically in response to this comment, but also about this discussion in general: It is a very bold thing that we propose, to say that an organization is incorrect about itself, that it is not something that it professes to be. This (purposefully or not) endorses POVs that an organization is lying or being deceptive, a POV frequently expressed here by editors who have wanted to make this proposed change over the years. It has long been established on Wikipedia that a person or organization is an RS about itself, and for us to contradict that RS, we need a high-quality source that explains both how and why this person or organization is incorrect about itself, not merely the equivalent of back of the envelope calculations based on an arbitrary set of sources. Despite years of efforts to make this change, this bar has never been remotely reached nor has the long-standing consensus been overturned. I'm not sure what to else to say about this. I've said all this before in various forms elsewhere on this page and unless something new is presented I feel like I'm just going to repeat this all over again. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure anybody is saying that MMfA is "incorrect about itself", what I'm seeing is that there is significant secondary reliable sources describing the organization in such a way that MMfA would rather not be known as, despite the fact that it is accurate. I can say I'm 5'11" and I'd be telling the truth if I was wearing boots, but that doesn't mean that when I go to the DMV or the doctor they are going to agree with me when I take them off. SeanNovack (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Like SeanNovack said, it's not that MMfA is being deceptive, it's that understandably, just like any other organization, it wants to cast itself in a favorable light. It would be just as wrong to say unqualifiedly in WP's voice that an organization that opposes abortion is "pro-life." I think that the WP:ABOUTSELF policy requirement about not using an organization's material if it is "unduly self-serving" would apply here. If you know of a better way to determine current English usage than a source database that covers a huge swath of reliable sources, then let us know about it, so we can better follow the MOS guideline. Since WP deals in the real world, a better way needs to be available by real world WP users. Right now, it appears that 5 editors support some form of change to include "liberal" and 1 does not. I'd rather have everyone on board supporting some form of change that includes "liberal", but do you want to go the route of an RfC where people can vote on different options, including leaving things as they are now? Drrll (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is "progressive" unduly self-serving? Yet another assumption not backed up by policy or sources. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist that these assumptions be backed up by something besides an arbitrary count. There are hundreds of courses that use one or the other, some that use both. To make this change would be to pick one over the other arbitrarily. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberal = Progressive, as I have illustrated above, and to which you seem to have missed. It is not conflicting to list the synonym of Progressive (Liberal), which is often used as the description of MMfA. It seems to be that you don't like it to be known that they are referred to as liberal, or you don't seem to like that liberal and progressive are interchangable within the current political nomenclature. Arzel (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that they are interchangeable in all contexts. But let's assume they are. So then there's no reason not to use the self-description.

There must be some reason so many people dislike it. In the past, many editors here have confessed political motives for objecting to the self-description. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're implying bad faith on the part others who have done nothing to deserve it. I've restored the clearly supported change by Drrll. The justification for that change is evident in the reliable sources on the topic and by a clear consensus of interested editors. If you have issues with this reality than I suggest you cease reverting and instead seek an outside opinion on the matter. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is your response chiding others for implying bad faith on my part for insinuating that my motives are other than my clearly and repeatedly stated reasons? Why the double standard?Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read the thread above and I'm still not sure what the actual issue is. Progressive and liberal are synonyms. It's been progressive for a long time, and that is the word they use themselves. Newspapers say liberal, which is a synonym. What is the reason for the change? Xanthoxyl ^< 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal" is overwhelmingly used (by broadcast news sources & other print sources, as well as newspapers) in favor of "progressive" and WP is about following reliable sources. In American usage, "liberal" is also less vague and more commonly recognized. Lastly, it is the preferred term of MMfA, designed to cast themselves in a favorable light, much like organizations that oppose abortion push the word "pro-life" over "anti-abortion." As you can see above, I offered to mention both "progressive" and "liberal" together. Drrll (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does using "progressive" show them in a more favorable light? Is this opinion supported by any reliable sources? Other editors have stated that they are synonyms or otherwise interchangeable, and some reliable sources use them interchangeably when referring to MMFA. Apparently you disagree with them. Gamaliel (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Gam, I'm sorry you feel I'm not an equal opportunity chider; I'm not following this close enough to dole out measured rebukes for cynicism. I find this entire debate to be rather ridiculous and I've likely reached my chighwater mark of involvement. With that said I have to add that, in the tenure of my involvement, you've been bizarrly opposed to the inclusion of a seemingly non-controverial adjective used by the overwhemling majority of reliable sources in favor of the preferred usage of the group in question, an obvious no-no. That you're entrusted with admin tools yet still hold fast to this insitenece of self definition a rebours the clear consensus of thrid party sources is troubling and nonsensical. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my unwillingness to agree with you has caused you to lash out in such a poorly-spelled manner. There's nothing bizarre in thinking that the self-description, a description echoed by hundreds of reliable sources, is the appropriate description, and if it is a bizarre opposition, then many other editors are equally bizarre since this has been the long-standing consensus here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

From Safire's Political Dictionary: "In recent years, liberals unhappy with the label liberal have identified themselves as progressive." While the words may be similar in meaning, they are not interchangeable. Like I said before, it's a lot like "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion." "Progressive" is more appealing than "liberal," so it does cast them in a more favorable light. Drrll (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Allen3 thinks I'm edit warring...

...which is confusing, since I'm not even close to 3RR. But, anyway, I thought I'd drop by and explain my reasons for pulling the cite from the first sentence of the article. Per WP:LEDECITE:

Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source...

Pedantic semantic squabbling aside, I don't think there's anyone who contests the validity of the characterization of MM as "progressive." Given that the same assertion is sourced exactly one paragraph later, I think the citation should be cut from the lede.

All that said, I'm not sold on MM being a reliable source for characterizations about itself. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that MM described itself as "impartial" (it doesn't, btw). Would it be alright, then, for Wikipedia to describe MM as an "impartial media watchdog," replete with cite to their web site? IMO, MM can't be a WP:RS for information about MM; they're biased, and anything they say about themselves is inherently POV. What's more, if we're not taking MM at their word, but, instead, only citing them for claims that Wikipedia editors find credible, that's differently problematic for being WP:OR. It's not our place to weigh the veracity of primary sources; we shouldn't even be using them.

To the end of sidestepping the whole issue, I'd like to offer this source instead for the claim that MM is a progressive organization: . But I don't think it should appear in the lede, either.

I'll leave it to some other editor to use the ref (or not, I'm easy), lest I be accused of further edit warring. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To clear up your confusion, a quick check of your edit history shows you made three identical edits to this article in a span of less than 5 hours:

1. 18:35, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
2. 22:18, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
3. 23:14, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

As you are one revert from an automatic block (here is proof you have seen the standard warning) it appears to be a stretch to claim you are "not even close to 3RR". --Allen3 ^talk 02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For an admin, you've got a pretty weak grasp of the concept of a "revert". Hint: that first diff isn't. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't we all just kill each other?

We have a religious argument at this stage of the beating-beyond-dead-the-carcass of the liberal vs progressive argument. I've unsuccessfully tried getting at an acceptable compromise, but that went nowhere, and I am not foolish enough to try mediate any more. Unless the arguing parties can try come up with wording they can both live with, they will be down to no more horse hooves (that's about all that is left, everything has been said) to wail away at. Unfortunately, no one seems to be in a compromising mode. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the argument in recent days has actually been pretty civil (for the most part) despite the differences. Did you propose a specific compromise earlier? Please remind us what it is if you did. I initially wanted "MMfA is a liberal media watchdog group", but suggested two potential compromise solutions that mention both "liberal" and "progressive." I also requested that someone else come up with a better compromise solution, but to no avail. Lastly, I suggested an RfC on the issue. I did these things despite the lopsided opinion that "liberal" should be included in some fashion. With the consensus I could have just restored one of my versions, but I didn't. Drrll (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but I've been to that rodeo. Do a control f and put in "artist", it should be the first result. Good to hear it's been civil so far, but you guys are killing me with tedium and repetition. Look for a compromise and let's get it done with. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The "self-described" compromise was rejected earlier by the one rejecting any mention of "liberal." I far prefer that "liberal" be included in the compromise, given its common use in good reliable sources, but "self-described" / "describes itself as" is better than what we have now. Drrll (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really staying out of this one. I think both sides (if there are two sides) have valid views and both need to accommodate the other somehow. Best of luck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Although liberal and progressive are both left-of-center, they have different meanings and definitions. And can we all agree on exactly where the single unique political center is, in order to have left-of and right-of positions that aren't fought over? Liberals and progressives themselves apparently disagree on the definitions, see [1], and we have two articles Progressivism & Liberalism, one on each term. Although we can define the population and geographic centers of the US, the political center is undefinable since we can't all agree on the exact meanings of the terms. Political labels can't be enumerated like populations, since they aren't simply statistical descriptions. Do we mean socially or fiscally liberal. Or classically liberal. Also, comparing the number of goggle hits are not reliable sources per se. Note that The Nation article uses their self description (as "the flagship of the left"). And if Fox News isn't labeled conservative, why should any organization on the other side be labeled. To me, a major reason to use their self description is to avoid contention here. At least we can all agree that they actually do describe themselves as progressive, and anyone can confirm that. My suggestion is: Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Being a media watchdog group per se doesn't imply either right or left leanings and is NPOV. — Becksguy (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They are essentially the same, and each is a synonym of the other. Liberal is defined has having progressive policies, as I noted earlier above. MMfA already defines themselves as Progressive, so your point relating to Fox is null. They are usually referred to as Liberal, I suppose becuse most in the media know that Liberal = Progressive within the current political spectrum within the US. Your points are well taken, but their own self classification nullifies most of your argument. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are the same, then why the crusade to change one to the other? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The primary functional difference between the terms is that "liberal" is preferred (and sometimes used as a pejorative) by groups and individuals opposed to MMfA while MMfA describes itself as "progressive". --Allen3 ^talk 01:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That and progressives feel that liberals aren't doing enough to get the government to regulate businesses, banks, and other institutions. Progressives are very angry with the Democratic Party right now.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not the same. Yes, there are similarities and overlaps, but in no way are they synonyms. See: Progressivism#Relation to other political ideologies. And the article on Liberalism barely mentions progressivism, never mind drawing comparisons or equating them. To conflate the labels is a gross simplification. Just as there are 10 schools of Conservatism, the ideological spectrum left-of-center is complex. Do you have any sources that show they are the same? But, more importantly, why do we need to have Wikipedia state it's version of MMfA's ideological orientation when there is an NPOV version available. Or even to state ideological orientations at all. — Becksguy (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OldRfC: wording of lead sentences

How should the first two sentences be worded to reflect the ideological orientation of Media Matters for America?

1. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a progressive media watchdog group which describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." (current wording)
2. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal media watchdog group which describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
3. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal / progressive media watchdog group which describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
4. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
5. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group. Often described in news stories as liberal, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Drrll (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• 5 This avoids saying in Wikipedia's voice that it is definitively one way or the other. It reflects the preponderance of reliable sources in the way they describe MMfA, yet also acknowledges MMfA's self-description. Drrll (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• 3 or 5 both are the most accurate given the reliable sources. I prefer 3 but don't have a problem with 5 either. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Though I could go with 3. For reasons stated several times already. SeanNovack (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1 or 4 I don't know why the same editors are continually revisiting this as if it were a crusade, but the long-established consensus version is fine. We don't start out the lead sentence of an article by stating opinion about the subject, even if that opinion has been stated in a reliable source. That's just poor encyclopedic writing (and bending over backwards with tortured phrases like "often described in news stories as liberal" is just poor writing, period). There is no need to spoon-feed the reader, they can form their own opinions. Once we start doing that, where does it end? Every person or organization that has any connection to a partisan subject and has been described a particular way will be labeled as "right-wing", "far-left" "extremist" etc., etc. Ultimately, that would only serve to lower the standard of writing on Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1 preferred but can live with 4. Concur with LM and the long-standing consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4 is most neutral, since editors might quarrel over whether the group is liberal or progressive, and you allow the quote to demonstrate how the group sees itself. 5 would be okay too. 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristophanes68 (talk • contribs)

• 1 or 4. Provides clear indication of the nature of the group's political bias without resorting to using their political opponent's preferred language. --Allen3 ^talk 01:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5. Options 1 to 4 exclusively use the organization's own words to define itself. Better is to use a definition that independent secondary sources use, since the self-description is necessarily tainted. If "liberal" or "progressive" are terms that 2ndary sources most commonly use, then the lead should start with those, and follow it up with the organization's own self-description. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4 is the only one that is an uncontested statement of fact. The discussion about "liberal" vs "progressive" should go further down in the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4 appears to offer the most neutral perspective. I'm not convinced that the group being labeled by others (eg. the media, per 5) as liberal or progressive is significant enough for the lede, but the group's own description of themselves, clearly attributed, seems quite appropriate for the lede. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4, when in doubt, go with self-identification. Dayewalker (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5, Seems to be the strongest, as it offers views of both outside groups and the organization itself, which corroborate each other. Mpgviolist (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4 per my comments above. The term "liberal" is pejorative and is therefore inherently POV, and the two terms are not synonymous. Self description is the most neutral and will avoid us labeling the organization with contentious and undefined labels. External descriptions can be expounded upon in the body, but is inappropriate in the lede per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV. — Becksguy (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Assuming there are adequate RS sources for "liberal", where's the problem? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Because "liberal" violates the WP:NPOV policy. — Becksguy (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense and a misrepresentation of WP:NPOV. Assuming the existence of adequate RS sourcing supporting the characterization (and I'd also venture it's not only adequate but more than likely plentiful), the response to what apparently troubles you is the provision of RS sourcing and content that supports an opposing or alternate view. WP:NPOV doesn't counsel deletion of content just because someone finds it to be pejorative in nature. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A tally

To get this tally, if someone said they could accept a proposed edit, then I called it a single vote.

There are, so far, six votes for 4 and seven (updated to correct miscount of eight) votes for 5

Whether this tally presents a consensus, contains a trend, or a statistically even split, I won't get into. I will, however suggest that we could instead, and more simply, as well as accurately say - without using either the term "liberal" or "progressive"...

"MMfA is media watchdog group which says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

This allows the reader to quickly grasp what is MMfA idealogical bent, while further down the article we could, and maybe we should, describe the "liberal" vs "progressive" characterization fairly and more fully than the lede can allow. Excuse, if you will, this interjection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No. One can document what they consider to be ideological bent without owning their own. The proper identification of MMA's ideology is important contextualizing the remainder of the article. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I Absolutely agree with TomPointTwo SeanNovack (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is what is "proper", or rather what we, by some miracle, might agree is proper. In this case I'm neutral or agnostic, and would like to point out the complete lack of any consensus or resonable compromise being apparent.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My preference is still #5 above, but I like TAAMA's suggestion over the other leading contender (#4). Drrll (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a procedural note, but I only count seven votes for 5 (and now eight votes for 4). Was a 5-vote removed or have I miscounted? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right and correction made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say it's 'no consensus' at the moment in either case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTc)

I'm inclined to say that the unending "progressive" vs "liberal" arguments may be the basis for the long-sought-after proof of perpetual motion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that it's a very close call between 4 & 5. It's also clear that 1-3 are not acceptable options. Does anyone know about how to close this out? Do we need an admin? Do we wait longer? Do we next limit the options to 4 & 5? Maybe we need to add TAAMA's option above to the choice between 4 & 5. Drrll (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating TAAMA's suggestion as an additional option seems to be a reasonable compromise. I don't see the need of asking a non-involved admin to act (and there is no requirement for one), as this is not a battleground, and many editors have already expressed a willingness to consider more than just one possible version. Note that RfCs age out in 30 days (unless retagged), but the bot template [code removed due to confusion by RfC bot] can be removed as soon as the issue has been resolved, thus delisting the page from the RfC topics at WP:RFC. There are two ways to handle this RfC: (1) Close the current RfC out (which I can help with) and start a new one. (2) Or leave the RfC as it is, since it's purpose hasn't changed, and create a new subsection that asks for a "runoff" straw poll between the two front runners (currently #4 & #5) with TAAMA's suggestion as the third. My suggestion is #2, as it's less bureaucratic, and still leaves the original options open, but I'm OK with either. RfCs exist to help editors come to consensus, so if this approach helps, it's all good. We have already made progress toward consensus, as options 1-3 currently have insufficient support. So it looks like we already have consensus to change from the current wording in the lede, and I think we will be able to agree on what to change it to. Can we support this approach, based on what TAAMA and Drill have already nicely and helpfully started? Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I support your second option. I do think we'd need to modify the original RfC text to indicate that now the question is between 4 & 5 & TAAMA's option, so that it's clear on the RfC listings what's currently under consideration. Drrll (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. If no one opposes, lets do it. — Becksguy (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity, and to lessen possible confusion, we could keep the designations options 4 and 5 the same and make my suggestion option 6.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Drrll (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice job in recasting the RfC, Drrll. I'll support which ever one of the new three options gains consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Becksguy. Drrll (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the usual time a RfC should remain up before trying to close it is about a week, to allow for editors that don't log on every day. SeanNovack (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but wouldn't "Current Response" be better placed directly below "Current Question"? It's rather odd, IMHO, residing below "Initial Question". JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it makes more sense that way, but I wanted to keep the "Initial Question" in the RfC listings on the RfC boards to make clear that this wasn't a new RfC. The RfC bot is supposed to include all text up to the first signature (it doesn't seem to be working properly now, though). Drrll (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your thinking, it doesn't appear that the RfC bot is capable of understanding or making that accommodation and is probably incapable of hosting 2 simultaneous RfC's on the same article. It currently lists the exact same RfC twice. My guess is you need to close the original (which I assume will remove BOTH listings) and then re-list the second. While I strongly applaud your efforts at resolution, I think you're trying a bit too hard to finesse the RfC process. Close the first and re-list the second re-numbered as 1-3 options. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'll close it, wait for the bot to de-list it, and then re-list it with the new options. Drrll (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)?

In the intro to this article MM is stated as a 501(c)(3) non profit organization that is tax exempt. Bill O'Reilly is trying to nail them because being political is a no-no for this status. However, later in the article it states that David Brock started this as a 501(c)(4) status which is ok for political purposes. MMfA's website says the (3) status in their "about us" page. I was wondering if there's any error here or what and probably think some sort of clarification is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.162.167 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing that I can find that indicates that MMfA is anything other than a 501(c)(3) organization. In fact, in IRS Pub 78, it's listed as a c3 organization. However, "Media Matters Action Network" is a 501(c)(4) organization, set up by Brock, but it's a partner project to MMfA, as indicated on their website, which has a different web address.[2] So indications are that it's a separate organization. — Becksguy (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Soros, again

For years after the Democracy Alliance endorsed MMfA, Soros made no contribution the group. The Politico article notes the coincidence of Soros's DA membership and his donation to MMfA, but at no times says there is a causal relationship. Just as it would be wrong to suppose and declare in the article that Soros acted completely independent of the DA in deciding to make his donation, and his years of not making the donation would support this, but this would all be editorial conjecture, just as assuming that the DA caused Soros to eventually and lately to throw down a chunk of change. Furthermore, why Soros is being singled out among DA donors when the article also mentions Peter Lewis is a mystery, and suggests an anti-Soros agenda. If there is a RS showing that Soros took into account the DA's endorsement, then we could establish that they had moved him to donate the money, but I haven't seen one yet. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that unless a source surfaces that says Soros donated because of DA, or that DA donated directly to MMfA that we shouldn't hint that there is a relationship between Soros donating to MMfA and DA. Drrll (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

However, what do you think about adding back "direct" to describe the Soros contribution? Soros was a large funder of the Center for American Progress during its first 3 years ($3 million) and the CAP "helped launch Media Matters" (see this Politico article) during the same time-frame as Soros' contributions to CAP. Drrll (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I can't argue with what seems to be sound reasoning.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated RfC: Wording of lead sentences

How should the first two sentences be worded to reflect the ideological orientation of Media Matters for America?:

4. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

5. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group. Often described in news stories as liberal, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

6. MMfA is media watchdog group which says it is describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." [the discussion of whether MMfA is "liberal" or "progressive" is deferred until later in the article body]. Drrll (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed "says it is" to "describes itself as" in #6 because the latter wording is more professional and parallels the wording in #4. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• 5 Per my comments in original RfC' Drrll (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• 5 ...and suggest replacement text "Often characterized as liberal...". "News stories", IMHO, should be broadened considerably. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that "characterized" is better than "described." What do you suggest to replace "news stories?" Drrll (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing...just a comma after liberal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to convey that straight news sources (even from left-leaning sources like NPR) often characterize MMfA as "liberal." In my view, it wouldn't matter to the reader nearly as much that someone like a conservative commentator might characterize it that way. Perhaps "news stories" is not broad enough, though. Drrll (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could say "Often characterized as liberal in traditional media...". I can't foresee much, if any, heartburn over that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4 or 6, per arguments in the previous RFC. Regarding the comments directly above about using the word 'characterised', if this were done without qualification it would probably be tagged with a 'by whom?' note in short order. 'News stories' might not be appropriate, but if option 5 is successful then there certainly should be some sort of qualification there about who is doing the characterising. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that could be easily accommodated by provision of source citations were it to be challenged (which, last time I looked at WP:LEAD, is the only time lead citations are appropriate...tho that may have changed). JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I originally changed this a few weeks ago, I included 5 citations that backed up the use of "liberal." I could literally provide hundreds of references from many dozens of different sources. Drrll (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and assume he's alluding to source bias. I'll betcha you can find more than adequate sourcing from widely recognized liberal/progressive sources. Even if you couldn't, even biased sources could still be WP:RS with appropriate attribution and some minor editing. Cross that bridge if and when you come to it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about source bias or anything along those lines, as I'm not particularly fluent in the subject matter. My secondary thoughts in my initial comment were more to do with using wording such as 'characterised as', 'said to be', 'referred to as' or the like without qualification/attribution. Inline sourcing is good, but some drafts of this paragraph seem to suggest that the characterisation comes in large part from the media, in which case wording such as 'characterised by the media' would be clearer. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies then for misconstruing your comment and, as you can see by my suggested edit above, I believe we are in agreement on that point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Per original comments. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• 5 Per my comments at older RFC. Also, use improved wording from JakeInJoisey (?) in 2nd Response above. --Noleander (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing new in this rfc. I have the same position as before, as probably everyone above does, and their positions should be weighed as heavily as the "new" positions here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the obvious winnowing of choices based upon responses in the earlier RfC, where 5 had more, but barely more support than 4, there is an additional unique choice suggested by TAAMA. 1-3 simply didn't have adequate support. Drrll (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that last bit about 1-3, but everyone who supported 1 or 3 also expressed a clear preference for 4 or 5 as well. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Per original comments. New wording would be preferred.Mpgviolist (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• 5 As per my comments in previous discussions SeanNovack (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean, reading your above comments, it seems that your main reason to use "liberal" is that Media Matters does not use it. You said above that Media Matters "would rather not be known as" liberal, but do you have any evidence of that? They don't choose to describe themselves as liberal, sure, but I sign all my posts Croctotheface; does that mean that I "would rather not be known as" Croc? (For the record, I'm completely comfortable with that nickname.) Is "we should specifically make sure to describe them using a term they don't use" really a good line of argument here? Croctotheface (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Saying how sources describe them is a good idea and this has that. (I'm assuming sources do say that) --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• 4 or 6 per my earlier comments. As stated earlier, using tortured language like "often described as" is just poor encyclopedic writing, will soon be tagged, and then we'll end up with even worse language like "referred to by the Washington Post as..." There might be a reason to discuss third-party opinion of the organization in the article (although I doubt it, as every organization has someone that feels one way or the other about them), but there is absolutely no reason to make that the very first thing mentioned in the first sentence of the lede paragraph, as if that is their primary notability. This is actually a larger issue which should be discussed project-wide as this has been creeping into other articles about people and organizations perceived to be on the right or left. Let the reader decide. We don't need to immediately slant things by "warning" them they're about to read an article about liberals, right-wingers, extremists, etc. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If the writing is bad, how could the same point be conveyed better? It's actually the second sentence of the lead paragraph, rather than the first. I could support a project-wide standard that strongly discourages/disallows labeling in the lead or at least the lead sentence/paragraph. Consistency would be nice, but do you see a measure like this getting implemented? Drrll (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4 is the best of these. 5 is downright awful with that "often described in news stories as" crap in there. Forget about the years and years of conservative editors attempting to push "liberal" into the lead of this article; the writing of that option is just embarrassingly bad. I'd much prefer just flat out calling the group liberal to appending some nonsense qualifier like that. For most people, the presence of a passive-voice qualifier won't make them question what follows it, and besides, to the degree that "liberal" denotes "left of center," it's accurate. Now, "progressive" is more accurate both because the group chooses it for themselves and because it speaks to social movements, which is much more in line with MM than New Deal liberalism, but really, whatever. I should be clear, though: a lot of editors in the past have weighed in on this precise issue and said that there's no need to put "liberal" in there. To me, this constant desire to revisit the issue when no relevant facts have changed seems like an end-run around the process. Proponents of this change hope that editors such as myself who participated in the past will no longer be motivated to participate, so they can "win" that way. I suppose that strategy has worked with respect to me. I don't edit much anymore, so there's one voice that, under different circumstances, wouldn't have come here to speak to what he believes in. But then again, while I think that "liberal" in the lead will make the article marginally worse, if some editors care THIS MUCH about it, if they care so much that they're motivated to make the same arguments year after year, no matter how many times consensus has gone against them, then maybe it's time to roll our eyes, shrug our shoulders, roll our eyes again, and move on. Croctotheface (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

5 is downright awful with that "often described in news stories as" crap in there.

I believe that "often described as liberal" requires no qualification (and so suggested), but it IS a factual and well-supported characterization and it is not, IMHO, simply gratuitously irrelevant.

That the appellation "liberal" might actually be considered so repulsive a pejorative (and perhaps so inviting a barb?) in some editor's perceptions so as to perpetuate this incessant rhetorical ruckus is, at least to me, rather novel. Perhaps I've just been tone-deaf in my political ears.

While I have not read archives on this apparent festering sore (and don't intend to), a degree of prior intransigence on BOTH sides appears to have been a hallmark of this debate. This suggests (to me anyway) that WP:POLICY may have become subserviant to POV considerations, albeit in good faith, on both sides of this issue. Nor do I find assertions of prior "consensus" for exclusion to be particularly persuasive though they are certainly not without merit. However, time and tides change as do facts, perceptions and opinions. IMHO, this current attempt at re-examination on the vitality of a current "consensus" for exclusion is, IMHO, to be both expected and applauded, weariness of the issue notwithstanding, and resolution resides in an adherence to WP:POLICY and process in which this examination plays an integral role. It's how we do things here...or, at least, should be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This reply is almost completely lacking in actual content. My objection to "often described in news sources as," which is much longer than the condensed version you include, centers not on whether it's "factual" (or WP:FACTUAL if you prefer) but on the fact that it is awful writing. That you don't recognize that "liberal" is used as a pejorative suggests first that you may lack the necessary background in American politics to persuasively comment on an issue like this and second that you certainly did not read the prior discussions in which consensus was reached, since that specific issue came up multiple times. Croctotheface (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. End of discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4 - Hasn't changed in this continuation RfC. Per my various comments on this page. I'll also accept 6. — Becksguy (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• 4 is my first preference, 6 is my second. "Often described in news stories" is weaseley verbal gymnastics with the aim to foist a label some see as pejorative onto MMfA when there are plenty of neutral or positive synonyms that can be applied. Also, we don't need to take the terminology of news stories, which generally favor brevity, because we can include MMFA's self-description, which is ideologically self-characterizing twice ("progressive research and information center", and "correcting conservative misinformation"). Quigley (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know anything about this particular organization, but I'm involved in journalism, so here are my thoughts. From reading options 4 and 5, it seems that there is some contention over whether the organization is truly progressive or truly liberal. Thus, like you suggest in option 6, I think this discussion should be deferred. Number 5 I'm concerned about. "Often" and "news stories" are vague, and this also allows room for judgment by the editor (which I find inappropriate and inviting of skewed POV). I'm also wondering what type of news sources this claim comes from, because it would not be appropriate for the original news source to describe this organization as liberal if that's not how it describes itself; that would be putting words in the organization's mouth. It sounds to me like these "news sources" might be columns/op-eds, which are commentary, not news, and commentary (if that's the case) should not be used to define the goals of an organization. Number 6 I'm most comfortable with, but it's usually best if you can avoid quotes in leads.--Jp07 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources for "liberal" are all straight news stories (the 5 I was going to use are news stories from The NYT, The WaPo, NPR, CNN, & Newsweek). There are literally hundreds of separate straight news stories that describe Media Matters as "liberal." Because of those hundreds and because I was going to cite 5, I think that "often" is appropriate (but that could be left out). When straight news stories from reliable sources are actually examined, there are far fewer examples of them calling Media Matters "progressive," especially when you get into top-tier news sources like The NYT, The WaPo, & NPR. Drrll (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that they are all straight news stories? Below you cite the number of 1381 sources - did you check them all individually? Lexis/Nexis indexes both news and opinion material from their sources, as I'm sure you know. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear--all the sources I was going to use to support "liberal" are straight news stories. Yes, as my response below to you indicates (in the section about the NYT), I obviously know that LN includes opinion pieces, as well as press releases, in its results. No, I didn't check the 1381 sources individually, though I did check some specific sources individually. Drrll (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And again, how many news stories mention them but do not refer to them as either liberal or progressive? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as 3 of the highest-quality sources go, The NYT directly calls them "liberal" in about half of its MMfA news stories; The WaPo directly calls them "liberal" in about half of its MMfA stories, and NPR calls them "liberal" in two-thirds of its broadcast segments (when the voice is in the voice of an NPR journalist). Drrll (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding, my fault not yours. I was replying to two different sections and got confused about what was being discussed where. Gamaliel (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I still have reservations with calling them liberal when their website [3] (a primary source) calls them "progressive." Even journalists at the New York Times (a secondary source) are not error-proof (and we really need to provide specific sources if we're going to make any sort of claim like that -- astute readers will be dubious unless you show, not tell). How can we call newspapers a more definitive source of information on the organization than the organization itself? Articles like this one [4] and this one [5] seem to be intentionally avoiding a discussion of the organization's political ideology. You've got to remember that journalists really value concision and clarity; to accurately identify the organization as progressive would require a definition of the political philosophy (which probably isn't truly related to the article) as I think few people are aware of the goals of progressives. Perhaps I shouldn't admit this, but I know practically nothing about progressivism, but from what I've read there is a noteworthy difference between progressivism and liberalism.--Jp07 (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Who voted the second 5 option after Drrll? It's not clear. Please sign it with correct time stamp. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was JakeInJoisey. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops...sig added. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this being brought up for yet another RFC by the exact same editor that brought it up two weeks ago? Just scroll up a couple of comment threads on this page to see how other editors feel about it. This is classic WP:FILIBUSTER, where the same argument gets raised repeatedly until only the zealots bother to respond anymore (and then they claim "consensus" because no one else has the patience to repeat themselves ad infinitum). Also, I would point out that the repeated use of the phrase "vote" seems to indicate a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. We don't "vote" on article content.--Loonymonkey (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the 'Tally' section above for the reasoning behind this 2nd Rfc. Basically, it was a close call between 4 & 5 and so I attempted to recast the question (without a new RfC) with just 4 & 5 as options plus an additional option suggested by TAAMA. Since some had gone with options 1 & 3 (with several opting for two choices, some of which expressed a preference for one over another), this was an opportunity to obtain a clearer consensus. The RfC bot didn't properly list the modified RfC, so I tried the option of a fresh RfC. It would be nice if you would not assume bad faith on the part of me and others here with your talk about filibusters and "zealots." As you can see from the responses, no one is forced to repeat themselves--most just give their response per their previous rationale. We may not decide content purely upon votes, but we do decide content based upon consensus. Drrll (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Loonymonkey: There was an agreement between both sides of this debate to recast the question with options #4 & #5 (and the new #6) to see if there is clearer consensus as part of the original RfC. However, it turns out that a new RfC was required due to technical issues with the RfC bot. This is not a filibuster nor an attempt the game the system, just a good faith effort on the part of Drrll & JakeInJoisey on one side, and myself on the other, to help the process of gaining consensus on the wording of the lede. I may be on the other side of including "liberal" in the lede, but we are all collaboratively working together to achieve consensus. A striking of the comments on filibustering and zealots would help clear the air, I think. Although a straw poll may have the appearance of a vote, it part of the consensus building process and is being used to test for consensus, per WP:POLL. This debate is actually going rather well, without the drama seen at some venues. — Becksguy (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the RfC bot problem that disregarded formatting and created a single wall of text has been rectified. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for keeping an eye on that. Drrll (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping note: are there any objections to moving non-vote content here so as to un-clutter and isolate RfC submissions? I assumed that was the idea behind this section creation, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I created it. Although this section should include consensus development discussions that are too long to fit into the responses "straw poll" thread, as that is for testing consensus. Here we can develop consensus. So go for it. — Becksguy (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Not 100% sure on what you mean...but feel free to adjust accordingly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, if it's that big a deal, just call them a liberal group. Let's keep it real, cluttering up the lead with a silly qualifier like "often described in news stories as" makes the writing of the article much worse. The issue here is that editors, not the group itself, take issue with our encyclopedia describing Media Matters as liberal when they don't choose the label but instead choose one (progressive) that is just as accurate and descriptive. As my past comments indicate, I agree with that sentiment, but it's really not that big a deal to use liberal, too. The phrasing of "option 5" (is this a new sci-fi TV series, by the way? I should check it out.) makes it seem like someone is defensive about the "liberal" label. I see no evidence that Media Matters is, and we shouldn't let the squabbles of this talk page create some kind of fake compromise version that doesn't make anyone happy and makes the writing of the page worse. Seriously, that kind of nonsense qualifier would NEVER be put in an article without this kind of years-long squabbling. It's agonizingly poor text.

I should say, though, that the best option would be to do some version of what we had been doing for a long time. But since it seems that editors who feel some deep need for the article to say "liberal" one more time will keep pushing this issue forever, I say just give them what they want and move on with our lives. Croctotheface (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you state that prefer the longstanding consensus version to this new one that is being argued for, I don't see why you would simply "give them what they want" and move on. As a matter of principal, editors should never be allowed to make changes for which there is little consensus simply because they are willing to push the issue forever and spend more time arguing it, until other editors such as yourself just throw up their hands and say "fine, whatever." That's called filibustering and it degrades the quality of the entire project. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to raise the filibustering issue at a noticeboard, you might be able to make that case. It's pretty clear to me that it's what has happened here. But to be clear, I am not saying that using "liberal" is the best way to go, but to say that almost ANYTHING is better than putting "often described in news stories as" in the lead of the article. I'd rather just call them "LIBRUL" in all caps than put that "often described in news stories as" phrase in there. That phrase is offensive to me as a writer. Croctotheface (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is cleaner to just call them liberal or both liberal and progressive instead of option 5, but that was not the consensus of the earlier RfC that included those options. Wikipedia is supposed to be about following reliable sources and reliable sources overwhelmingly describe MMfA as "liberal," as I demonstrated earlier (for example, the NYT describes it as "liberal" 43 times to just 3 times as "progressive," and with NPR it is 12 to 0). The question is, is that overwhelming use enough to justify saying in WP's voice that it is definitively liberal? Obviously "often described in news stories as" is obviously not winning any popularity contests, so what alternative wording do you suggest to convey the same idea? The point was to make clear that it is straight news stories that characterize MMfA that way, not your random conservative commentator. We could just say "described as liberal" and then give references to the straight news stories that support it. Drrll (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there would need to be a multi-step process here. First, there would need to be a consensus that we must call them "liberal" in the lead of the article. You realize that there are multiple references to "liberal" elsewhere in the article, right? Croctotheface (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: it really seems to me that there exists a consensus that both liberal and progressive are more or less accurate. I know that not everyone holds that position, but it seems to be a consensus view across both "sides" of this argument. If we can move past that, the substantive arguments seem to boil down on one side to "I want to use liberal because some media outlets use it" versus "There's no need to say both liberal and progressive, and the article is better if we quote their self-description than if we don't quote it." I actually think, though, that the ancestry of the editors involved on the "use 'liberal'" side suggests that they want to insert the word either because they think it's less flattering or, more likely, because they think it will piss off the other side to force that label onto the group.

I was particularly disheartened to see SeanNovack's argument boil down to saying that we change the article because Media Matters "would rather not be known as" liberal. First, I don't think that's true at all. I haven't seen any sources that suggest Media Matters somehow denies that the word "liberal" applies to them; they just choose another label instead. Moreover, a consensus exists that the label they choose is accurate. Is it our usual practice to apply a label to someone specifically because they don't choose it for themselves? Again, I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but an attempt by editors with an agenda to piss off those they perceive as "the other side", and really, it's kind of a shame when you look at it that way. Croctotheface (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My objection to using the label "liberal" in the lede is essentially the same as using any term that pigeonholes and characterizes the political orientations of people or organizations using a one-word-one-size-fits-all undefined label by force. Examples include: liberal, conservative, radical, reactionary, or progressive. In this case, MMfA characterizes itself as progressive, which attributes the source of the characterization. I'm not even claiming MMfA is not liberal, and I'm sure there are many reliable sources that label it as such. The essential problem is that liberal has different meanings across the political, cultural, and socioeconomic spectrums in the US as well as in other Anglophone countries. Is it "liberal" in the sense of Paul Krugman, or "liberal" in the sense of Ann Coulter who equated liberalism to treason [Quote: "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.."]. Is it in the sense of a well educated person who gives to Greenpeace, or in the sense of a high school drop out member of a racial hate group who thinks liberals are the same as communists. It can be a badge of pride as used by some, and a deadly insult as used by others. Liberal has been the target of multiple GOP and conservative attacks and the term has become highly pejorative. There is enough emotional and semantic baggage attached to it, so that the use of the term by itself is hopelessly charged and without any meaningful neutral definition. In other words, it violates WP:NPOV. And if explanations to attribute or define the term are included alongside the term, to fix that problem, then it's not appropriate for the lede, per WP:LEDE. Either way, the use of the term and it's meanings and attributions belong in the body of the article, not in the lede. We write for readers, not us, and we should not be feeding them unqualified, ambiguous, and pejorative political characterizations in the lede. — Becksguy (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples include: liberal, conservative, radical, reactionary, or progressive.

But you overlooked, at least for our purposes here, a most salient characterization...neutral.

The essential problem is that liberal has different meanings across...

Appropriate fare for Liberalism, but not for this article.

...it violates WP:NPOV.

If RS sourcing indicating that "liberal", as applied to MMfA, is a notably disputed characterization not reflected in the current content, you might have a point. However, even if that were to be the case, if there is adequate RS sourcing supporting notability in the use of "liberal", attribution/qualification of the term with inclusion of the missing content would be the NPOV resolution, not deletion of the subject of the dispute.

Perhaps a not exact but similar example from another perspective might be helpful. The article on Jerome Corsi currently labels him as an unqualified "conspiracy theorist"...in Wikipedia's voice. Mr. Corsi, almost assuredly, would blanche at that characterization were he to address it (he hasn't, at least that I'm aware of) and it is certainly not one that is applied to him by anyone that might even remotely be characterized as "supportive"...or arguably even "neutral". Contextually speaking and IMHO, "conspiracy theorist" is a highly pejorative characterization BUT an argument for deletion cannot be made under NPOV since the characterization is clearly WP:V & WP:RS. What CAN (and should) be done both in reference to Corsi AND MMfA, is either to document (with sourcing) evidence that the characterization, in this case of MMfA as "liberal", is NOTABLY in dispute OR appropriately qualify and/or attribute the term so that it reflects the term as an opinion and not as a universally held fact. In this case, "...often characterized as 'liberal'" clearly satisfies, IMHO, WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Before, you said that "liberal" did not have any negative connotations. Now, you're putting forth "conspiracy theorist" as a parallel case. Which is it? Croctotheface (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a fundamental contradiction that has been unaddressed by the pro-liberal faction for years. They have argued both that it is a harmless synonym and that progressive is used to "cover up" liberal simultaneously. Which is it, synonym or cover up? If they are synonyms, why bother changing it and why argue so vociferously for a synonym? If there is a "cover up", where are the sources demonstrating this? Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all which one it is. What matters is what is favored in reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why pose those arguments so frequently on this page if they do not matter? Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To use the text "often characterized as liberal" just invites more issues, since who did the characterizing is absolutely necessary so that readers can gauge which meaning of liberal is being applied here. And the phrase is a violation of WP:Weasel words#Unsupported attributions, part of WP:MOS. It invites the tag {{Who?}}, a neutrality banner, or a trip to a noticeboard. So, no, it does NOT satisfy NPOV. There is a parallel situation with using the term "homosexual" in Wikipedia to characterize gay people or organizations. Homosexual is a pejorative term. Gay is the term to be used, except in direct quotations, per WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...who did the characterizing is absolutely necessary so that readers can gauge which meaning of liberal is being applied here.

Ridiculous assertion. Were that the case, "liberal" would have been so qualified in every iteration in every source it appears in. Let's get real here.

It invites the tag {{Who?}},...

Easily accommodated by the provision of citation(s) and, if consensus REALLY wants to press the issue, "...such as the NY Times and the LA Times," immediately comes to mind.

There is a parallel situation with using the term "homosexual"...per WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities.

That "liberal" and "progressive" are not recognized in those "conventions" should suggest something to you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If it suggests anything to me, it's that maybe we shouldn't feel quite so compelled to spread such labels around in the voice of the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And your equating Wikipedia's "voice" with multi-sourced "Often characterized as liberal,..." suggests something to me. Shall we go on? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jake, I see that you feel hostile toward me, but I don't think it furthers the conversation. I am baffled as to how anyone can prefer a passive-voice, weasel-worded phrasing like that. It implies that Media Matters is defensive about the liberal label, but we have no evidence of that. They just choose not to use it. It calls attention to liberal vs. progressive in the lead as if it's the most important thing in the article. It's not. That tortured phrasing makes the issue worse, not better. Croctotheface (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spare me. You waltzed into this discussion with a chip on your shoulder the size of a mature oak and were hardly measured in expressing those views. As before, end of discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you somehow dislike me personally, that means you're going to ignore the substantive points I raise and declare the discussion over? That's rather convenient for you. Croctotheface (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I "may lack the necessary background in American politics to persuasively comment on an issue like this", I'd best simply withdraw. I was, quite erroneously, laboring under the impression that WP:POLICY (about which I'm somewhat familiar) would be governing here. My bad. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I understand that you dislike me personally. You've made that clear once again with this comment. But there have been numerous discussions on this talk page about how the conservative movement has sought to turn "liberal" into a dirty word. You said that you had read the previous discussions, but you also said that you were totally unaware of anything that might have to do with "liberal" having a pejorative meaning for some people. As far as policy, I've said this before, but it's much easier to do what you're doing--flat out assert that your viewpoint follows policy and that others' do not--than it is to actually engage on the merits of the discussion. Until and unless there is a policy that specifically speaks to liberal vs. progressive in this sort of context, then we're stuck with the often frustrating task of interpreting policy. Ignoring someone else's arguments and simply asserting that your interpretation follows policy (or WP:POLICY if you prefer to shout) doesn't somehow make it so. I could just as easily shout back a one line reply of my own: "NO! It is MY INTERPRETATION that agrees with WP:POLICY!" That doesn't further the conversation, though. Croctotheface (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While I had no intent to pursue further discussion with you, that you have now resorted to both mis-stating and mis-representing my comments mandates making a for the record note. Your arguments have no merit under WP:POLICY and I have more than adequately stated my rationales for those assertions. Finis. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have simply asserted that my arguments don't follow policy and yours do. I believe the opposite, and I have put forth my arguments as to why that's the case. You have not engaged with those arguments; in fact, you've repeatedly tried to cut off the discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have simply asserted that my arguments don't follow policy and yours do.

That you saw nothing but a "simple assertion" in my comments bereft of any supporting argument, your myopia on this issue has now advanced to affecting even your vision. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal" as a pejorative

Since I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, I figured it makes sense to call editors' attention to this section in our article on modern liberalism in the United States: "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Useful reading. Apparently such high-quality sources as the NYT, the Washington Post, and especially NPR (with 12 uses of "liberal" and no uses of "progressive") didn't get the memo that "liberal" is a pejorative to be avoided. We should let WP:MOSFOLLOW be our guide, as well as WP:LABEL, as pointed out by Becksguy. Drrll (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear--the entirety of your argument is that "sources use 'liberal'"? When someone says that sources also use "progressive", that there may be issues with the liberal label, or with featuring it so prominently, or with anything else, your only response is to reiterate that sources use it? I'll say this for the second or third time: counting hits for one search string versus another doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves. But even if it did, there are still serious problems with the change you'd want to make to the article, not the least of which is the weight issue of putting "often referred to in news stories as liberal" as the first and most prominent piece of information that our article conveys. Still, at some point, ignoring the substance of other editors' comments and merely reiterating that sources use "liberal" really seems like you're dodging the issue. Croctotheface (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The thrust of my argument is that WP is about doing what reliable sources do, as explained in policy and MOS guidelines. And what policy or guidelines back up your view that the liberal label should be avoided? Explain to me what method you believe is superior to LexisNexis in determining the "style adopted by high-quality sources," as called for by WP:MOSFOLLOW. Actually the first and most prominent piece of information that our article conveys is that MMfA is a media watchdog organization. We are again mirroring sources that use "liberal" as a major piece of information when mentioning MMfA. Again, what WP policy or guideline am I dodging? Drrll (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My argument is not and never has been that "'liberal' should be avoided." It's in the article several times, and I don't intend to change that. My argument is that we should quote their self-description because it is informative and accurately characterizes their politics. It seems that everyone agrees on this point; the debate is over whether to leave the description intact, cut it off right after "progressive" or add "liberal" in a few words before "progressive." Both "liberal" and "progressive" are used in sources. My view is that the second option has neutrality problems because it seems born of the desire to foist a label used as a derogatory epithet onto the organization. I think the third option is at best redundant, and at worst it's designed to call attention to the labeling kerfuffle, which has the same sort of neutrality problem as option 2.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that liberal is always used as a derogatory epithet, but the fact that it sometimes or often is used that way strikes me as plenty sufficient to make sure that we use it judiciously. Even if I stipulate that sources use "liberal" more frequently, I think that these neutrality issues are much more important. And, to be perfectly honest, it sets off POV pushing alarms in my head when there's a concerted effort spanning several years to feature a label used as a derogatory epithet very prominently in the lead of the article. Why is this such a big deal to some people? It sets off more alarm bells when there are comments made to the effect of "progressive" is "warm and fuzzy" or "candy coating," then I think the jig is up: that comment seems to concede that desire to use "liberal," for at least some editors, is its use as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How skeptical should we be?

It seems that the discussion at this point concerns whether to cut off Media Matters' self-description after they say "progressive" or whether to leave in that part of the quote. This is kind of puzzling to me: a lot of the arguments for editing the quote this way talk about how we shouldn't trust an organization to describe itself, and so forth. Why is it, then, that we're comfortable with the rest of the quote? Everyone here is fine with letting Media Matters write every other part of the description in the lead of our article. This strikes me as rather telling--editors are fine with whatever else Media Matters wants so long as we put "liberal" right up top. And what's the significance of "liberal"? Well, conservative activists have spent decades trying to turn it into a dirty word. To me, that's the real neutrality issue here. Croctotheface (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's why the use of "liberal" violates WP:NPOV. It's a "Value-laden label" per WP:LABEL, and those and other emotionally charged and denigrating words, like "baby killer", "pinko", "terrorist", "traitor" and "liberal" violate neutrality, per se. To some, "liberal" is a badge of honor, to others it's a deadly insult, just as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". — Becksguy (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sad to say, but this is the only logical explanation here for what's happening. It's the only reason to explain why the pro-liberal faction sees one part of the self-description as acceptable and another incredibly suspect, has for years dodged direct questions about the contradictions of the arguments presented, and holds up some RSes as the gold standard while dismissing and ignoring others. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the only reason to explain why the pro-liberal faction sees one part of the self-description as acceptable and another incredibly suspect,...

"Pro-liberal"? But of course you mean those advocating for inclusion of "liberal" and "progressive".

...has for years dodged direct questions about the contradictions of the arguments presented,...

Does anyone else detect a certain odor of WP:TRUTH here?

...and holds up some RSes as the gold standard while dismissing and ignoring others.

Interesting. WP:RS sourcing consistently demonstrating "liberal" as a pejorative when characterizing MMfA was just simply and unceremoniously ignored. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*Of course, I thought that was fairly clear.

*And another dodge here. What's so terrifying about that question? Why not simply address it?

*I have no idea what you are referring to here. My comment was about citing some and ignoring other factual descriptions from reliable sources. What reliable sources use liberal as a pejorative when characterizing MMFA? If they are using terms in such a manner, that sounds more like a polemic or an opinion piece than a reliable source. I think you should clarify what you're getting at here, or better yet, point me to some relevant talk discussion on whatever you are talking about. Gamaliel (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*Of course, I thought that was fairly clear.

Actually what was fairly clear is that your "pro-progressive faction" (to use your own stylistics) have apparently dismissed any plausibility (It's the only reason to explain...) that there might actually be a WP:POLICY "faction" to which editors might subscribe. That's what was "clear" to me. And it's also quite "clear" to me just how and where this subject of editorial intent was, rather unfortunately, injected into this process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a policy based issue, why dismiss some RSes and not others? If this is a policy based issue, why repeatedly dodge - for years! - direct questions about the arguments posted here? Gamaliel (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a policy based issue, why repeatedly dodge - for years! - direct questions about the arguments posted here?

Rejecting, of course, your assertion that I've "dodged" anything (in fact I've addressed its irrelevancy, or some variant of its irrelevancy, several times as I recall), for the simple reason that they are off the WP:POLICY reservation and into WP:TRUTH landia. One needn't look beyond allusions to non-existent WP naming conventions or calls for Liberal/Progressive "resolution" as being the equivalent to WP:V, WP:RS sourcing to understand what's afoot here. As your forthcoming response will, no doubt, be yet another repetition of obduracy posing as argument, I'm done here...and your "pro-progressive faction" all courts press in repetition and last-wordism will be, I can assure you, quite successful. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to anything I've said and have already made up your mind regarding the content of my response, there isn't much point in continuing this. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are not cutting off anything. Option 5, for example, gives the entire first sentence from their self-description, "progressive" included. We just don't use "progressive" uncritically in Wikipedia's voice like we do now. We instead make clear that it is MMfA's description, along with the rest of their self-description. Drrll (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's your issue, then I think we might be able to resolve this much more readily. From what you say, you don't care about getting "liberal" in there, so it sounds like you'd be fine with going back to the something like the old version, which read, "Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a media watchdog group organized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock, Media Matters describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." We can take out or rearrange some of that stuff in the beginning to put the quote with "progressive" sooner, too. Something like that strikes me as a fine compromise. Croctotheface (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some problems with going with that. First of all, this RfC is still in progress. Second, that proposed text is similar to what we already have in options 4 & 6. Third, unlike option 6, there's no mention of discussing the liberal / progressive issue later on in the article body. But you're obviously free to propose that option in a separate section / RfC. Drrll (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But you're obviously free to propose that option in a separate section / RfC.

An "option" which, without CLEAR and SUBSTANTIVE RS sourcing establishing that an unqualified, non-pejorative RS characterization of "liberal", SPECIFIC to MMfA, CANNOT be made should be summarily dismissed. Were such an option to be even entertained, to say nothing of WP instituted via some ill-considered "naming convention" tom foolery, it's an open door to injecting this decidedly POV, ideologically inspired fringe umbrage into ANY article subject in which a "liberal" characterization is already (or would be) WP:POLICY, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE legitimate and appropriate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant he is free to do so per WP:CCC. I don't think it would get anywhere because of WP:RS and WP:MOSFOLLOW. Nor do I think it would be wise to put it up as an option right after a two-month old debate ending with an RfC. Drrll (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, to be clear then, your concern is not what you said in the above comment? Your goal is not to change the article so that it no longer "uses 'progressive' uncritically in Wikipedia's voice", but rather your goal is to put "liberal" into the article as close to the top as possible? Croctotheface (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If my goal was to put "liberal" into the article as close to the top as possible, my first choice would have been "MMfA is a liberal..." Incidentally, that's what's done for most conservative organizations: "X is a conservative...." Is your goal to keep out any mention that news sources describe it as liberal? Drrll (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I don't think that telling readers that some news sources use one label instead of another one (when some use the second one, some use both, and each label is accurate) serves to inform them about Media Matters. It's just not an informative enough piece of information to warrant inclusion for its own sake, especially not in the lead paragraph. It only seems that way because it's become such a big issue on this talk page, and that's only happened because some editors insist on getting the word "liberal" featured prominently in the lead of the article and some other editors resist that. If we apportion weight in the article based on how much sturm und drang the issue has raised on the talk page, then we're not putting the readers first.

With respect to the conservative organizations, I'd only consider them parallel cases that might inform what we do here if they prefer to use a different label (say, "right wing") that accurately describes what they do. If they affiliate themselves with conservatism, then the usage you describe is the same as the one currently in the article: the organization chooses an accurate label, and we use the same one. If they deny that their politics are right of center, then we don't have a parallel case because Media Matters does accurately describe their ideology with "progressive."

That said, I'd prefer openly calling the organization "liberal" to engaging in weasel worded verbal gymnastics like "often described in news stories as." My general belief is that we're better off avoiding the morass altogether and keeping the "which label" stuff out of the lead of the article. If there are relevant quotes from individuals who call MM liberal, then we should use them without hesitation; that's the reason that the article does say "liberal" several times. It's not as if I'm totally against putting it anywhere in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The poll as a snapshot

Could we also agree on one other thing: this straw poll with bulleted votes really just captures a snapshot of editor opinion at a certain point in time. Past discussions contain relevant editor opinion as well. It happens that A lot of editors who used to participate in these debates (which have dragged on for years now) are no longer participating, but that shouldn't mean that their voices are no longer relevant. In fact, it would be entirely logical for them to believe that, after every single identical debate came out one way, that they would no longer need to stop by and provide their opinion every few months because the same group of editors wanted to relitigate the issue. Croctotheface (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) According to WP:CCC, "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding." So, current consensus trumps past consensus, just like someone in the future can challenge this consensus.

(2) In looking over the archives, there has been only one other RfC, 18 months ago, and that was about whether to categorize MMfA as a liberal organization.

(3) Previous discussions often focused on a supposed WP preference for using self-descriptions, when no such preference exists in WP policy or guidelines. WP is about reliable sources.

(4) Previous discussions did not offer a wide range of choices, just the choice between "progressive" and "liberal."

(5) Previous discussions did not present evidence that reliable sources, especially top-tier sources, overwhelmingly describe MMfA as "liberal" over "progressive."

Drrll (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, it's your view that past opinions are completely irrelevant here? I mean, come on, how can anyone listen to you say that and view this whole operation as anything other than an attempt to game the system? You don't like the consensus, so you relitigate the same issue again and again and again until it achieves the result you want. Just for clarity's sake: in (1), if you do prevail, you are inviting those who disagree with you to reopen this issue on a constant basis until they get their way? And in (2), you suggest that we are not currently debating whether to categorize Media Matters as liberal? Does that mean you're not comfortable categorizing them that way? Croctotheface (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Past opinions are not completely irrelevant; they are just useful in a limited way. Again, from the WP consensus can change policy, "While past 'extensive discussions' can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." You would have a point about gaming the system if I had started a new RfC shortly after another similar RfC resulted in the verdict I didn't like. There has never been an RfC even close to this one, with fresh choices and fresh data presented. (1) anyone is free to reopen the issue at some point in the future, at which time we go with the result of that discussion. (2) The only other RfC here was whether to use the WP category 'Liberal organizations' for MMfA. The RfC result 18 months ago was no, but that could be reopened in the future and I would support the use of the category, again, based on reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is your vision for Wikipedia really that people should relitigate the same issues again and again because they're not satisfied with the result? It's true that people can bring up just about any issue just about whenever they want. But is that really what we should do? I don't like the result, so I just relitigate it until the people who disagree with me give up? That sounds like a a battleground to me, and it's not what we're supposed to be about here. Croctotheface (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am advocating, although WP policy would seem to allow that. I don't think it would serve Wikipedia well for an editor to quickly turn around after consensus is built and then pose the same or nearly the same question for reconsideration, especially if there are no new facts / evidence / ideas. I think that such an editor would be ignored for such a stunt, and that's not what I have done here. On the other hand, it doesn't serve Wikipedia well to remain impervious to reexamination every so often. Drrll (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What "new facts" came to light since the last time this was discussed? The arguments are identical. It's the same exact conversation every single time. Croctotheface (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For one, the demonstration that top-tier sources overwhelmingly favor "liberal" over "progressive." Something else not presented before is how WP:MOSFOLLOW guides this dispute. Drrll (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that the "Google hits test" is really the best way to go? What I see from the data you link there is that both words are present at a high clip in sources. There's a pretty strong consensus on Wikipedia that "there are more hits for search string A than for search string B" should not be taken as a persuasive argument for much of anything. Plus, "liberal" is in the article a bunch of times. It's not like we're totally unwilling to use it. The question is whether we must either cut off Media Matters' self-description before progressive or put "liberal" in a few words before, which is at best redundant and at worst a neutrality issue because it's meant to imply the conservative activists' "liberal is a dirty word that people on the left should run away from" meme. Croctotheface (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the argument that liberal appears more frequently in sources most certainly was raised before. It's not new. Croctotheface (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a "Google hits test." It's using the preeminent news source database, LexisNexis, which is far more precise than Google. It covers all articles published by the NYT, WaPo, etc. for the past four decades or so. The specific search used is one that shows all instances in which the words "liberal" or "progressive" appear in the same sentence as "Media Matters." It's not even a close call between the proportion of use, especially in the "high quality sources" that WP:MOSFOLLOW suggests using (like NYT, WaPo, NPR and the others listed in my breakdown above). Again, we are not cutting off Media Matters' self-description--"progressive" is right there in the lengthy quote. It would be redundant if we used "liberal progressive" together; it is not redundant to show what is overwhelmingly favored by sources and then what is favored by MMfA. It is not a neutrality issue when both WP:MOSFOLLOW and WP:LABEL are adhered to. Drrll (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, "more hits for search string X than for string Y" is not generally considered a strong piece of evidence here. But even if we stipulate to that, there's the issue that it' a subjective label, and even moreso, that putting it right at the top of the article implies that the most important thing about Media Matters is that they are "often referred to in news stories as liberal". But as I've said elsewhere, you've made your argument about sourcing; you don't need to repeat it. My point is that such an argument is not new. This is yet another attempt to present the same arguments to relitigate the same issue. Croctotheface (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, put forth a better method to utilize WP:MOSFOLLOW. What policy or guideline states that we shouldn't use subjective labels, especially if the usage is so common? The source argument may not be new, but the clear demonstration of the stark difference in usage of "liberal" over "progressive" in top-tier sources is new. Drrll (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This commonality has not been established. That simple fact seems to be glossed over in recent discussion with a couple of editors trying to move forward as if it's a given. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

It's been 16 days since this updated RfC started. Any objections to wrapping it up?

7 went with 5, 4 went with 4 (including an implied 4 by Gamaliel), 2 went with 4 / 6, and 1 went with 6.

The original proposed text for 5 was: Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group. Often described in news stories as liberal, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

With suggestions from JakeInJoisey, I say that we change "often described in news stories as liberal" to "often characterized as liberal", cited to five news stories with links from the NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, CNN, and NPR. There are hundreds of news stories that characterize MMfA as "liberal", including 36 NYT news stories that directly do so, so I think "often" is justified. Drrll (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My .02: Good job to Drrll on shepherding this to closure (and it would have been 8 favoring had Tom not, for some inexplicable reason, declined to weigh in with a vote) and compliments to all on a vigourous debate. Close the RfC first by removing the template...then incorporate the favored text (as written in the RfC). IMHO, any pain associated with the result won't be half as bad as was the process.

After that, we're back to normal editing as to tailoring the content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? With numbers like that, I'm genuinely unsure which version you think is "favored." Croctotheface (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wait, what?" was precisely my reaction. That's 7-6 in favor of version 5, and that's only if you totally ignore the previous long standing consensus and the results of the previous RFC that was held ten minutes before this RFC. Not to mention the numerous unresolved issues on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no consensus whatsoever for that language. Again, these decisions are made through consensus, not voting. That is the fundamental principal of wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to delisting the RfC, since keeping it open any longer is not likely to break the impasse. However, I disagree that there is any new consensus based on either RfC poll, or both, or anything else on this page. In the first RfC, #4 lead by one point, in the second one (which is linked to the first) #5 lead by one point. There were 17 different editors that participated in both RfCs (14 in the first and 10 repeats plus 3 new ones in the second). Seven or eight points aren't even majorities of that number, and none of the options had a super or significant majority taken separately or together. More importantly, polls are not binding, per WP:POLL. — Becksguy (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Option 5 may have not been overwhelmingly supported, but it was supported more so than any other option, especially considering that two editors didn't specify a preference for 4, but instead opted for 4/6. One thing is abundantly clear--the current wording is not an acceptable option to keep. When the primo source, the NYT, directly calls MMfA "liberal" in 36 separate articles and only calls MMfA "progressive" once, and with the guidelines of WP:MOSFOLLOW, we should be able to agree that the current wording won't do. In fact, I contend that both WP:MOSFOLLOW and WP:LABEL suggest that we should directly label MMfA as "liberal." Any takers of that or other suggestions to proceed forward? Drrll (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, again along the lines of WP:MOSFOLLOW, The Washington Post describes MMfA as "liberal" in 30 separate news articles and "progressive" zero times. NPR describes MMfA as "liberal" in 11 separate broadcast segments and "progressive" zero times (compare that to only five other times that MMfA is mentioned on air by NPR journalists without an explicit ideological characterization). Drrll (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, you're forgetting that the current version is the consensus version which was hammered out in extensive discussion. Yes, consensus can change, but clearly there is no consensus for any proposed changes. Second, while the NYT may (according to your own research) refer to them as liberal more often than progressive, they most often don't label them as either. Thus, WP:MOSFOLLOW would indicate that we do the same and simply refer to them neutrally without subjective adjectives, letting the reader form their own opinion. This is what I've long advocated here and on other articles of the right and left. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It may have been the consensus version before, and yes, there is no overwhelming consensus now, but there is a clear consensus that "MMfA is a progressive..." is not an option (see the first iteration of this RfC, before the choices were narrowed down in the most recent iteration). Actually, the NYT does label them ideologically more often than they don't. And the ideological label they use by an enormous margin is "liberal." Drrll (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Solicitation for an uninvolved administrative RfC closure may be the appropriate approach here...and let the chips fall where they may. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a sound way to go. Do you know how to request such a closure? Drrll (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I would think the "Dispute Resolution Notice Board" might be a good place to solicit an uninvolved admin. If there's a better place, I would imagine that advice would be obtained rather quickly. Just my .02 On edit, even better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was also thinking WP:DRN might be a good place. This can then be sent to mediation or perhaps better, an non-involved admin can hopefully determine consensus, since apparently we can't agree on our own. The RfC has been open for almost three weeks, has gone well past the point we agreed it would be closed, and there hasn't been any new selection activity in six days. So unless someone objects, in a short time I will remove the RfC tag which will initiate the RFCBOT to de-list the debate. Or Drrll can do it, as nominator, if he prefers. We should close the RfC before going to dispute resolution anyway. — Becksguy (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I object. The RfC should and will be closed in a manner selected by the editor who placed it. Drrll has placed a request (see above) for an uninvolved admin to do that job and his request should be honored. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear if removing the RfC tag will close the RfC or just de-list it. Since I just requested via the uninvolved template that an uninvolved admin close the RfC, I'm not sure if I should remove the RfC tag now. If we don't get assistance soon from the uninvolved template, I'll post something at WP:DRN or WP:ANI as well. Drrll (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been my experience that a closing admin will generally handle the removal of tags as part of the closing process. That being said, if you elect to remove the tag itself, it actually doesn't affect anything (save for de-listin the RfC) until the closing admin hats the RfC. So, IMHO, removing the tag is almost meaningless. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll just let the closing admin remove the tag then. Drrll (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord. I just looked at the other RfC and it's been listed since 3 MAY !!!! ROFL! Looks like another way will be needed to solicit some uninvolved closure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to that? I looked at the RfC listings and did't see the other RfC there. Drrll (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the Old Town entry that's very old indeed. Since there are objections, I'll leave the tag here. So ANI or DRN for help? Noting that DRN requires some work to initiate and is in trial mode. — Becksguy (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial thought was WP:DRN as well. AN/I gives me the hives. Give it a whirl there? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted at WP:DRN. Not sure if I got it right. Please edit it if you see any improvements that can be made to it. Drrll (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

One other thought. You might consider an adminhelp template? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from the dispute resolution noticeboard. Based on what info I have (17 days up on RfC, mixed consensus) I'm thinking it would be a good idea to let this RfC continue and possibly for people to discuss and revise their positions. I know that the group was looking for a closure, but why create a new RfC to re-litigate the same question when this one can continue? Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Does anyone have a suggestion for a modified version of the options under consideration that might garner more support? Drrll (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep talking about a modified version as though this one is flawed. From what I can tell, several people are pontificating and not attempting to come to a consensus. The fact that there is a mixed consensus tells me either that people in the debate are firmly entrenched in their viewpoints (in which case outside editors need to be drawn in via a significant announcement (like a posting at [WP:CENT] possibly?)) or more convincing needs to occur to possibly get people to change their minds. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't very clear. I'm not talking about another RfC; I'm talking about making changes to a current option in the RfC (#4 or #5) to perhaps allow a clearer consensus. I could be wrong, but I don't think that there will be much movement toward a single option without doing some tweaking. In your experience, does WP:CENT bring significant attention to others? Drrll (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first H2 "Uninvolved admin requested for RfC close" since that just added a whole empty dispute entry before the one we are involved in. Updated the overview subsection to include "uninvolved admin" and "closure" as part of the reason. Feel free to edit also, as this was mostly housekeeping. One question: Should all the involved editors be listed, including everyone that !voted, or just the ones involved in the actual discussion since the 1st RfC started. There were 17 editors that !voted, and about 13 editors that got involved in the discussion threads, with the majority of the posting by a smaller number. This approach is new to everyone here, so we will all have questions. — Becksguy (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My .02: I don't know that mediation is appropriate here...at least not yet. I believe there are clear questions related to WP:POLICY that should benefit from fresh, experienced eyes looking at what is basically a content issue. I'm inclined to go with Hasteur's recommendation to leave the RfC open and seek broader input elsewhere, the "Content" noticeboard being the most likely. I've never been there before but I assume this RfC is related to it's function. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to option 4

Since no one has yet proposed a tweak of the RfC options to garner wider support, I thought I would. I was earlier reluctant to go this route and went with option #5 instead--that is until I more closely examined top-tier news sources like The NYT, The WaPo, and NPR, and until I was made aware of the MOS guideline WP:LABEL:

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

"Liberal" may not be on the same level as "cult," "racist," "terrorist," or "perversion," but it is a "value-lade label" and "contentious." In addition, the MOS guideline WP:MOSFOLLOW suggests that we "follow the sources":

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources.

It is precisely the highest-quality sources that most often refer to MMfA as "liberal."

How about this tweak to option #4. It is definitely cleaner than option #5:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal media watchdog group which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

If anyone has a specific question as to just how "widely used by reliable sources" / "high-quality sources" "liberal" is, let me know. Drrll (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, again, you are stating as fact (in the voice of wikipedia) what is subjective opinion. And besides, this is just poor writing. It's terribly extraneous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please put forth your own proposal that is a variant of option #4 or option #5. As it stands now, we are "stating as fact (in the voice of wikipedia)" that MMfA is "progressive." And that is not supported by reliable sources or MOS guidelines, unlike the use of "liberal." How does simply adding "liberal" to option #4 suddenly transform it into poor writing? Drrll (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose adding "liberal" to option 4 for reasons expressed many times by all those opposed to it's inclusion. The whole point to option 4 is that it doesn't use the label "liberal". It doesn't characterize at all. — Becksguy (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Omission

I would suggest that this "(including Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, Marcy Carsey, Susie Tompkins Buell, Leo Hindrey, Gail Furman, and James Hormel)" be dropped from this "Benefactors and staff", regardless of verification. You may do as you wish of course. I have nothing further to say about this so, "carry on" and have a good day.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion and a change has been made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it time for a wide-ranging discussion of "liberal" vs. "progressive"?

And I don't mean an interminable discussion here. This seems like the sort of thing that belongs on a noticeboard. This is really a Manual of Style issue more than anything else. Either "progressive" is fine and can stand on its own, we should use "liberal" instead, or we should use both at the same time (however redundant that may be).

Because really, at this point, the argument on the merits is at an impasse. There's no room for "compromise" here; the question is whether one extra word needs to go in or not. It's not about phrasing, and attempts to use phrasing to accommodate both sides ("often described in news sources as") doesn't help anything. The issue is whether "progressive" can stand on its own or not, and it doesn't really have much to do with Media Matters in particular; this article just happens to be where the debate is happening. Croctotheface (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to put the below conversation in a subsection because I really sincerely want a response to this question. I'm not talking about this article in particular right now. The prevalence of "liberal" in some newspapers seems like it's a manual of style issue. They use liberal to mean "left of center" in generic terms. Has Wikipedia made a similar manual of style-type decision about using "liberal" instead of "progressive" to characterize those sorts of politics? Or are we more comfortable using "progressive" in situations where it might make sense? Croctotheface (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a Manual Of Style issue. The MOS doesn't address the specific use of "liberal" and "progressive," but it does address the issue in general at WP:MOSFOLLOW:

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

Drrll (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Specific to this article, we've established that both terms are used in sources. If anything, that should make us comfortable using either. The other baggage that "liberal" brings shows why it is unwise to go out of our way to shoehorn "liberal" into the lead.

But to me, that's a sidebar from the issue I've raised here. We have plenty of other places on this talk page to discuss this matter, and I set this discussion apart specifically because it pertains less this article specifically than to a general question. What degree of comfort should we have using one label over another, and how necessary it should be to force a label upon an organization because that label appears in sources? I think it would be wise for the MOS to address this question specifically: should we shy away from letting "progressive" stand on its own? Do we need to also say "liberal" because it shows up in some sources? Croctotheface (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar on policy interpretation

We already have a policy in place for this, three in fact. Neutral Point of View says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. and Reliable Sources says: How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. and No Original Research says, Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

More simply put the preponderance of reliable, secondary sources identify MMA as a "liberal organization". The appropriate, policy compliant action is to label it as such. End of story. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This comment is a textbook example of unproductive discourse. You have described your interpretation of those policies. Those policies do not say "use liberal if a 'preponderance of sources' (which is disputed above, by the way) use liberal." They do not say anything about "a preponderance of sources." Clearly, there are differing views here. How does your dismissive "end of story" pronouncement help further the collaborative goals of Wikipedia? Put another way, should I respond to your posts by articulating my differing viewpoint, declaring myself the final authority, and then saying "end of story"? Croctotheface (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you consider the verbatim quoting of policy in the context of a content discussion to be unproductive then you're really missing the point. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're still acting as if that your preferred application of policy is the only such application. I understand that you believe that your vision for the article follows policy best. I believe that my vision for the article follows policy best. We then have a conversation about why that is. I've put forth arguments in support of my position. You've quoted policy language back without describing how or why my interpretation of the policy is wrong and we should go with yours instead.

But still beyond that, do you at least see how dismissive pronouncements like "end of story" are not conducive to discussion or collaboration? Croctotheface (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Doesn't anyone see how ridiculous this all is?

Media Research Center is labeled 'conservative' because that's how outside sources view them, therefore;

Media Matters for America should labeled as 'liberal' because that's how outside sources view them.

Fact: MMfA is a liberal media watchdog group.
Fact: They were created to counteract the MRC and 'faux news' (or so how they eloquently put it.)
Fact: When refereed to anywhere else on earth, they are overwhelming labeled "liberal"
Fact: By wikipedia's definition: "The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization"

On the MRC page, the exact opposite policy is being used. User Milowent said (basically) if organizations self-label, then does that mean Nazis and can choose whatever they want, despite the truth?

We would not refer to the Nazi party as a "loving organization" if they referred to themselves that way. That's silly. We don't parrot self-published descriptions, this comes up all the time in BLPs. Glenn Beck is described a a conservative, for example, regardless of his personal descriptions. Here, reliable sources repeatedly describe MRC as a conservative organization (e.g., Christian Science Monitor just yesterday), so its disingenuous to remove. What's your MRC connection?--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this conclusion not being employed here?

They are the same organization. They are the very same thing. MRC barks about MSNBC, MMfA barks about FOX. Why does this need thousands of words of discussion?

Logic: By wikipedia's precedence, and the evidence indicated above: the definition should read:

"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal content analysis organization."

If we want to candy-coat the description of MMfA with something warm and fuzzy and soft and nonthreatening sounding as "progressive" despite the evidence otherwise, then we should remove themselves from the debate. So is this just a double standard, or is this an issue with WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:DE? Logical fact (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no double standard. Media Research Center refers to themselves as conservatives. The word appears seven times on their about page: http://mrc.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a double standard, did you not read Milowent?

We don't parrot self-published descriptions, this comes up all the time in BLPs

Logical fact (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I was going to make a similar statement in the section above. The preponderance of reliable sources identifies MMA as a "liberal organization". To use the article subject's preferred definition in lieu of the majority of third party reliable source's characterization is the exact opposite of the entire core concept behind NPOV and Verifiability. It's Wikipedia 101. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This really misstates the question, though. The question here doesn't concern an organization or person who uses a label that is in doubt. Everyone here agrees that "progressive" is accurate as applied to Media Matters. The question also does not concern whether to excoriate any mentions of "liberal" from the article. There are several. The question is whether we should just quote Media Matters' self-description, which is accurate, or whether we should edit the quote so as to replace the word "progressive" with "liberal" (and change nothing else) or to just quote it with "progressive" intact. Plenty of news sources describe them as liberal, sure, and plenty describe them as progressive. Both terms are used in sources. The argument I'm seeing as to why we MUST edit the quote to get "liberal" in there really seems to come down to an active hostility to using the word that the group prefers; the argument seems to be that BECAUSE Media Matters uses one term, we must use the other. As I've said before, that sort of hostility is not at all neutral. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No Croc, and as I see you have misstated my position several times I will write a clear correction of things I have been stating on this page for more than a year and a half: 1.) My primary concern has always been describing MMfA in such a way that is is clear that they only focus on conservative "misinformation", because we had idiots coming here and attempting to put forward the idea that they (MMfA) were simply a "Media Watchdog" group that happened to talk about conservatives because it was the conservatives that were always wrong. Obciously this was an issue and the reason I put the self-descriptor in in the first place (I was the one who made that inital addition, it wasn't there before I added it) was to make it clear that this group had a self-stated bias. 2.) After this addition the progressive/liberal debate started here and similar arguements occured on other pages (the aforementioned Media Resource Center was one) where the bias was clearly stated. Personally, I don't have strong feelings against "Progressive", because to me that is a more perjoritive term than "liberal" because I know the history of the term and the people in the movement. However, that is not common knowledge - but hey, only 60% of Americans can name the Vice-President of the United States. I disagree with you and feel that the preponderance of reliable sources do in fact refer to MMfA as "Liberal", and based on that argument I made my decision. I understand that you disagree, but please don't attempt to misrepresent what I'm saying to support your argument. SeanNovack (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean, to be clear, I was both requesting clarification on your opinion and representing it as best I could. What I understood you to be saying (and perhaps I misunderstood, btu that's why I asked you to clarify) was disappointing because it really seemed that the thrust of your argument in favor of "liberal" was that we shouldn't do what Media Matters wants, and that they would "prefer not to be known as" liberal. I don't think there's any basis for that statement in fact; I haven't seen a source that says it, and choosing a different label doesn't mean they deny/refute/disassociate themselves with all others. Anyway, I think that there's a consensus among all editors that it's fine to quote their self-description, including "progressive" and "conservative misinformation", so the ideology will be clear one way or another. Croctotheface (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility and getting it done

Yeah, I'm hardly one to talk, But...since no one can say anything new, we really need to wrap this up and disregard the recent resurgent incivility as toxic and ignorable noise. Anyone have a tally? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like 7 went with 5, 4 went with 4 (including an implied 4 by Gamaliel), 2 went with 4 / 6, and 1 went with 6. I think we should wait another 3 days to give the process two full weeks. Drrll (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, how did this get so far?

It was mentioned above that there was a previous RfC on this subject, but that it might not be applicable because it was about whether to categorize the page as liberal. Not only was the consensus that we should not do so, it is worth noting what followed. That led to a discussion of whether such categories (conservative, progressive, liberal, right-wing, etc.) should even exist at all on wikepedia. After extensive discussion, concerning the categories individually and as a whole, the consensus was to delete these categories. [Here] is one of these discussions. Many of the arguments are specific to category space, not article space, but I found this summary of the article in the closing admins notes to be relevant, particularly on the essential point that calling someone or something "liberal" is inherently subjective.

...the main thrust for deletion is the alleged subjectivity of the label, in this case 'liberal'. The arguments for retention can be reduced to two positions - a) that the term liberal has a definition and its application is therefore not subjective, and, b) that sourced self-identification and/or third party description should be regarded as being adequate justification for applying this category.

It is beyond argument that the term 'liberal' has a dictionary definition. The question is, given this definition, can it be used to make objective assessments in order to properly apply this category? In considering this question, I found the following statement from User:Black_Falcon to be a neat encapsulation of a vein of argument which many editors favoured:

Liberalism, like conservatism, is not defined by even a vaguely-formed set of ideological principles; it is a state-of-mind that can be shared by individuals and organizations of a thousand different beliefs and ideologies, and which can and does have a different meaning for each one.

I would add to this another key argument that seems to have been lost recently which is that we are talking about the lede paragraph here. By arguing that it belongs in the lede, not simply the article (which isn't currently under discussion) one is arguing that it carries the weight of great importance. So a key argument being made (or rather, implied) is that: not only is Media Matters undeniably "liberal" because others have referred to them as such, but that this is at the essence of their notability. This logic implies that "liberalism" is so essential to an understanding of the organization that it must be mentioned immediately in the lede paragraph, even before we discuss who they are, how they are organized, when they were founded, etc. (And no, I am not making a strawman argument here. I'm not saying the above argument has actually been made, my point is that in order for it to be included in the lede, the above would have to be true).

This fails on a number of levels. First, the lede is a summary of the article. And while there might be some merit in discussing whether a subjective ideological label should be in the article, currently it is not so it would be inappropriate to bring it up and then drop it solely in the lede. Second, the label is clearly subjective and as everyone now agrees (sometimes grudgingly) that NPOV prevents us from stating opinion as fact and therefore we can't simply refer to them as liberal, the proposal is now to insert terrible, terrible weasel-phrasing like "often referred to as...." That practically mirrors the textbook examples of what not to do on WP:NPOV. I really can't believe that an argument about something so obviously wrong has gotten this far. And, as stated earlier, if inserted, this would immediately be tagged with a {{who}} and then someone would attribute it. So what we are really arguing about is inserting the phrase "referred to by the Washington Post as liberal" into the lede paragraph for no reason whatsoever.

As I stated earlier, this really needs to be discussed project-wide, not just for this article as the problem runs parallel on many articles about people and organizations that draw the ire of the left or right. I would initiate it if I had more time these days, but if someone else does, please post a notice here. In the meantime, for this article, the proposal is undeniably flawed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You raise several points. I'll address one.

...if inserted, this would immediately be tagged with a {{who}} and then someone would attribute it.

Totally disagree and misrepresents, IMHO, WP:WEASEL and its intent. Article language that is non-specific but consensus acceptable is perfectly legitimate. What WP:WEASEL countenances against is an unintentionl or, perhaps, purposeful lack of specificity which would "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source". In this case, the need for source assessment SHOULD BE almost negligible as a benign, unloaded, non-pejorative use of "liberal" (which exclusionists find so difficult to swallow) is both a familiar term and amply supported across the ideological spectrum. Assuming the non-specific "often characterized as 'liberal'" is consensus acceptable language, any non-specificity can be easily mitigated, if not eliminated, via citation (but only if consensus required) from a bevy of rather impeccable WP:RS sources. So much for the {{who}} tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, it would be cited, and then the language would have to be changed to reflect the cite. And then you would end up with the absolute worst, extraneous phrasing; something like "referred to by the Washington Post as liberal." Simply saying "often referred to as" is the very definition of WP:WEASEL (I think that might even be one of the examples they use). Also, claiming that the word "liberal" is "benign, unloaded, non-pejorative" (particularly by those on the right) is either disingenuous or naive. Clearly the word is used with disdain by those of a certain political slant. Do you really need examples of this? --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, it would be cited, and then the language would have to be changed to reflect the cite.

Absolutely not. Non-specificity by consensus accord is perfectly legitimate, nor is it PRECLUDED by WP:WEASEL. This RfC is an attempt to reflect consensus on that very point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And what is your source for the fact that they are "often referred to as.."? Sure, you did a (disallowed) google hit count to show "liberal" is used more often than "progressive." But google also reveals that these examples almost always comes from partisan sources on the right and thatmost articles don't refer to them either way. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And what is your source for the fact that they are "often referred to as.."?

I was not involved in the composition of the language options under consideration nor am I personally familiar with the sources. However, for the purposes of participating in this RfC, that is irrelevant since their WP:V qualities appear to be stipulated by both sides as a given. As to the rest of your comment, you must be mistaking me for another editor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. That has not been "stipulated as a given by both sides." Simply saying it's true doesn't make it so--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That has not been "stipulated as a given by both sides."

The "stipulation" is implied by a consensus-acceptable wording of the options and subsequent placement of the RfC. If there wasn't sufficient sourcing presented to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS consideration for the incorporation of "liberal", then the option itself is illegitimate and the RfC should have been challenged as illegitimate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, deferring discussion of liberal/progressive until later in the article body is under discussion--it's right there in option 6 of the RfC. It is at the essence of MMfA's notability, given that so many sources so often put "liberal" right next to or almost next to "Media Matters" when referencing MMfA and that MMfA itself twice references its political ideology in the very first sentence of its description. If you would look at a number of articles about conservative organizations, you'll see that most are flatly described as "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice as the very first word after "X is a...", often with minimal if any sourcing. As far as the lead summarizing the article body, that could be addressed by adding a slightly more expansive explanation of liberal/progressive later on in the article. As far as the label being subjective, we are not labeling MMfA as liberal--we are doing something that is not all subjective. We are stating that sources often describe it that way and then providing citations with links to top sources. Drrll (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as you know, has a lot of articles that are poorly written or don't follow the same standards. If this fight is about achieving "balance" with articles labeled conservative, then the better strategy would be to argue for upholding standards and removing the labels on those articles. I don't watch that many articles, but if there's one that's particularly contentious to you, let me know and I'll be happy to weigh in on the talk page, giving these exact same arguments. It's a matter of principal. As for subjectivity, as stated earlier you can't say "often described as..." and then just provide a cite or two that describes them. That would not establish "often," that would just be two examples. You would need a reliable third-party source that actually says they are often described as liberal. Otherwise, it would have to be specifically attributed to the cite, so again, we would end up with the worst language possible, "referred to by the Washington Post as liberal." --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You would need a reliable third-party source that actually says they are often described as liberal. Otherwise, it would have to be specifically attributed to the cite, so again, we would end up with the worst language possible, "referred to by the Washington Post as liberal."

Just not true. Editorial consensus can, and likely often does, legitimize the use of non-specifics when and where appropriate. JakeInJoisey (talk)

Nope. You are attempting to state as fact, something which has never been stated as such by reliable sources. To say they are "usually" referred to this way based on your own research of google hit counts violates multiple rules on Wikipedia. Not to mention that the hit count used flawed methodology (not counting articles that didn't mention it, lumping reliable and non-reliable sources together, etc.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Creating a section about the labels "liberal" and "progressive" and their cross cultural definitions, meanings, and attributions in the article body is intrinsic, IMHO, to all of the options, despite being explicit in only option #6. In fact, it's center to the arguments relative to the use of the labels in the lede. So I totally support such a section. — Becksguy (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is about MMfA, not the "...cross cultural definitions, meanings, and attributions..." of a word commonly used to characterize its political philosophy. The FACT is that, save for a fringe element of naysayers who regard it as an irreparable, now-corrupted and established pejorative, the term has no such connotation in the common English lexicon as is clearly demonstrated via its employment as an MMfA characterization in WP:V, WP:RS sources from across the political spectrum.

Now, were some debate RAGING in some universe beyond this talk page relative to its use in characterizing MMfA's political philosophy (NOT just "liberal" or "liberalism" in general) and that SPECIFIC, MMfA-centric debate could rise to satisfy WP:UNDUE consideration, you MIGHT have the makings of a footnote inre an article on MMfA...but an entire section? Hardly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, do you really need examples to show you that the word liberal is used pejoratively by the right in modern American politics? Somehow, I don't think you do. If it were such a neutral term (and synonymous with progressive) then why would you be fighting tooth and nail to put it in the article instead of "progressive?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's WP:TRUTH, not WP:V as it relates to MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And that's an empty quotation of policy without addressing any of the points raised. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't refute WP:V, WP:RS supported content by assertion. You need to provide WP:V, WP:RS sourcing in support of an opposing view. Do you have WP:V, WP:RS sourcing specific to MMfA suggesting that "liberal", when used to characterize MMfA in sources such as the New York Times or the LA Times, was used as a pejorative? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument, but more to the point, the NYT rarely labels them "liberal." Do a search of their archives and you'll see only a couple of articles that do, and those are generally written in a personal voice and specifically concerning liberal/conservative issues (not the organization themselves). Further, the Washington Post article that keeps being held up as an example is just a snarky opinion piece from their style section, not even a news article! It's pretty clear that this "often referred to as..." is incorrect as they are "far more often not referred to as." --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're re-litigating the question of sourcing which (if I'm not mistaken) has been stipulated by both sides to be WP:V and WP:RS supported (now save for you?). However, I'll defer to User:Drrll's research as the authority on that point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. The very basic premise (that they are usually referred to as liberal by reliable sources) is neither proven nor true. Using flawed google counts to conduct original research doesn't change this fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

...they are usually referred to as liberal by reliable sources

I must've missed that in the text options. What number was that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Jake's position on the issue at hand, but I agree with him that this article is about Media Matters, not the baggage wrapped up in the "liberal" label or anything related to it. That debate has come here because some editors (himself included) insist on putting the word "liberal" into the article as close to the top as possible, not because it's actually relevant to Media Matters as an organization. To me, the labels debate deserves no weight at all in this article, and I'd much sooner acquiesce to flat-out labeling the group liberal than to either the "often described in news stories as" weasel words or to calling undue attention to the debate by adding any content (let alone an entire section!) to the article body about the debate. Croctotheface (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the heart of the issue. Calling them liberal, especially in the lede, is a WP:LABEL. We can argue to what degree and what connotations it carries, but it is still a label (and a pejorative one to a certain swath of the political spectrum, in the United States at least.)--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you REALLY prepared to cast "liberal" into the following den of iniquity?...

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Oh my. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do admire your sense of humor, Jake, and it makes an occasionally contentious debate a bit less so. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean you're changing your vote? ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "...sometimes characterized as liberal" any more palatable? Just thinkin'. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to me. I see adding the "liberal" label as totally unnecessary/redundant/value-laden, which is why I'd avoid it. But if consensus were to all of a sudden emerge that we must add "liberal" in there (and there's certainly no consensus for that now), I'd prefer openly calling the group "liberal" to any sort of passive voice qualifier, pick-a-newspaper-out-of-a-hat attribution, or he said/she said formulation that comes about because of all the rigamarole on this talk page. Croctotheface (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just how commonly is MMfA characterized as liberal in the NYT?

Loonymonkey contended that The New York Times rarely describes MMfA that way and implied the same about The Washington Post. I've detailed earlier how often top sources use "liberal" in the same sentence as "Media Matters". Specific to the NYT, they explicitly describe MMfA as "liberal" in 36 separate news stories; they indirectly do so in other news stories. Is that not often enough to say that they are "often" characterized that way? For example, here's a news story that came out the year MMfA started and here's a news story that came out two months ago directly calling MMfA "liberal." Drrll (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First, Drrll, as far as I can tell, you have not put forth any argument other than this one. I understand that you believe that this argument should be persuasive by itself. However, I think that failing to acknowledge or respond to other matters raised here (the potential neutrality issues raised by forcing a label used as a derogatory epithet onto the organization chief among them) casts a lot of doubt on your position.

Second, if we're going to start treating "how many hits does this search string get" as something worthy of discussion, then how about this. I searched the New York Times for all articles. The string "media matters" liberal returned 786 hits, while the string "media matters" -liberal, with articles including the word "liberal" specifically EXCLUDED from the results, returned 877 hits. Do you believe that this means that MOS:Follow says that we should avoid appending the liberal label, since most of the time they do not use it? Croctotheface (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Drrll...you have not put forth any argument other than this one.

He needs no other argument. WP:V, WP:RS & WP:UNDUE ARE the argument...and the only ones that count here. It is revelatory that yours are bereft of them.

I understand that you believe that this argument should be persuasive by itself.

It is more than persuasive...it is WP:POLICY.

...other matters raised here (the potential neutrality issues raised by forcing a label used as a derogatory epithet onto the organization chief among them)...

Your continuous repetition of off-the-Wikipedia-reservation rhetoric in lieu of providing WP:V WP:RS sourcing to support your contention is telling.

...casts a lot of doubt on your position.

It desperately tries to, but fails rather miserably. No, his position is quite sound per WP:POLICY. He has sourcing, you don't...and it's just THAT simple. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you have chosen to WP:SHOUT WP:SHORTCUTS without a single word WP:EXPLAINING why they WP:SUPPORT your position or WP:REFUTE mine. Do you deny that the "liberal" label is used as a derogatory epithet? There are plenty of sources at that article that discuss it. Why is it that policy insists that we use that potentailly-derogatory label as one of the first words in the article? None of the policies you reference talk about the word "liberal" or how close to the top of the article it needs to go in, or how to balance its potential derogatory use against another less contentious term that might have less use, or whether it's better to avoid any label, or any of the other questions raised here by people with whom you disagree. Croctotheface (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you have chosen to WP:SHOUT WP:SHORTCUTS...

Your rhetoric flees from any basis in fundamental WP:POLICY like Dracula from a cross. Little wonder that one will find your arguments bereft of the terms and that you, instead, find them to be so provocative and, perhaps even more surprisingly, worthy of ridicule. Amazing really.

Do you deny that the "liberal" label is used as a derogatory epithet?

Irrelevant to this issue. What WOULD be relevant to this issue would be the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing supporting your contention that "liberal" is inherently pejorative when used, specifically, to characterize MMfA, regardless of the source. That's the way Wikipedia works.

Why is it that policy insists that we use that potentailly-derogatory label as one of the first words in the article?

"Policy" doesn't. Could your use of the qualified "potentially-derogatory" be any more revelatory of the flaw that summarily disposes of your fundamental argument? Your argument presumes a legitimate invocation of WP:LABEL that simply does not exist and is further evidenced in your self-admitted attempt to get that ball rolling. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, long on WP:SHORTCUTSHOUTING, short on anything else of note. Since you seem to still be missing the point--simply quoting or referencing policies and guidelines without actually making a case for why they apply here does not add to the discussion.

I've linked to a Wikipedia article that describes the phenomenon of using the "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. It has lots of reliable sources (or, if you prefer, lots of WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RSes). To be clear, I never said that "liberal" is "inherently pejorative," just that this yearslong campaign to feature it as prominently as possible in the article lead looks questionable because of its use as a derogatory epithet. My feeling is that the costs of using a tainted term are high, the benefits are tiny if they exist at all. You apparently don't have a good reply to this line of argument, since you have to resort to a handwaving dismissal. Debate coaches tell their debaters that if the other side brings up an issue that causes you trouble, just say it is "irrelevant" and then pivot to an area you feel is stronger. That's precisely what you've done here.

Your only piece of evidence is that some sources say liberal. That's true, but it does not mean that we must feature "liberal" as prominently as possible in the article lead. It doesn't mean we need to reference it at all, actually, since there are plenty of sourced facts that should be excluded from articles anyway. But we haven't even done that here; "liberal" is in the article several times. Croctotheface (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Croc just hit the nail on the head. 36 out of how many articles? Drrll, your methodology is not only seriously flawed, it's WP:OR. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Croc's search results obviously do not reflect actual NYT articles. There aren't well over 1,000 NYT articles that mention Media Matters. There are only 72, 36 of which directly call MMfA "liberal"; a few others indirectly call it liberal (such as a May 3, 2004 article: "With more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, Mr. Brock will start a new Internet site this week that he says will monitor the conservative media and correct erroneous assertions in real time. The site, called Media Matters, was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly."). Plus, there are 2 articles that call it "left-wing," 2 articles that call it "left-leaning," and one that says that it is "on the left." One, count them one, article calls MMfA "progressive." WP:MOSFOLLOW, anyone? Drrll (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A parallel could be drawn to Wikipedia's treatment of commentator Bill O'Reilly where in the lead it is noted that reliable sources often describe him as a conservative while Mr. O'Reilly prefers to call himself a traditionalist. Media Matters prefers to call itself progressive while reliable sources far more often describe it as liberal. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would then consider making an election in the RfC (unless, of course, you favor none of them)? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the issue there that O'Reilly contends that he is NOT conservative and that "traditionalist" its outside the traditional left-right political spectrum? Croctotheface (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, O'Reilly self-identifies as a "registered independent". In other words, he votes regularly in the elections, and has chosen to register himself in his local BPOU as an "independent". This is a fact. So if a large number of reliable sources refer to him as a "conservative", it is certainly noteworthy that that is how he is perceived. Ergo, including both his self-descriptor and his perceived philosophical view is both relavent and accurate. This same chain of logic and argument is applicable to the case of MMfA. They describe themselves one way, and a vast majority of reliable sources state how they are perceived. This fact is sourced, and attacking Drrll's arguments as being based on nothing but his opinion is simply false. He has provided reliable sources and based his argument on established Wikipedia policy. The counter-argument is based on a percieved interpretation on the definition of a single word and any negative connotations that that word may or may not carry. While that works in a real life argument, it is not suitable for an argument on Wikipedia policy. Many things about Wikipedia don't make logical sense (like porn actors that were on film for 10 minutes being "notable" for articles but not war heros cited for valor in combat with one of their country's highest honors), but those are the rules we all agree to play by. If you don't like the outcome, then challange the rule, not the outcome of it. SeanNovack (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another curious fact about the article is its VERY frequent use of the term "conservative" (count how many times it is used in the first four or five paragraphs), and "conservative" often contrasted with "progressive," but not with "liberal." In the real world of journalism and, I suspect, academics as well, "conservative" is far more often contrasted with "liberal." It's as if this article were consciously trying to promote MMFA's preferred set of terms. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

An absurd bad faith allegation. As Croc has repeatedly pointed out, liberal is sprinkled throughout the article with no objections from either side. If editors were motivated by this, then they would object to all uses. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"liberal" is sprinkled throughout the article two or thee times times according to my quick count. That's a very light rain indeed. I counted at least eleven mentions for "progressive." However, my previous point was not an accusation. I said "it's as if the article were trying to consciously promote . . ." not "this article is trying to promote." Badmintonhist (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A fair point, so I withdraw my comment. Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no established Wikipedia policy that requires us to word articles based on word counts from a single search from a single database. Nor does that database search provide "overwhelming" evidence that the "vast majority" of sources call MMFA "liberal". I doubt most of the editors who are arguing that the counts are "overwhelming" haven't done their own search. My own search of Lexis/Nexis found hundreds of sources for each word and hundreds of sources using both words. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't keep labels out of WP. There may not be policy that governs labels, but there are the MOS guidelines WP:LABEL and WP:MOSFOLLOW. And those guidelines don't require that some unknowable majority of sources use a particular label. I have shown that just about any way you conduct a search, the use of "liberal" over "progressive" is overwhelming. Generally, the more that the search is done on the top-tier sources, the more overwhelming it is. Please put forth your search parameters and results that show there is anywhere near parity in the use of the two words in reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious what you mean exactly by "overwhelming" because my take on all the searches has been "slight majority". Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

With the broadest news search on LexisNexis, "All sources," which includes many non-reliable sources, the numbers of "liberal" / "progressive" in the same sentence as "Media Matters" is 1381 / 549--a 2.5 to 1 ratio (just 79 of those have both "liberal" & "progressive" in the same sentence). When you restrict the search to "Major World Publications," which is almost exclusively reliable sources, the numbers are 190 / 31--a 6 to 1 ratio (with just 9 having both words in the same sentence). When you restrict the search even further to 3 examples of top-tier sources and actually examine each example, the numbers are dramatically more overwhelming (36 to 1 for the NYT, 30 to 0 for the WaPo, and 11 to 0 for NPR). Please give the parameters you're using for searches, along with the results. Drrll (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

2.5 is "overwhelming"? The way you guys talk about it you sound like you think it's 100 to 1. And that 2.5 still leaves out hundreds and hundreds of sources which disagree with you. I've discussed the limitations of the "Major World Publications" search with you before, it's not a comprehensive search of those sources and leaves out much. Gamaliel (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I provided the "All Sources" results as a worst-case scenario--its results include so many examples of non-reliable sources like independent blogs and press releases that its ratio is severely skewed. And 36 to 1, 30 to 0, and 11 to 0 for the NYT, WaPo, & NPR respectively is not overwhelming? Any way you slice the search, the results are clear. "Newspaper" results, which include alternative newspapers and a much higher mix of opinion pieces to news pieces than "Major World Publications" are 463 / 126. "Magazines" results, which include such liberal publications as The American Prospect and Extra! (from the far-left FAIR are 59 / 36. "Newswires" results are 297 / 190 (and of the 190, 132 are press releases). "Broadcast Transcripts" results, which include MSNBC and Fox News opinion shows, are 171 / 37. "US Newspapers & Wires" results are 600 / 280 (again, 132 of which are press releases). Even "Blog and Web Publications" results, almost all of which are not from reliable sources, are 455 / 166. That covers all major options from LexisNexis. I noted that you didn't provide any search parameters or results. Suggest some, generic or specific, and we'll see what the results are. Drrll (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mixing search parameters and search breakdowns, so I'm a little unclear about what is coming from where. But I'm not sure there's much point in looking at these breakdowns. I don't find 2.5 to be particularly overwhelming - they way you have talked about the results I thought you had a much bigger disparity and I was wondering how you got it. And I've written extensively above about how I don't think numerical counts should be used in this manner, especially ones with such a relatively small disparity. The numbers aren't that big considering we're talking about individual stories here amongst the torrent of media generated in the US today. A single day of the New York Times may have more stories than one of these search results combined. Not to mention the limitations of databases in general and L/N searches in particular, which is repeatedly glossed over here. In short, as I've written above: "Lexis/Nexis is a wonderful tool for finding reliable sources, but it is itself not an RS or a proper statistical or lexicographical measuring tool." And in all these sources tallied up there isn't a single one that disputes the accuracy of "progressive". Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, suggest a better way than LexisNexis to provide "proper statistical or lexicographical" measurements and provide the results. Otherwise, the MOS guidelines WP:LABEL & WP:MOSFOLLOW are completely meaningless. I've never suggested that LN is a reliable source. It is a damn fine tool for seeing just how reliable sources portray things. Drrll (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI the 2.5 - 1 ratio that Drrll mentioned earlier is extrememely statistically significant (<0.00001) when looking at the probability of choosing one descriptor over another. A confidence interval that included 0.5 within the range of probabilities would imply no difference, but sources are highly statistically significant to use the descriptor Liberal versus Progressive. Arzel (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And like I said before, the 2.5 ratio is a worst-case scenario that includes many non-reliable sources. The higher up the reliable source food chain you go with regard to straight news stories, the higher the ratio gets. Drrll (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

.Gamaliel, given the clear preference of "liberal" in reliable sources then, if you are insistent on using the term "progressive" rather than "liberal" in the lead, I would suggest language which basically says that Media Matters describes itself as progressive, rather than having Wikipedia use the term progressive in its own voice. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, Gamaliel does support the option of saying that MMfA describes themselves as "progressive" (see the RfCs above, as well as my proposed tweak to "option 4") Drrll (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine by me, Drrll. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying they describe themselves as progressive, but preceding that by labeling them as liberal is no "compromise" whatsoever. You are stating as fact, in the voice of Wikipedia, what is subjective opinion. And the point you keep avoiding here is that, while you can spend all day doing original research comparing "liberal" to "progressive," the vast majority of RS sources do not label them at all so why should we? WP:MOSFOLLOW (the link for which you paste about 20 times a day) would indicate that we also should avoid either label and just describe what they are and what they do. Further, you've never addressed why this labeling MMoA is so crucial to an understanding of their notability that we have to mention it immediately in the very beginning of the lede. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It was meant as more of a tweak to achieve cleaner writing and to more closely follow MOS guidelines (I won't paste one of those two links again here!). You're free to put forth your variation of option #4 or #5. We are currently stating as fact, in the voice of Wikipedia, that MMfA is "progressive"--and without the support of RS or MOS guidelines. The highest-quality sources like the NYT, The WaPo, and NPR do label them ideologically more often than they don't. It doesn't have to be mentioned immediately in the very beginning of the lead. It just seems to be fit there best from a writing standpoint and from the standpoint of following the lead of good sources, but I'm open to alternative wording. Drrll (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more arbitrary statistics

Did some quick searches:

Google:

• "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 525K
• "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 453K
• "media matters for america" liberal progressive 271K
• "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 1640K

Google Books:

• "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 225
• "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 98
• "media matters for america" liberal progressive 59
• "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 651

Google News Archives:

• "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 1420
• "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 327
• "media matters for america" liberal progressive 131
• "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 9300

Google Scholar:

• "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 97
• "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 35
• "media matters for america" liberal progressive 117
• "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 112

Looks like according to Google, the overwhelming number of pages and sources use neither liberal nor progressive when discussing Media Matters. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We already know they identify themselves, so those statistics mean little. It does reinforce Drrll's statistics between liberal and progressive. Arzel (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you accidentally a word there. Gamaliel (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Google searches are far more imprecise than LexisNexis. For example, changing your search terms slightly results in far different numbers (a Google web search for '"Media Matters for America"' results in 1.06 million hits, while '"Media Matters for America" liberal' results in 1.01 million hits; a Google Scholar search for '"Media Matters for America"' results in 363 hits, while '"Media Matters for America" liberal' results in 216 hits). Also, a common source for Google web search, Google Scholar, & Google News Archive is Media Matters itself (5 of first 10 results on Google web search, 3 of first 10 results on Google Scholar, and 9 of 10 first results on Google News Archive) In addition, unlike LN, Google does not show an overview of the types of sources and the specific sources, leaving no choice but to look at each source individually (not to mention paywalls) to determine usability as a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)