Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 3

Early life

I can't find any information on where he was born and stuff before his writing and law practice and political career - here or on the internet. I'll keep looking - though I know that's not findable for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.25.116 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Political Career

Apparently a very important piece of Levin's history is missing from this Wiki. I took the liberty of adding mention to his tenure with the Reagan Administration. I felt it necessary to break this off from his "Professional" career into it's own separate section, as it's a very notable achievement and keystone of his biography. I apologize to any naysayers about my brevity in taking the liberty. Pyrex238 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Contributions to other radio shows" section

It's factual and therefore encyclopedic. I don't see a problem with it, E. - crz crztalk 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is factual and speaks to his biography. I have copy edited a bit and attempted to make it more chronological. NYCTommy 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Radio Show Section

The Radio Show Section Has a heavily negative slant to it and should be revised or taken out completely.

Negative in what way? If you're going to post a NPOV tag, you need to be a little more specific about what the problems are. BillCJ 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag until a proper response is given. - BillCJ 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing negative about this section. I'm the first to admit that I'm an admirer of the show, however even I would concede that Levin *does* routinely bait liberals to call in and then either mockes them or cuts them off before they can make a point. There is nothing "negative" about pointing that out, as it is indeed factual.NYCTommy 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it also be fair to point out that Levin, on many occassions, has lengthy discussions with callers he disagrees with? Lest readers get the impression Levin cuts off all liberal callers... Ynot4tony (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio Show Section and Music Subsection

I see no purpose to having a subsection or section for Levin's music tastes for the radio show, why is this info important? Its not noteworthy...just adds to the clutter. Rush Limbaugh's page has nothing on music. Am I wrong? ForrestLane42 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

The section is certainly harmless and the information is trivial in nature, but I'm not bothered enough to make a huge case of it. While the inclusion of trivia is certainly no different from a lot of other broadcasters' pages (see Randi Rhodes "comedic style" section on her prediliction for bells and buzzers and sound effects, or Al Franken "radio show" section on theme songs for guests and the "Tim Robbins rule"), it can certainly go without impacting the overall article.

Regarding the music on Levin's show...there are certain songs which he plays regularly, and might deserve some mention. For instance, every Friday, close to the end of his show, he almost always (if not always) plays Ray Charles' version of "America", and often times will play Martina McBride's version of "God Bless America" as a tribute to some of his callers with military experience. He also frequently plays the themes of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Merchant Marines (forgot the Coast Guard).

If I was describing mere bumper music, I'd say it wasn't significant enough to merit a response. But since there are several specific songs which are played regularly, often in their entirety, and contain common themes (pro-military, patriotic music), it's worth of inclusion.

Is it also worth mentioning that he usually closes his show by giving a verbal salute to the men and women of the armed forces, policemen, fire-fighters, and first responders...at least I would think. Any thoughts? Ynot4tony (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with someone adding this back in. I was never crazy about it getting pruned to begin with, given comparisons to Rhodes, Franken, et al I originally pointed out. I'm not even sure at what point it got cut, but things like the Ray Charles song and Military themes are pretty much staples of the show and should probably go back in.NYCTommy (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At some point, it may be preferable to have separate pages for Levin the individual and The Mark Levin show the entity (a la entries on Rush, Hannity, or Franken, for example), but I don't think his show has reached that level of notability yet. But for now, happy to concede on your point. (I do encourage you to go make similar edits to Randi and Al, as well, as your point also applies equally there). But my primary objective here was to get some discussion on this rather than a unilateral deletion. There's a lot of blood, sweat and mediation that went into the current version and I would hate to see a slide back down the slippery slope to where it was a year ago. See you around.NYCTommy 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for the show. Is it all original research? -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to add where he was born and who his parents' are? I'm pretty sure he was born on a military base in the U.S., but I'm not positive. Chenzo23 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have re-instituted some of my earlier edits (now that my stalker/vandal has seemingly fled) to include mention of Mark's support of the military, playing of military themes, and use of Ray Charles's "America the Beauitful". Anyone have any suggestions how I would source these facts? They are easily verified by listening to his show, although citing the audio archives might be considered "advertising".

Then again, a lot of facts on his bio aren't cited, as they are readily apparent by simply listening to his show. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems: One is verifying the information and the other is characterizing it. It's one thing to list what songs he plays, but it's another thing to say, based on our own opinions, that he is supporting the military by his choice of music. Opinions should always be cited to a reliable source. The other matter is verifiability. If these songs are indeed played regularly in 2008 then any reader should be able to tune into a single show and hear them. However what about 2009, when the show may be off the air or have a different format? The information will no longer be verifiable. So yes, adding links to the audio archives, with specific airdates, is necessary in order for the information to stay past the next format change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "opinion" to say Mark Levin supports the military. He's incredibly outspoken, constantly, on his support for the military. EVERY SHOW he signs off with "I salute the men and women of our armed forces..." I could cite any given day of his audio archives to "prove" he's pro-military. If it's "opinion" to say he supports the military, then it's also opinion to say he's a conservative. Some things are just so obvious it's like a punch to the face.

And if you scrub the write-ups about supporting the military, then let's face it, you'll have to scrub about 60% of Wikipedia. Levin's entire page only has a few citations, and some of them support the same facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony2 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ultra-Right Wing" and "Ultra-Conservative"

Does it even need to be discussed why the "ultra" pejoratives that keep getting added back to article are inherantly POV and need to be reverted? I went and checked Randi_Rhodes's entry, as directed to by editor and I simply see her listed as an "American progressinve radio host".

I'm also perplexed how a non-sequitr mention of Ed Meese's relationship with Ronald Reagan or an opinion that subject of this article is not interested in discourse and only in hearing his own opinion belong in the article. The Meese thing makes no sense (perhaps you should be editing on Meese's page if you feel strong about this?) and the rest is adequately covered in the existing text about Levin encouraging Liberals to call in and then cutting them off. We already establised in another series of recent edits that it is POV to try and psycho-analyze Levin's motivations for how he treats "the Libs" when they call in. NYCTommy 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No psychoanalysis here - there is no doubt that if you look on the political spectrum, Levin falls HEAVILY to the right spectrum.

As for Meese, it provides background into Levin's relationship to wanting to bomb Iran. His working relationship with Meese also has influenced Levin's worldview, no psychoanalysis there. As for Randi Rhodes, I think it would be appropriate to call her ultra-liberal, not merely progressive. I would say leftist - but leftist is perjorative. Neo-con is barely acceptable in place of ultra-con, because neo-con has roots in the Left. Truthiness4000 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Truthiness4000

Forrest (I assume it is you) - please see prior Talk Page mediation and consensus on labeling of Levin in lede paragraph, plus more substantive discussion on his views in Books and Punditry. "Neoconservative" (while better than the "Ultra-Right Wing" label you were pushing yesterday) is still a somewhat pejorative term and not entirely descriptive. Do we label other columnists and pundits on Wiki as neoconservatives? We should probably have some consistency.

On the Meese stuff, although you have now dropped the bits about his "friendship" (your quotes) with Reagan, I fail to see how his working for Meese in the 80's has any bearing on his vocal opinions re: Iran. Could you provide a link, perhaps, for the rest of us to review? I also fail to see the relevance of mentioning Iran Contra, which I don't believe Levin had anything to do with. This is like insisting that Leon Panetta or David Gergen need to have their bios amended to say they "worked as chief of staff to Bill Clinton, who was impeached for his affair with an intern". If Levin had some role in Iran Contra, let's see a link. Otherwise save the gratuitous references for people actually involved in the affair.NYCTommy 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== Yes Truthiness and Forrest are one just at different locations - no intended harm. NYC, I feel that you have not assumed good faith. Neo-con is not a prejogive - only to libs, it is an accurate terminology for a movement.

I never referred to Levin being involved in Iran-Contra, I never said that. I made reference to Meese, highly controversial role in Iran-Contra, I'm not assuming guilt by association, but it is easy to put together the fact that working with Meese must have influence his philosophy on Iran. Psychology or not. In fact, u shouldn't slander psychology to explain seemingly unrelated events.

As for UN-KKK, why are u afraid of it? If Levin said it, it must be mentioned in his entry. Do you think it is an extreme statement? I do, therefore it must mean he is not just an conservative but an extremist. Why not label his foils - this can't be an ode to Levin. Let's get the facts in. Let the facts in! 167.206.60.106 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Truthiness4000

I really don't see why comparing the UN to the KKK is even notable, especially out of context. WHat did he actually say? I don't know, but I might guess he complained about UN soldiers, possibly white Europeans or other non-blacks, going to Africa and raping little black girls. Without the proper context, anything can be made to sound outragelous, and Levin says a lot of things sarcastically to make points. Btw, "see Salon.com" is not a proper citation on Wikipedia. - BillCJ 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole quote: "LEVIN: I have a simple question for John Kerry. How can he support an organization that [is] anti-Semitic? I would like to know how the U.N., given the make-up of the august body, is any different than the KKK or all the rest of it. They've got people in that U.N. that are torturers, mass-murderers, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, anti-freedom, and we're supposed to keep conferring our decisions to them. Why?" Salon story

Much as I thought. Conservatives are constantly compared to Nazis, Hitler, etc. But of course, those things are OK because "everyone" knows they are true, right? Puh-lease! - BillCJ 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize nonsense

Levin didn't "nominate" Limbaugh for any prize, as Levin has no standing to nominate anyone for such an award. He might as well have "nominated" his cat. What Levin did was mail a letter and issue a press release, in a failed attempt to discredit the official Nobel nominators, who nominated Al Gore for the prize. Levin's act was the equivalent of a toddler smearing feces on something he doesn't like. Note, too, that this bit of ridiculousness has been removed from Limbaugh's page, after consensus for non-notability. Eleemosynary 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It all seemed like a tempest in a teapot at the time. Levin clearly sent the letter as a joke/publicity stunt and you instantly had Rush's dittoheads trying to puff it up in his bio as an actual nomination and at the same time the likes of Keith Overbite and the Countdown to No Ratings railing against it as some travesty against humanity. No need for it to be in Levin's bio.NYCTommy 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Having listened to this radio show for some time, I've become concerned that Mr.Levin's rhetoric has become more and more anti government - not less government - but down right anti. The same for judges where he has never stated threats or violence against judges facts prove that acts of violence against the judicial system have increased- could Levins non stop and so called expert rendition of the liberal judges have soemthing to do with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.249.84 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Teen Trend Magazine?

Is someone kidding by posting Levin's interview with something called Teen Trend Magazine as the dominant source for the info in this article? To use this as a principal source is ridiculous. Eleemosynary 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not a joke. I think someone specifically asked for a citation on Levin having been a contributor to Rush's show earlier in his career. (Related to the now deleted Nobel thing as the same citation request was cross-posted on Limbaugh IIRC). I did a search now and found a more comprehensive article at Human Events, which is probably more appropriate as a citation.NYCTommy 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Book and punditry Section

Levin was among the many neoconservative pundits criticized in 2006 for their ...

You site a blog entry by a specific person. Unless you are going to cite Mark Levin in all the Wikipedia articles of all the people that Levin criticizes every day, then I suggest you leave this out. The word neoconservative or neocon is often misused and thrown around to mean "Jewish or Zionist Conservative who works for Israel."70.216.143.230 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTR#Using questionable or self-published sources:

Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

Therefore, in accordance with Wiki POLICY, I am removeng the blog-sourced material completely. You've been re-adding this item long enough to have found a credible source by now. Please find a verifiable source per Wiki policy for this material before re-adding it this time, or I will seek administrative action to remove it this time. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of contentious statement

I have rewritten the following statement: in which Levin criticizes what he argues to be the perils of "judicial activism" by the judicial branch. As I understand it, Levin does not criticize "the perils of judicial activism". Rather (not Dan), he criticize "judicial activism" itself! Levin is not the only person who beleives what he does about judicial activism, so we shouldn't try to make it sound like hi is the only one. I've tried to restore what I think the previous editor was trying to say, and removed the slight POV re-added in the rewrite to remove the so-called POV. I think the quote marks in the current sentence indicate what is meant be "what he argues to be" in a much more concise manner. Obviously, his book is not about "what he does not argue to be". I mean, really, who writes a book in support of what they don't believe? Just because an editor disagrees with a subject's beliefs is no reason to try to marginalize them and their beliefs. That is NOT what NPOV is. Just give the straight facts without the twisting, and let the readers decide for themselves. - BillCJ 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

This section was removed completely I placed it back in. Its factual and encylopedic. If you want to clean it up, fine, but Mr. Levin does encourage his listeners to do things that are questionable in nature, including calling the congressman's congressional office to tell him he can't win a presidential race. It seems the person who edited this section out might be trying to bias this article in favor of Mr. Levin by censoring things hes done that are negative.--Putting this back in rather than listen to more complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.0.228 (talk)

Why is this section being constantly removed? It is factual.

If you don't know why it was removed, you should ask first, because you obviously don't undertand how Wikipedia works. Please read Original Research, Attributions, Neutral Point of View, and biographies of living persons. The addition violated those POLICIES, and cannot be allowed to remain in the article as written. The threshold in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "facts", and one MUST have credible, verifiable sources to add such info. I also question the Notability of such a minor incidents, as Levin is not known for his "niceness" towards those who disagree with him, so this is hardly something unusual. Besides, the whole incident smells of Ron Paul supporters trying to smear someone they disagree with, as it is obviously biased towards Paul and against Levin. - BillCJ 01:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is considered vandalism to remove the comments of others from talk pages. - BillCJ 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, it was not vandalism - someone else questioned you and I minimized it into a nice and easy to read sentence. Vandalism is removing entire sections from the wiki entry repeatedly when it had multiple sources. You have been editing this entry since March 2006 - I would question your neutrality towards this specific entry.

You removed comments, period - that is vandalism, regardless of the intent. We do NOT refactor or remve the comments of others except on our own talk pages - that is a basic Wiki courtesy. Of course, we can remove blatant vandalism or nonsense by disruptive users, but that is certainly not the case here. Second, I wasn't on Wikipedia in March 2006, so I question your ability to report "facts". Whether I'm biased towards the entry is not the question - it has NO references, which is the primary problem - I don't know how you can call that multiple sources, but there were not any at all. Deal with that, and then we can address substantively the source itself, as to whether it is appropriate by Wiki standards. But adding unsouced info like was there in a biography of a living person is a big no-no. - BillCJ 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be a big believer of "Do what I say, not what I do". Also, your authoritarian comments are way too long, I heard you the first time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.0.228 (talk) 19:53:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

To any viewing admin, see what I'm dealing with? - BillCJ 20:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we see that, Your Highness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.0.228 (talk) 21:46:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

This might be a bit late, but I just noticed this page from a Ron Paul forum , and figured some more explanation might be useful. (Especially because several users of the forum I saw seem to be threatening to edit war, and they might continue when semi-protection is lifted) The latest version of the controversies section I saw had no referencing at all, and in any Biography of Living People, this quite often results in legal problems when the material in question is negative about anyone. In this case, the proposed section accuses Levin of insulting a large group of people on public radio, which as I hear is probably true and might be verifiable. But the proposed section doesn't demonstrate that, instead, with absolutly zero references, all a reader can safely assume is that the section is merely the private rambling of a single Wikipedian. And, furthermore, if Levin has too much free time on his hands, he could pursue legal action against Wikipedia, because the accusations against Levin wern't referenced. Sure, he'd probably lose such a case handily since there is proof out there for everything, but the point is that the proof hasn't been given for this particular paragraph. Furthermore, it also did not appear to be written very neutrally. Of course, since zero referencing was given, framing the section in context of what the references say would of been quite impossible, but the section went above and beyond just having unreferenced assertions, the language used was very clearly aggressive in tone. Whether the section is true or not, it should not be allowed in the article if it will not be written in a fair and neutral manner. Finally, the first paragraph was a single run-on sentence. So to anyone else who may of come here in search of re-inserting that controversies section, you should know that as currently written, it was not only clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy, but it was a pretty lousy section too. It really isn't helping Ron Paul at all when his supporters try to defend him with lackadaisical at best sections criticizing his opponents. Homestarmy 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a section entitled "Conflict with other Radio Host"? I never seen or heard Mr. Levin but the website that this section links to does not seem credible. I was just curious about who Mark Levin is and came here for a quick summary. Using sites such as opednews.com to supply supposedly accurate information seems antithetical to the purpose of Wikepedia. My apologies if I missed some nuance of the Wikipedia rules. Is it permissible to use sites like the one mentioned or Thinkprogress, mediamatters or other obviously biased sites? Wouldn't it make for a stronger article to find a more reputable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.34.100 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC) If you admit knowing nothing about Mark Levin, Wikipedia rules or the sources, why did you edit the article? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

External link

What's the dispute concerning this link?

• Dahlia Lithwick on Levin, Landmark Legal, and judicial appointments

Slate is usually considered a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That piece reads like commentary, and I don't believe it's approriate here. The user who keeps adding this is relentless in removing anything he does not agree with from this page which he feels is "biased" (read "right-wing"), so I see no reason not to do the same with left-wing commentary. Reliable publication or not, the piece is still opinion, and very biased at that. We already have one highly-biased piece from that author, which is there by consensus from before I started editing this page. I have respected that consensus, even adding it back myself on occasion after it has been removed. However, I ask that a new consensus be reached before adding this new piece. That is only fair, and I will repsect the consensus if one is reached (and 2-1 is not a consensus). Thanks - BillCJ 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The personal attacks from BillCJ aside, there is nothing wrong with including the link, as it is reliably sourced criticism. BillCJ does not own this page, and may want to check WP:OWN for a refresher course on policy. It is not "only fair" that a huge consensus vote be taken for the addition of a link from an already established reliable source, until such a decision is reached that BillCJ "respects." Disrupting the article in this way is a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, such a demand is childish and laughable. I've restored the link, will continue to restore it, and would appreciate the help of fellow editors in restoring it in the future.

I also notice that there's a link to an NRO opinion piece extremely biased in favor of Levin. This is no surprise, and I have no problem if that link remains. But for a single editor to try to scrub the page of well-sourced criticism is ridiculous. --Eleemosynary 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• After watching you ride heard on this page for a number of months, it is laughable for you to accuse me of violating WP:OWN. Come one, you even removed the mention about the book on Levin's dog as "advertising"! As to my "personal attack", you responded more harshly, accusing me of disrupting to make a point, and then attacking my actions as "childish and laughable". Did I accuse you of anyhing even comparable? So please, at least grant others the same right you regularly exercise to watch over the article. And watch the threats of engaging in edit wars, such as "I've restored the link, will continue to restore it". - BillCJ 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop talking about each other, and talk about improving the article instead? I recomment that we all drop the word "you" from our WP vocabularies. Let's instead talk about our text and what changes we want to make to it. It's much less personal that way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Point taken. - BillCJ 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's all stick wth the precept of "comment on the edits, not the editors". We should aim for balanced POV in the external links just as we do with the rest of the article. We don't need to include every positive or negative commentary about the subjct. If a particular author has written more than one relevant piece on the ubject would it be possible to link to an archive instead of the individual articles? Or would a different author provide another POV on the topic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

At present, four of the external links are pro-Levin, and three are critical. We need to either find one more critical link, or remove a pro-Levin link. --Eleemosynary 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Beeback and BillCJ. As discussed ad nauseum in the mediation on this page last year (see Talk archive), we should aim for quality in the external links, not an exhaustive list of every single mention of Levin on the internets. As for balance in POV, there are currently 3 external reference links specifically related to the subject of the article (his show website, his blog, and his legal foundation - all specifically about or by the subject, not independent positive praise or negative criticism).

In terms of POV commentary, the other external links, the list includes a substantive, critical review of levin's philiosophy from Slate ("critical" in your terms), a comprehensive index of all Media Matters for America releases critical of Levin ("critical" in your terms), and a positive review of Levin's radio show from NRO ("pro" in your terms) . I think the list is quite balanced as is and I don't think this page needs to revert back to an exhaustive catalogue of every Levin mention ever, no matter how relevant. He is barely mentioned in the September 10 Slate article, whereas the other articles are all specifically about Levin himself. Why not link to this over at the Landmark Legal Foundation page? That would seem more appropriate given the article's actual content.NYCTommy 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the link to Landmark Legal Foundation sounds like a good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! NYCTommy 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Slate doesn't have the reputation of one of the major news media outlets, and the cited article is purely opinion (a panning, to be precise). How does presenting a single negative review of a highly-sold book further our knowledge of Mark Levin or the book he wrote? Dahlia Lithwick's resume indicates she's partisan liberal and her review would likely reflect her bias. Even if it were balanced with a positive review, it would still be out of place in an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry. Stick to facts like sale amounts, or barring that, at least a broad selection of varied reviews on his book. It's obvious the inclusion of a single negative review is an attempt by a liberal to shed some partisan negative light on Levin. Let the facts speak for themselves. The man wrote a book, sold a lot of copies, was praised by conservatives and criticized by liberals.

This practice of adding "external links" is simply a way to sneak in negative opinion into what is supposed to be a fact-based article. I mean, if it's necessary to include Media Matters' criticism of Levin, are we also not obligated to include links to pages from partisan conservatives that praise him? If that's the route we're taking, then Wikipedia is going to evolve from encyclopedia to blog link database.

Pointing out that a highly partisan Democrat organization has criticisms for an outspoken and popular conservative is a waste of time, space, and electrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone answer this, please...why do we need ANY review of Levin's book in this article? How does a SINGLE OPINION belong in this entry? Why this person, and not someone else? Why a Canadian (after all, the book is about the American judicial system)? I'll open the debate up a bit again, but will eventually scrub the review of the book if no one can defend WHY a single opinion belongs (and don't give me the non-arguement about balancing "good links" and "bad links").

I might be willing to accept a link to a collection of professional opinions about the book...but not simply a single, negative review from Levin's political near-polar opposite (that would be every bit as asinine as replacing the Slate review with a review from Sean Hannity...).

How about instead we present facts, such as book sales? Speaking of which, should we include information that "Rescuing Sprite" was on the New York Times bestseller list? After all, that's an easily verifiable fact... Ynot4tony (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think the link to the article from The National Review should be scrubbed as well. Another blatantly partisan opinion, this time from a conservative. Does that really belong either?

I'd be more interested in seeing the numbers for his book sales, audience share for his radio show, etc. Inserting an opinion, then an opposing opinion to "balance" the first opinion, is moronic, considering this is an encyclopedia. Ynot4tony (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Conservative

Mark Levin has a neoconservative view point not a conservative view point please keep this distinction on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated and discused already (see entries, below). "neoconservative" has become something of a perjorative term and there are virtually no self-described "neoconservatives". Consensus has been that Conservative is the right label to describe Levin and his overall philosophy and then the article later points out that he subscribes to what is described as a "neoconservative" philosophy with respect to pre-emption and foreign policy. I am reverting back to prior.NYCTommy 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Neo-conservative" means "NEW conservative". The term should not be used because it's a stupid and usually inaccurate term that spiteful "progressives" to throw around, because "conservative" doesn't adequately describe their contempt for alternate viewpoints.

Further to the point, I challenge anyone to find an instance in public discourse where the term "neo-con" was used in either a complimentary or neutral connotation. Seems to me "neo-con" is only used by liberals when attacking conservatives. That would certainly make it a perjorative term and out of place on Wikipedia. Using "neo-con" instead of conservative is about as productive and informative as using the n-word in place of "African American". All it really tells you is the writer/speaker REALLY doesn't like whom he's talking about, and that the writer/speaker needs to increase his vocabulary.

Sorry dude, the term neoconservative is not just used by liberals. Apparently you have never heard of Pat Buchanan, a paleoconservative. See instance of a conservative using the term "neoconservative" here: http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html Oh yeah William F Buckley Jr used it too: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060401_william_f_buckley_bush_will_be_judged_on_failed_iraq_war/ 98.215.54.162 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also looks like there is a book advocating Neoconservatism (http://www.amazon.com/NeoConservatism-Why-Need-Douglas-Murray/dp/1594031479/) - "Neoconservatism, why we need it". So far I have the founder of the National Review using the term and a book advocating the philosophy. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and rap singers refer to themselves with the "n-word". Does that mean it's an acceptable, non-perjorative term now, and we are free to use it on Wikipedia to describe Al Sharpton and Barak Obama? How about the members of the gay community who call themselves "f-word hags" and such? See how silly your own arguments sound when used against you?

Furthermore, you cite Buchanan and Buckley, both of which use "neo-conservative" in a perjorative sense. Thank you for citing evidence to prove MY point. By the way, who is Douglas Murray and why does his opinion hold so much weight?

Neo = new. So, Mark Levin, who has worked for a Republican administration over 20 years ago and has been a conservative for as long as anyone can remember...he's a NEW conservative?

So, either come up with a better defence for this obviously perjorative term or I'll scrub it. Levin doesn't label himself "neo-conservative"...which I think should be the real test of this term. Ynot4tony (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And, to follow up, many conservatives also believe that "neo-con" is a slur against Jewish people. That means there is disagreement on what the term actually means. Considering Levin is a Jewish conservative, I'd bet he would object to being described as such.

And, if you want to describe him as a neo-conservative, you can do so without using that ambiguous term. Isn't it more exacting instead to discuss Levin's support of military action in countries like Iraq.

I've yet to see any sourcing (or recall hearing) where he's advocated action against Iran, so expect me to scrub that assumption soon unless someone can provide a source. Sure, he's criticized Obama for wanting to meet with Iran, but does anyone actually recall him advocating military action? Ynot4tony (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He isn't a neoconservative. In fact, he rails against them. Partisan hacks, please be quiet and let the adults work on editing these pages. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a few points. 1) Name calling isn't necessary. 2) Your comments are a bit late, as we've established consensus to refrain from using "neconservatives". 3) Levin doesn't "rail against" neoconservatives...he rails against people who use the term, and claims that the term is a Jewish slur. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Books and "punditry" now books and beliefs

The use of the word punditry in this section to start it off seemed a way of worming/weaseling in a subtle amount of POV, as the word punditry can carry with it negative connotations. Beliefs should be fairly non-inflammatory and provide a suitable replacement. However, that being said, this whole section seems a bit choppy. I may have problems with the fact that he is in as much labeled a neoconservative in pejorative way, but that is nothing compared to the fact that the section feels poorly written. I'd like to clean it up a bit so that the facts seem less like they are cobbled together, but with any semi-political person there seems to be much ire about edits period. Again, I am not saying that I want to sanitize the article so it sounds favorable, but that the sentences do not flow in a natural manner. Any thoughts? Rocdahut (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keetoowah/Getaway/JobsElihu, etc... there's nothing pejorative about the word "punditry." Hope that clears things up. --Eleemosynary (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more insulted about the baseless sock puppetry accusations if it weren't for the fact that you yourself were blocked as a puppet. That being said I am about to do the following edits: I am going to alter the books and Punditry section into the Books and Beliefs section again. The issue here is one of semantics. I know that the issue of semantics gets a bit thorny, but it seems like punidtry is a more 'loaded' term. I.E. it contains a certain level of connotation that here can be inferred in the negative sense. The word 'beliefs' is a word that summarizes what is contained in the subsection without sounding vaguely pejorative. After this. I am then going to move the line about him being given the Ronald Regan award to the career section, it seems more logical to include it there as he doesn't really 'believe' he got the award. And if the section gets reverted to punditry, I would still argue that being given an award isn't really pundrity. However, if it was given with the explicit reason of making a political statement then it should be not only included, but also have an additional line, with reference, as to why it was political. As I see it, the award seems more like a small group/comitee award a shiny metal plaque (or statue, not sure which it really is) to some guy for doing his thing well. (For me it seems like on the same level as a musician being given a rock award for being a rocker. I could be wrong though) I hope that this thoroughly explains my edits. Sorry for the verbosity, and thanks to whoever reads and responds in a polite and helpful manner. Rocdahut (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me.NYCTommy (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You want Controversy?!

HE once said that, to get the gas prices DOWN, "you" use the RICO Statue (A law used against Organized crime), and the USA Patriot Acts against the Environmentalists and the Environmentalist movement. I'm NOT repeating his exact commentary here. 65.163.115.254 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then he said that you drill in Anwar, get the oil, and if the Eco-(you fill in the blank) starts anything, you shoot their ass. 65.163.115.254 (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have a reliable source for these comments they're unusable. Actual quotes are best placed in Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speak-&-Spell-face

I think we should mention how The Online Lunchpail refers to Mark Levin as "Speak-&-Spell-face". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.188.53 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be pretty obvious POV.Rocdahut (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Freedom concrets

I have repeatedly tried to include some mention of Levin's work with the Freedom Concerts, a CHARITY that raises money for the families of slain soldiers. At every turn, this mere mention has been scrubbed by someone who has made a campaign to revert ALL of my recent edits (he accuses me of being a sock-puppet, so his actual beef is with someone else). His justification? It's "advertising".

How is mentioning the FACT that Levin supports soldiers and helps promote a CHARITY considered advertising? Do we scrub the entire page for The International Red Cross then? Someone with authority please warn this vandal to let the facts remain in the bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be a problem with including this tidbit as long as you source it, perhaps with a link to the portion of his website that discusses it. Also, try to be as plain as possible with whatever text you include. I see the way it looks now, it looks perfectly acceptable. It is something that Levin does, and your text does not get overly flowery or gush about "what an awesome person he is for doing this." Either that or it might need a seperate section about charities. If you do feel passionately about this, I'd set up an account if I were you and then submit your statement either to a discussion board, or hunt down an editor. You can't just complain about it here, it will never get noticed. Trust me on this one.Rocdahut (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I added a reference for this (my first attempt, so if I did this wrong oops!). I think that the link should work as a reference. I do think that the involvment in these freedom concerts should be mentioned. The wording seems simple enough, and not advertisment like. It's not like the guy typed "the totally awesome freedom concerts which serve as a boost to the troops are something that both Levin and the brilliant Sean Hannity are involved in." It seems worthy of inclusion, and I too do not see the reason for the ferocity and reverting that this is getting. It seems like what should be a minor point might need to have either an admin or a vote on. Please whoever keeps removing this post your reasons for not including it now that it is referenced.Rocdahut (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

His problem is either with that particular fact, or with me in particular. All but one of his edits have been attempts to revert edits I have done (most under the account I cancelled, ynot4tony). Just look at the nonsense reverts he's done to my edits on the Rachel Maddow page, and his unfounded accusations of me being a sock puppet, and you'll get an understanding what his real issue might be. Thank you for the assistance, but I've tried to add three different sources to this fact...so I won't be surprised it he comes along and reverts my/our edit anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am currently attempting to resolve this via admin intervention. I would like to see this article expand in a relevant way and this cannot happen if content is removed without proper discussion prior to removal. Except in the case of blatent POV. Mentioning a person's involvment in charity work does not consitute advertising. Both the semantic execution and the bibliographic info are within line. Hopefully this matter will be resolved within a day or two.Rocdahut (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed my IP address was shared by many users, so I signed up for an account again. I'm the one who keeps trying to add information about The Freedom Concerts (I'll create a page for it when I have more time). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the article on my watchlist, see what happens. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is beyond obvious that the IP involved in this edit war is none other than the permanently blocked user:Eleemosynary (blocked for incivility and the attempted "outing" of two administrators by posting personal information - including a home address!). He had long standing obsession with this page, the editing style and edit summaries are an exact match, he is equally obsessed with claiming every editor he reverts is a "sock" of Keetowah (ironic given his post block sockpuppetry), and user:Thatcher confirmed this IP was Eleemosynary's when running a WP:RFCU. At what point will n administrator take action on this? Must we continue to have to put up with his baiting, abuse, and bad faith editing after administroators have already decided enough is enough and banned him/her?79.73.12.169 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My anonymous stalker is back. He has undid my edits on Levin's page where I added non-POV content about Mark's radio show (his support of the military, and mention of military themes and patriotic music). He deleted them with the thin excuse of calling the addition "fluffing". He's went as far as following me to another talk page and threatening me with blocking because I was seeking justification to keep a section I thought should be removed.

Could we get a little consensus here? Is there anyone who has any legitimate objection to stating Mark's support for the military, or do most of us here think that it adds worthy non-POV content to a light page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony2 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Newer material/Show Ending

There has been attempt recently to add material that concerns portions of the show. I am not sure if it warrents inclusion or not, but it should be debated a bit. I thought that we were suppossed to engage in good faith edits here. It is borderline "triva" section material, but if it is a major part of the shtick of Mr. Levin's show, then maybe if references can be found then perhaps it should be included. This should be civilly discussed. I will not revert the current reverts that were done and undone. However, I take exception to the way that one user inparticular has chosen to phrase their edit summaries. It is unprofessional and probably a form of attack. This user has also been warned about this in the past. Perhaps when you read this you will attempt to engage in genuine discussion. Last chance. Rocdahut (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Levin is supportive of the military and civilian first responders, and ends nearly every radio show saying "We salute the men and women of the armed forces, policemen, firefighters, and emergency personnel." He regularly plays the themes for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marines. He plays "America the Beautiful" as performed by Ray Charles every Friday.Mark Levin Show Audio Archives

I checked a few of the archived shows and none of them started with "We salute the men and women of the armed forces, policemen, firefighters, and emergency personnel." Nor did I hear the listed themes. Can we get a better source for this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He ends the show with the salute to the armed forces, et. al., not starts it. Check out Friday's show and you'll get that confirmation, as well has hear him play "America" by Ray Charles (and he also mentions he plays it every Friday).

As far as the military themes, he probably does so every week or two, depending on the topics being discussed. Never in any set part of the show (unlike the salute, and Ray Charles song), just when he feels inspired to. I'll admit, it'll be harder to find an instance of the military themes, but I'll let you know on here the next time I find them on his show. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - I was listening at the beginning rather than the end. Why is that part of his closing more notable than his admonition to buy his books? Why is his once-a-week closing comment notable at all? Has it been noted in any 3rd-party sources, or is it just that Wikipedia editors think it's worth reporting? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"America" by Ray Charles is the once-a-week thing and Levin makes a point to remind listeners...the salute to soldiers is an every day thing. These are regular staples of his show and are somewhat noteworthy, I would think. The salute also lends supporting evidence to the statement that Levin is very supportive of the troops.

Some information should be given about the style and content of his show, don't you think? It's pretty successful and is therefore noteworthy. I would refer you to pages on sketch-comedy shows such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_(TV_series) where regularly appearing skits are included in the write-up to flesh out the content of the page...similar to this page pointing out music and common themes of Levin's show. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

According to whom is this notable? Do we have a 3rd-party source that mentions it? Why is this more important then other repeated elements of his program, such as his reminders to buy his books? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying his reminders to buy his book wasn't notable...but since you asked, no. They aren't. He doesn't do that anymore, so it was a phase. But he still does, and has for well over a year (and maybe longer, for all I know), sign off with his salute and close the week with Ray Charles.

And if you insist on being so picky about third party sources, then around 60% of Wikipedia would be scrubbed. I again refer you to the page for The State tv series as a single example. Is each re-occurring skit sourced by a third party? No, they are not. They provide basic information about staples of the tv show, just like the salute, themes, and Ray Charles song are staples of the Levin show.

What's the big deal? It's a bit more than trivial information, is non-POV, fleshes out an otherwise thin article, and is better sourced (and more relevant) than some of the outdated inclusions on this page. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he still promotes his books - check the most recent Friday broadcast - it's right there beside the dedication to the military. As for insisting, I don't think I am the one insisting on adding this material. The burden is on the editor adding the material. So far I haven't seen any evidence that the repeating elements of his show are notable. If we can't find any sources that discuss them I'll remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're applying a different standard here than what is applied to other pages. For instance, The Randi Rhodes Show, which is even less noteworthy due to it's much smaller listenership, has similar but unsourced inclusions on its page. There is also The Al Franken Show, which isn't even on the air anymore. FAR less noteworthy, yet we find unsourced factoids about his former show. By the standards you're suggesting we enforce on Levin's page, the entire "regular features" of Franken's show page would need to be scrubbed. Even when Franken's show was on the air, it paled in comparission to Levin's listenership. Not very noteworthy then, even less noteworthy now...don't you agree?

So, will you visit those pages and make similar arguments? If so, then I could take your arguments on this page more seriously. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points: First, other stuff exists. We don't need to fix every other patr of Wikipedia before we fix one part. Second, those are both articles about shows while this is an article about a person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There has been a discussion about making a seperate page for Levin's show, apart from this page. I don't have a problem with that, and might even be inspired to start the process...however, it will end up taking a bit of the content away from this page, and this page will begin to look a little thin.

If I were to start up a page for his show, would such content be appropriate there? Isn't that fact that millions of people hear the program enough to make the staples of his show deemed noteworthy? Or will this page and the page for his show be a scant paragraph each? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Levin is notable. If the show has been written about in enough reliable sources then it's notable too. Length isn't really the issue. However the issues of weight and verifiability will still exist at an article on the show. Regardless of where it's discussed, we shouldn't just pick out parts of he show we like or dislike for highlighting without some reason. I still don't see why we're focusing on this detail of his show. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It provides background about the type of show it is, the sort of things millions of people a week experience. I'd also suggest it's worth mentioning that he uses some Linkin Park song as his opening music, at the start of every hour. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By the same logic we could add that he sounds like a smug know-it-all, or a beacon of logic. But those would be based on our personal opinions. Why are we saying that he plays certain pieces of music once a week? How is that significant? Why do we say he supports the military but not say that he spends even more time supporting his publisher? The answers should be that we're basing it on what reliable sources say. This same material has been added over and over again since May. It's time we had a 3rd-party source for it. If we can't find anyting in a week I'm gogin to remove it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback has made his case clearly, succinctly, and amazingly patiently. No consensus to include what songs Levin may or may not play, especially without a third-party legitimate source. The material itself is non-notable, in any case.--74.68.132.134 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about him promoting his book on Friday. If memory serves me correctly, he was promoting someone else's book. So that point is still questionable, and saying he spends more time supporting his publisher than supporting the military is simply wrong, but I challenge you to quantify it none-the-less. But go ahead, feel free to point out that he, like anyone else who has ever written a book, plugs it. And calling him "smug" is POV/opinionated. Saying he plays military themes and supports the military are facts. So no, that's not "by the same logic". AND the reason "this same material has been added over and over" is because a single, anonymous editor with blatantly hostile intentions keeps removing them with no discussion (even though he's been warned and blocked for reverting these very same edits we are discussing).

A scant paragraph or two about a radio show that has millions of listeners seems a little thin to me. As far as the audio archives not being a legitimate source, read the Wikipedia standards. A person or organization can be cited as a source for their own quotes or opinions. That fact that millions of people hear certain characteristics of the show makes these characteristics noteworthy. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"I challenge you to quantify it none-the-less." That's where we started - we still haven't established the facts that are already in the article. Posting a link to the whole archive is little different than claiming a newspaper as a source and then just linking to the newspaper's website without listing any specific issue or page. If we have a source for what a million people think are the most important parts of the show then please share it - that's what I've been asking for. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Levin is one of the top 10 radio hosts in the nation and we can't seem to get some basic detail on the format of his show that millions of people listen to. Yet hosts with dismal ratings have plenty written about their shows. Television show pages mention minor details of events or such that happened but one time. Entire uncourced plots for novels and movies are all over wikipedia. I'd just love to see you focus a fraction of the effort on the Al Franken page as you do here (not Franken's show page, but the page for his bio). It has such wonderful, non-POV, extremely signficant passages about a show that long longers exists as "He was shown to be both passionate about issues and current events, and very knowledgeable" (sourced by a movie review), and "...combination of lively pace, Franken zingers and information with an emphasis on verifiable truth" (sourced by Wikipedia), and "Franken is a Grateful Dead fan and used their songs as bumper music on his radio show" (not sourced at all). Just a fraction of the time, that's all I ask. Then I would better appreciate the valiant effort you are putting in for Levin's page. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're evading the question. Is there any 3rd-party for this material, or are we just picking and choosing things based on our own perceptions of the show? Regarding the distribution of our efforts, it appears to me that one or two editors have focused their Wikipedia careers on adding this material. I'm willing to go and deal with similar articles once the unsourced material is removed from this one. Let's see if any sourecs turn up this week and if not then I'll delete the unsourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since someone/something can be a citation of their own opinions and quotes according to Wikipedia standards, I still don't see why 3rd party citation is necessary. And I don't consider it "picking and choosing" when I present the most regularly played features that even the casual listener expects. So I'll ask, what sort of content is okay to discuss? Do we have 3rd party citations for things like saying Mark is conservative, or Jewish?

And is it possible to lock this page from anonymous users? I just find it a coincidence of convenience that right after I point out my re-edits are a result of a single anonymous user...along comes another, brand new, out of nowhere anonymous user whose very first edit just happens to be the edit I contentious edit I referred to. I'm not making accusations, just pointing out that anonymous users have a habit of making hostile edits on this page. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying that, "Levin has dedicated his show to the armed forces on occasion", which requires citing only one instance, and saying that, "Levin routinely dedicates his show to the armed forces", which requires numerous citations to estabish what is otherwise original research. We are doing the latter, it is no different than if I listened to a bunch of shows and said he frequently mispronounces a word. If we had a 3rd-party source saying that he mispronounces a word then that'd be OK, but for me to make that calculation on my own, and then to provide a link to his archive as the sole citation, would be problematic.

As for the unregistered users, we could protect the page if it became a problem. The user is almost certainly a reincarnation of a banned user and it's simpler just to block that account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And another wonderful coincidence of convenience...shortly after I point out that the edit in question was constantly, only, being reverted by hostile anonymous users, along comes a brand new registered user who makes a bee-line right to the contested edit. Amazing coincidence. Two in a row!

But back to the discussion...the sourcing of the audio archives should be plenty sufficient. It provides iron-clad evidence, and multiple instances no less, of an assertion which isn't even being contested to begin with (just the noteworthiness of the assertion is being contested). Regardless, I've stopped trying to make my good faith edit anyway (lest more "new" users magically appear and instantly have a major issue with this singular, specific edit). Now will you apply your very same arguments to the more deserving non-POV and poorly sourced praise for Al Franken's show on his bio page? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What source? The only source I recall was to an archive, which left it to me or any other person trying to verify the assertions with the task of listening to every show. That's little better than linking to a library as a source. However if we agree to leave it out then there's nothing more to discuss. As for other radio shows, yes, I'll go clean up another article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Regularly signs off by..." doesn't mean you have to listen to every show. It just means you have to listen to the very end of a random show or two or three...assuming, of course, the assertion was under any sort of contention or doubt to begin with. Regardless, I am tired of arguing against an odd, seemingly randomly enforced standard on this page. I went ahead and editted out the even more poorly sourced, blatantly POV stuff on Al Franken's page. We'll see if that causes a stir there, as he is involved in a political campaign. However, by your standards here, nearly the entire section in question about Franken's radio show should be scrubbed as very little of it is sourced. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem that isn't limited to Franken's or Levin's shows - it comes up with almost every article concerning radio shows (and maybe TV shows too). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And movies, and books, and much much more. I've skipped watching some movies because I can read their entire plot, with spoilers, on Wikipedia (and not even sourced, I might add). Hell, it beats sitting through another slow M. Night Shamylan movie! Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jew right in the first line

Do we really need that right in the intro, I'm quite sure there are guidelines that discourage mentioning someones race/religion straight off unless it's fundamental to the notability of the subject. The fact that he's Jewish is trivial and is certainly not as important as his nationality. If someone is christian or white we do not specify that right off the hook. — Realist² 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

per policy, ethnicity should not be emphasised in the lead unless it is part of notability. Here, I don't think it is, and I think the argument above is correct. --Rodhullandemu 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Mark doesn't mention that he's Jewish very much, and it has nothing to do with the content of his show or his books (at least that I've observed). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. I don't really care where it's located in the article, but next to nationality is logical. Since he does speak about Israel, it's relevant to his show, etc. More important, this is a biography and the subject's religious, cultural, and/or ethnic heritage is undoubtedly an important biuographical element. Feel free to move it to a different place in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"...since he does speak about Israel..."? He hardly does that I've observed. No more so than any other talk show host or pundit talking about politics and world events. He seldom references his faith or ethnicity. He gives honor to the troops on a daily basis, but very seldomly discusses Israel or his Jewish faith...yet you are a strong advocate for removing reference to the former and including reference to the latter. It's hard to know what is appropriate and what isn't when there is a seeming lack of consistency. Please clarify...

And I'm not against making mention of the fact that he's Jewish. It's just that there are three refernces to it in his biography, including two catagorizations. Hosts like Dr. Laura and Michael Medved make their faith a cornerstone of their show...Levin does not. Three mentions that he's Jewish just seems a bit excessive.Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's only one mention. For strict accountability, it has to be mentioned in the article with a source to be used for categories. He may hardly mention that he was born in 1957, but we include that as standard biographical information. Anyway, I suggest consolidating this discussion below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dahlia Lithwick's review

I'm not going to engage in an edit war, so let's have a discussion here.

Lithwick's review, even if balanced by a positive review, is out of place on this page. "Men in Black", being a book by Mark Levin, certainly merits some mention on Mark Levin's page. Dahlia Lithwick's review, which is an opinion of the book, potentially has a place on a page about "Men in Black". It does not have any place on a page about Mark Levin. It's just too far removed. Furthermore, an opinion from an individual is hardly noteworthy because any politically themed book will garner its share of both positive and negative reviews. At least stick to facts, like book sales.

Furthermore, Dahlia Lithwick's review is noted in the body of the article and is sourced. It is also given a direct link at the "Other Websites" section. Not only is this redundant, it's a means of giving her opinion extra weight.

Please remove one or the other, then come here and justify inclusion of the opinion. Thanks. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and two negative (Lithwick, Publishers Review) versus one positive (Weekly Standard) review still gives undo weight. Should we add Edwin Meece's review from the dust jacket, delete one review, or just eliminate the pointless reviews? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is about Levin. Since Levin wrote "Men in Black", that makes mention of the book worthy of inclusion. I fail to see how two reviews (balanced or not, doesn't matter) of said book warrant a mention on a page devoted to Levin.

Perhaps if there were a separate page for "Men in Black", the reviews might merit inclusion. But, a page devoted to Levin does not benefit from two predictable and blatantly partisan reviews of a book he wrote.

Please try to justify adding such OPINIONS back into Levin's page before engaging in a silent edit war. Thank you. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical opinion regarding the works of an author is directly relevant to an encyclopedia entry on that author. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But they are both from partisan sources, right? Can't you just include some vanilla review if you have to include a review at all or is there some other point here? I would prefer to have the "commentary" included in an article about the book if there was one, but whatever, Tom (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying if I go to Stephen King's page, I can see such things as critical reviews of "The Stand"? Of course not. You're putting OPINION in an allegedly fact-based article.

Are either of these two reviews noteworthy in any way? Can we find the Lathwick review mentioned anywhere but the outlet she wrote it for? If not, how in the heck does it rise to the level of notability?

Simply stating it's directly relevant does not make it so. How is it notable?!? How is it more notable than the easily verfied fact that the book was a New York Times best-seller (which is NOT mentioned on the page)? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I say simply stating these book reviews are relevant does not make it so. Opinions about books are rare on the pages devoted to the books themselves, let alone on the author's page.

I've pulled up pages about radio hosts and other pundits on the left and right here on Wiki. No reviews (opinions) on the pages for the books, nor in the bio for the author.

Sorry, Gamaliel, but their inclusion here seems to be the exception, not the norm. Could you back up how they are relevant by citing an actual Wiki rule to that effect, or as least finding SOME piece of precedence to weigh against my large stack of precedence to the contrary? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would leave the review out of the bio and maybe add it to the article on the book if there is one, but that is just me. --Tom (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some misconception here about the purpose of an encyclopedia article. The article is not a resume or a promotional bio page which only lists facts and accomplishments. It also places those facts and accomplishments in context. The reception of a book is just as vital to an encyclopedia article as the fact that the book exists. The book does not exist in a vacuum, and to ignore the context limits the article and cheats the reader. Our duty is to report in full, good or bad, not just to list facts from someone's resume. As for the the idea that an encyclopedia does not discuss the reception of a work - that is flat out nonsense. Are there articles on Wikipedia that don't discuss the reception? Sure - incomplete ones. If you need more convincing and you have access to it, look in Contemporary Authors Online, a standard encyclopedia of current authors published by Thompson Gale. In the entry for Levin is the very quote by Lithwick that is in dispute here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• If the book were simply mentioned then it might be excessive to include a review. But since it is the topic of a section, which includes context such as "bestselling", then NPOV requires that we include all significant views. At the moment,[1] the article mentions two reviews: one seemingly negative and one seemingly positive. That appears to fulfill the NPOV requirement. Separately, I'd warn against false balance. NPOV says that we should reflect all signficant views but with appropriate weight in accordance with their prominence. If a book has received 10 negative reviews and only one positive review then it would be inappropriate to give both sides equal treatment. I don't think that's an issue here so this is just a general comment.   Will Beback  talk  18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, unbiased and critical reviews from known literary critics working for a source known for literary criticism would be acceptable. However, you're trying to work in partisan sniping/partisan cheerleading from partisan individuals working for partisan outlets. Oranges do not go in an apple pie...

So, will you now similarly advocate for putting in comments critical of Barack Obama's books from partisan people like Limbaugh or Hannity on the Obama page? All signs point to "No". Ynot4tony2 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Equating a respected legal correspondent like Lithwick with Limbaugh or Hannity is absurd. I have no idea of the current state of the Obama article, but I do believe that the article should include comments indicating the nature of the reception of his books. Gamaliel (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Both Limbaugh and Hannity are respected and highly notable political commentators, so they would be just as qualified to talk about Obama's book as Lithwick was talking about Levin's book.

However, comments shouldn't come from partisan cheerleaders or partisan hatchet people. If anyone had a clue who either reviewer was, the bulk of their "review" could be correctly guessed. When people are paid because they support a certain political viewpoint, their "criticism" of a politically themed entity is suspect. You keep failing to address that point. Such partisan reviews are predictable, not notable. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am directly addressing that point. I disagree with your depiction of Lithwick as a partisan cheerleader. Once again, equating Lithwick with Limbaugh or Hannity is absurd and I don't think we or the article should indulge that absurdity. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

According to whom is Lithwick a "partisan hatchet" person? Her Wiki bio makes it appear that she's a respected journalist specializing in covering the Supreme Court.   Will Beback  talk  17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the glorified blog that is Slate, has her review gotten any traction or mention anywhere else? No one seems able to explain how her review itself is notable. She's not widely known...she's not a book critic by profession...her review generated little buzz outside of the website where she posted it and this wiki page...

Politics and opinions aside, I'm bothered by Wikipedia's use of sources like Slate and Media Matters. When you cite on-line only, openly partisan outlets that are primarily opinion driven, Wiki loses credibility. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity

This is not covered in the bio, that is why the categories where removed per WP:CAT. --Tom 23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but it doesn't explain why it was removed entirely from the article. There's a discussion above that it needn't be in the first line, and someone apprarently took that as a reason to delete it altogether. Heritage is a common element in a biography, so I'll restore it to a less prominent position and re-add the categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your insistence for doing this and there is no source for this so I will remove it. --Tom 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a family section that goes into his family background in detail ect and it is sourced, then fine, add it, but to just "label" him as Jewish for some "reason" doesn't make sense. --Tom 14:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced. In the dog book he refers to himself as Jewish. As for labeling him Jewish, we label him as being from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, we label him as being born in 1957, we label him as a Temple U. alumni. Why does it make sense to apply some labels but not others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it reads like crap? What is your motivation for this? --Tom 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored this information, which you deleted, for the same reason that some editors go around adding nationality to biographies - to make them more complete. If you don't like the writing then feel free to copyedit it. We could also hide the source and just use it for the categories, omitting the mention from the body of the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The thing with nationality is a WP:MOSBIO issue. Like I said, maybe if there was a more extensive section on his parents and family heritage, it would read better. Anyways, not a big deal and I will not revert again. Maybe others can add more family background since I am not that interested in doing so. Cheers! --Tom 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish" describes both a nationality (his nationality is "American" anyway), and a religion...and therein lies part of the problem.

I'm more comfortable with "Americans of Jewish descent" than I am with "Jewish-American conservatism" (which implies his faith and/or nationality shapes his views, and could be viewed as somewhat perjorative, like "religious right"). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be a general problem with Category:Jewish-American conservatism. It's not clear that most of the entries in that category have had their views shaped by their faith and/or nationality. However that's not a criteria for inclusion, and it'd be hard to prove it about anyone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish-American conservatism" is different than "Jewish-American conservatives". The name implies a type of conservatism that is different from other types. I challenge that notion. Levin's brand of conservatism is hard to distinguish from, say, Sean Hannity's, who is an Irish Catholic. Unless we can define "Jewish-American conservatism", and unless we have a basis to say Levin subscribes to that particular brand of conservatism, we have no business of putting him in that category (nor do we have any business having such a catagory to begin with).

Since you admit the J-A C category is ill-defined, and since no one has produced a source to back up Levin's inclusion, shouldn't we just remove him from the category? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We have sources that the subject is Jewish, American, and conservative. Rather than delete this single categorization I'd suggest deleting the category if that's the problem. But until then this article seems to belong in it just as much as the other articles do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I stress "Jewish-American conservatism" is not the same as "Jewish-American conservative", so pointing out Mark is Jewish, American, and conservative doesn't quite pigeon-hole his beliefs as J-A conservatism.

And, to quote you (from earlier on this talk page): "other stuff exists. We don't need to fix every other part of Wikipedia before we fix one part." Seems to me we shouldn't have to wait for the category to be deleted before removing what is a vague categorization on this page.

I think deleting the category as a whole is a good idea, but wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps renaming the category "Jewish American Conservatives" and taking out the sub-heading of "neoconservatism" is the way to go...since "neoconservative" is viewed by many (including Levin) to be a perjorative term for Jewish people. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The place to begin is WP:CFD, which handles both deleting and renaming. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Category talk:Jewish-American conservatism#Criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have remove this again. Maybe under a famiy section or background would be better. We don't write...Joe Blow, a buddist(or fill in any religion), earned a degree from Cal State, ect. The way it read before, Levin's religion or ethnicity is just jammed into the sentence for what purpose? Is his religion or ethnicity relevant to the current bio? Again, maybe it is the way is is worded. A more detailed family section might solve this. --Tom 16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's common sense. The man is an American who happens to be Jewish. He says it himself. "Screw all this "pc" stuff. I'm an American first. Even his parents taught him this" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unitary executive and originalism

How does Levin reconcile these two flatly contradictory ideologies? Any interpretation based on the original intent and/or meaning of the Constitution clearly cannot support the virtually all-powerful President that the unitary executive theory puts forth. On the contrary, the President was originally meant to be a far weaker office than it is now. Given that the article says Levin advocates both positions, it would be good to show his explanation for how it's possible to believe in both of them. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it makes more sense to state what Levin's beliefs are, and let the actual Constitutionality of his beliefs be decided on by the reader. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asking if Levin himself has given an explanation as to how those seemingly contradictory aspects of his beliefs are reconciled. If he has, then it's clearly something important enough to include in the article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any instance where Levin has address the issue, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to throw the question in to his page. If you find someone notable questioning his views, the question itself might be worthy of inclusion at that point. But, the disagreement of an anonymous wikipedia user does not merit inclusion, which is why your edit was reverted on the Levin page. To allow that would be opening up wikipedia to no end of sniping on any politician or pundit's page (e.g., "He calls himself pro-life, in spite of the fact that he supports the death penalty" or "He claims to be against judging people on race, in spite of his support for affirmative action.") Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's common sense. The man is an American who happens to be Jewish. He says it himself. "Screw all this "pc" stuff. I'm an American first. Even his parents taught him this" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 March 2009

Who did Mark support in the Republican primaries?

Mitt? Rudy? Or (maybe) Fred? ↜Just me, here, now … 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First Fred, then Mitt, then McCain. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ynot4tony2. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

I just reorganized all the info into what are, hopefully, more clearly defined and cohesive categories. Previously, statements in the article seemed to jump from one subject to the next and section didn't always seem relevant. I also did some minor formatting issues. It can still use some work but I wanted to restrict my changes to formatting issues and see what other editors thinkCarbonX (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the article for the first time tonight and thought it a bit of a mess. Did some clean up, hopefully w/out any POV. I deleted some of Levin's unsourced "views" or "advocacies", which could potentially go in a new section?

Anti-Semitic comments made by Levin

Why is my edit criticizing Levin for anti-semitic remarks being removed? I included a link to a source which includes audio recording of the remark in question. Kevin mckague (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence gives no attribution. who is doing the accusing? Also, the sentence says "often". also the citation is from a partisan source. Are there other reliable sources that have covered this? Should this belong under a different section. does this comply with BLP concerns. Whatelse did I miss? Anyways, I make no opinion about the "truth" of what you are saying or implying. --Tom (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe bring this up at the BLP board and see what others think? TIA, --Tom (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If this were covered by a moderately neutral source like a newspaper it would make more sense to include. But as of right now, including it sourced to media matters is not ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though the link provides an actual audio link of Levin making the anti-semitic comments? Why are you still harping on the alleged bias of the source when it includes the actual audio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.228.254 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not arguing that he didn't make the comment. The issue is its significance. In general, we need to be very careful about giving undue weight especially in biographies of living people. The fact that I can't write a sentence about my opinion of Levin that wouldn't be filled with profanity doesn't mean that this deserves to be in the article. We need to wait until it is picked up by less partisan sources who make the same conclusion. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All this talk goes on, meanwhile it sure looks like the article is being controlled by Levin sycophants, because this particular Wiki article looks like something that could have been published by the subject's fan website.192.138.205.144 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular portion of text that's biased?   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no section devoted to his controversial comments75.128.140.216 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We can only add material that we have sources for. Find some sources that say he's made controversial comments and we can add a mention of them.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sources, like an actual audio clip of Mark Levin making anti-semitic remarks? That kind of source?75.128.140.216 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That would be a primary source and it would depend on us deciding if the comment is anti-semitic. What we need is a secondary source that explicitly labels the comments anti-semitic, or controversial. See WP:PSTS for a comparison of primary versus secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

oh, like the one that got this thread started; A secondary source, which included an actual tape of Mark Levin's show in which he made anti-semitic remarks. Face it. Wikipedia has too many fans watching over the bios of it's living person articles for it to ever be truly balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.140.216 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the source? Can you provide a link? I don't see it above.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180010?f=s_search

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.140.216 (talk)

I don't see any mention of anti-Semitism on that page.   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a reasonable standard? If the Anti-Defamation League complains that Levin's comments were anti-Semitic, then it's notable enough to post here. Simply getting David Brock to put out a press release doesn't rise to the level of "controversy". Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Guests on Levin's show

I thought it was worth a mention. Should we include some of the other repeat guests like Hannity, Peter King, Fred Thompson? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think any of his guests rise to the level of WP:NOTE. Also, without sources it borders on WP:NOR. What you added and the line about Linkin Park (for the same reasons) should, IMHO, be deleted. CarbonX (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court is Needed, Religion is Destroying America

The statements below are as far as I can tell absolute truths. I don't know how anybody with good sense could disagree with what is stated below. The souce documents are "Liberty and Tyranny", "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy", the constitution, "Religion vs. America", "Religion vs. Morality", and "Religion and Capitalism". What on earth are you talking about when you say it lacks proper sourcing? And which of these truths stated below could anyone find questionable?RHB100 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• One chapter in Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny", pushes religion. It does not discuss the fact that the Bible is false because it is self-contradictory as pointed out in "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by C. Dennis McKinsey even if you overlook the scientific evidence against the Bible. Nor does Levin discuss the evidence for human evolution. Levin does not appear to believe the constitution means "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Levin's interpretation of the constitution does not rely on the exact words of the constitution with no consideration of the assumed intention of the writers. Levin instead interprets the constitution on what he thinks the writers intended. It is clear that Levin would like to cram religion down the throats of the citizens by using public property to display the Ten Commandments. We certainly need the Supreme Court to protect us from religious aggressors like Levin. Additional reasons for our need for protection from religion are pointed out in Religion vs. America, Religion and Capitalism Are Antithetical and Religion vs. Morality The Ayn Rand Center provides these publication. Ayn Rand was the brilliant, atheistic philosopher and novelist who wrote "Atlas Shrugged", many articles in "The Virtues of Selfishness", "The Fountainhead" and other publications.

I deleted the above material because it is an "argumentative section without proper sourcing" and incomplete attribution of opinions. For starters, saying a chapter "pushes religion" is an opinion, and should be attributed to whatever notable source holds that opinion. Similar problems exist throughout. Another type of problem is the conclusions that "we certainly need the Supreme Court to protect us from religious aggressors like Levin." Who are "we"? Wikipedia ia an international encyclopedia, and is read by people in many different nations and with a variety of religious beliefs. Finally, Ayn Rand never commented on Mark Levin, and the cited articles don't mention him, so the last part appears totally off-topic.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, RHB, your entry is a screed. The internet is filled with places to make such arguments, but an on-line encyclopedia is not one of them. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Postnomial

• WP:CREDENTIAL "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name."

So we don't write "JD", "Ph.D" or "B.A." after a subject's name. We should describe all of the subject's significant academic achievements in the text of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I had just noticed the J.D. was after his name for well over a month, and a one-time editor deleted it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too and checked. It's no problem - there are so many policies and guidelines no one can known them all.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Focus on Separation issue

I removed the paragraph from the Men in Black section. The discussion makes it seem like the book only dealt with the Separation argument, when it was more broad than that. Unless there was some controversy or some other reason to deem it notable, the focus on it is misplaced. Levin's stance on this issue isn't unique or even rare in political punditry. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never read the book, but the material appeared to focus on one chapter. Further, as Ynot4tony2 points out, it's not a particularly original or notable claim.   Will Beback  talk  16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"it's not a particularly original or notable claim", well so what. It doesn't need to be original or notable. The thing that is important is that it be interesting and on the topic. It fulfills both of these requirements. You people are completely misguided in depriving the readers of interesting and useful information. If you think it is on only one chapter then add discussion of other chapters. Don't deprive the readers of the one chapter we have discussed. RHB100 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You've made a minor defense of your point (including a "so what", ignoring a Wiki rule, and making up a Wiki rule), and you seem to think that means your edit isn't still contentious? You act like you're oblivious to the fact that you are the only person defending its inclusion even as you acknowledge that multiple people ("you people") disagree with you.

You refuse to address the fact that Thomas Jefferson's precise intent behind his words, "wall of separation between church and state" is something that is debated by many historians and pundits.

There is a term for what you're doing. It's called "edit war".Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Levin has written severa books, and heach as several chapters. For Wikipedia editors to just picke chapters from his books are worthy of summarizatation whie ignoring the rest of the chapters does not lead to a balanced article. If there are notable 3rd-party sources that have discussed this material then let's cite their opinions. But let's not inject our own.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You people are just repeating the same old invalid arguments. I'm beginning to believe that your are just too thick headed to try to reason with. RHB100 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal comments don't help. Please find some 3rd-party sources for this book. Giving a summary of one chapter isn't helpful and distorts the coverage of the book. Better would be some views on the overall quality of the book, such as from reviewers.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that a summary of one chapter won't help. A summary of one chapter is better than no chapter summaries. More chapter summaries may be added as time permits. RHB100 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And this summary is based on what - your own views of the material? I haven't read the book, but it does not appear that your summary is a neutral recitation of the main points - rather it appears to be making an argument. Rather than quoting Levin, yo've chosen to quote Jefferson and Black, but this article isn't about them so that's off-topic. Further, you don't seem to be trying to gain consensus for your edits - you're ignoring the legitimate, policgty based complaints on this page, you're ignoring attmepts by me to at least improve your addition, and are just piling on more. I urge you to take a more consensual approach.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RHB100, realize this: The claim that Levin "takes issue" with Jefferson is an opinion, based primarily on one's opinion of what Jefferson meant by the separation passage. You can make the most eloquent, convincing argument about what Jefferson meant, and it still would not change the fact that his meaning is disputed by historians and pundits across the world. Unless you can quote Levin saying he "takes issue" with Jefferson, you need to stop trying to insert this opinion. And if you're going to cite a book, you should be prepared to give page numbers. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a quote from "Men in Black" which demonstrated clearly that Levin disagreed with Jefferson but somebody took it out. The debate has been over what the religious clause of the first amendment means not over what wall of separation means. RHB100 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On page 44 of "Men in Black" Levin writes "The fallacy of the 'Wall' metaphor ... ." On the same page he writes "Jefferson misleading metaphor ... ." RHB100 (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "the fallacy of the 'Wall' metaphor," you're taking it out of context. Levin is referring to Black's interpretation as the fallacy. Furthermore, the "Jefferson's misleading metaphor" is a quote from Rehnquist's opinion. Stop with the edit war already. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ynot4Tony4, I notice that you are not being very rational. I give you examples showing Levin disagrees with Jefferson, then you make up some excuse. I also notice that Wikipedia has closed your account. Does that mean that you are incompetent and totally incapable of editing? RHB100 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RHB100, please find a secondary source which makes your point.   Will Beback  talk  18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, I have given the source of the review of "Men in Black". I have given sources with page numbers of all material taken from "Men in Black". RHB100 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RHB100, I didn't "make up an excuse." I pointed out the faulty way you attributed the words of Rehnquist to Levin, and how Levin's assessment of Black was the focus of the other quote you cited.

Since you cite the wrong person in your quote, "does that mean that you are incompetent and totally incapable of editing?". Enough of your ignoring Wikipedia rules on notability. Just because some random Wikipedia editor find something interesting does not mean that little tidbit belongs in an encyclopedia.

So far, you're outvoted. Stop trying to own the page, or I'll seek admin intervention. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ynot4 is apparently completely incapable of reading and reasoning logically. There is actually a complete paragraph on page 44 of "Men in Black" where Levin expresses his disagreement with Jefferson by writing, "Yet liberals constantly rely on Jefferson's words to justify their opposition to virtually any government intersection with religion." Yet Ynot4 makes up the excuse, your taking it out of context. Ynot4 makes up excuses on the history page writing "(misleading, opinionated, non-notable passage removed as per discussion in the talk page)." But all of these accusations are untrue and are nowhere discussed on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Men In Black

There is a dispute over whether to include a summary of one chapter from one of Mark Levin's books in the article, in addition to the paragraph already at Mark Levin#Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America. The summary is sourced from the chapter itself.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text

One of the issues Levin discuses (pp. 35-53 ) which Dahlia Lithwick's review does not cover is the separation of church and state. He (p. 41) quotes from the letter of Thomas Jefferson to Baptist in Danbury, Connecticut, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Levin (p.44) takes issue with this position of Jefferson by arguing that the religious clause of the First Amendment doesn't imply a wall of separation between church and state. Levin (pp. 35-53) claims that the clause means only that the federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion and also prohibited from interfering with the free exercise thereof. Levin (pp. 42-44) criticizes the opinion of Hugo Lafayette Black in Everson v. Board of Education in which Black stated "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Levin says that Black's opinion established the anti-religious precedent that has done so much damage to religious freedom.

Comments from involved editors

1. My oppposition to this material is based on three factors. First, it is not based on secondary sources. Second, it is not a comprehensive overview of the book, but rather it's just a summary of a single chapter, or less. Therefore it puts excessive weight on that one part of one book. Third, it appears to be trying to make an argument rather than simply provide a neutral summary. For example, it quotes Jefferson and Black rather than Levin. For those reasons I think that the material as proposed should not be included in the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First, this material is based on the most direct source possible, the book under discussion, "Men in Black." RHB100 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Second, this proposed text covers material not included in the the review by Dahlia Lithwick thus providing a much needed supplement to her review. You cannot adequately cover the entire book in one paragraph. This attitude that you cannot add anything new unless it covers the entire book means the section can never be improved and it certainly need improvement. RHB100 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Third, all the quotes are from material written by Mark Levin in "Men in Black". All quotes of Jefferson and Black are indirect, that is quotes of Levin quoting Jefferson and Black. Levin's arguments are clearly stated so that the paragraph is completely neutral. RHB100 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that although I have attempted to express a neutral point of view, there is nothing to preclude other editors from improving on this in accordance with the provisions of editing Wikipedia articles. RHB100 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm against the edit for several reasons. The "takes issue with Jefferson" is based on one's assumption of Jefferson's intent, and therefore smacks of weasel words. Levin's opinion about the First Amendment is a common view held by conservative pundits, and as such not controversial nor notable. The book contains thirteen chapters and discusses nine political issues in depth, only one of which is the issue of religious freedom. User RHB100 has been overly abusive on talk page, making me question his ability to be reasonable in any sort of discussion. Furthermore, RHB100 attempts to find evidence of Levin's alleged "taking issue" with Jefferson by pointing out "[Levin] writes 'Jefferson misleading metaphor,'" even though Levin is clearly quoting an opinion authored by someone else. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

• Why are we singling out this particular portion of the book for discussion? Is it notable? Controversial? Have secondary sources highlighted this portion of Levin's work? If you can't answer yes to any of these questions, I don't see how we can justify inclusion of this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Gamaliel that this should not be included but for a more philosophical reason. I don't see what the importance of that passage is, other than someone using it to try to prove a point. I usually find myself upset after only a few moments of the Mark Levin show's vitriol. I do not share his politics and I generally think his show fuels divisiveness. That being said, I hate when people use Wikipedia to advance and agenda and that is what this appears to be for me. If you have something to say about the guy call into his show. I am sure that he will take your call once.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cost Benefit Analysis

The question of overwhelming importance that should be asked is, are there any people who would like to read this material? If there are any such persons, then these people benefit by having the material available to read? In the highly unlikely situation in which there are no such persons then nobody is harmed since nobody has to read it. This is more important than the questions asked above in my opinion. However the questions by Gamaliel are interesting and thoughtful and are answered below.

The important thing to realize is that we must begin to improve this section. It is too superficial at present. Additional paragraphs on a chapter by chapter basis is what is needed. Saying that we cannot add one paragraph is saying we can never improve this section.

"Why are we singling out this particular portion of the book for discussion?"

We are not singling out this portion of the book for discussion. There is nothing that precludes the addition of other portions of the book for discussion. It is of overwhelming importance that discussion of some portions of the book be included and the more the better. This is true since any discussions which apply to the whole book rather than a particular portion are by their very nature superficial.

"Is it notable?"

It probably is although this is somewhat vague and ambiguous. The vagueness and ambiguity of this question is another reason for relying on the question of overwhelming importance stated above.

"Is it controversial?"

I think that it is certainly controversial?

"Have secondary sources highlighted this portion of Levin's work?"

As stated above, we are not singling out this portion of the book for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cost Benefit Analysis

If this were a page dedicated just to Men in Black, and it had generated as much buzz, discussion, and analysis as a Dickens classic or the controversy of The DaVinci Code, then the level of detailed discussion would belong (and, assuming it was balanced by a variety of opinion, which your addition is not). Ynot4tony2 (talk)

It makes no difference that the entire article is not devoted to "Men in Black". The only thing that matters is that the section under discussion is about "Men in Black". All persons can make contributions. RHB100 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But, this is not a page on Levin's book. It's a page on Levin. Focusing an entire paragraph on one chapter of one of his books is asinine. Ynot4tony2 (talk)

This is not a meaningful comment. RHB100 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you say, "I think that it is certainly controversial," shows a fundamental flaw in the way you approach editing. As I said, his view is common, and it should take more than some wikipedia editor claiming "it's controversial" before we deem it to be controversial. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense. When I respond to the question, "Is it controversial?" by saying, "I think that it is certainly controversial", that certainly does not show a fundamental flaw in my approach to editing. RHB100 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is an editorial decision to highlight a particular portion of the book for discussion, and as such we must have a valid reason for making such a decision. Your opinion that it is controversial is not such a reason, neither is the mere desire to discuss an arbitrarily chosen portion of the book. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental principles stated in the Cost Benefit Analysis may not have been completely understood on a first reading and therefore should be repeated. "The important thing to realize is that we must begin to improve this section. It is too superficial at present. Additional paragraphs on a chapter by chapter basis is what is needed. Saying that we cannot add one paragraph is saying we can never improve this section." RHB100 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, your philosophy on editing is flawed. You were asked if it was controversial, and you said, "I think it's controversial." Allow me to be blunt, but who cares what you think? To be considered "controversial", it should take more than a single editor deeming it so. You have utterly failed to explain why Levin's stance should be considered controversial; no examples of his columns getting yanked, him being rebuked by his own party, boycotts threatened against him, no citing of hostile editorials written against Levin's stance on the issue. Nothing!

This is getting old. No one agrees with you. You ignore Wiki rules and make up your own as you go along. You insult people who disagree with you. You flippantly dismiss questions about the legitimacy of your edit, which is highly opinionated to begin with. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that some people agree with Levin and some people disagree with him leaves no doubt that Levin is controversial. He probably wouldn't even have a talk show if he were not controversial. I think they probably advertise him as a controversial talk show host sometimes. I don't understand why anybody with good sense would even question the fact that he is controversial. RHB100 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, basically all it takes to be considered "controversial" is to have people disagree with you? That means anyone with an opinion on any subject is controversial. Kind of a strange standard, don't you think?

Regardless if Levin himself is considered controversial or not is besides the point. The issue at hand is if Levin's view on the separation issue is controversial or not. Controversy is something like Ann Coulter's "fag" comment, Keith Olbermann's use of the Nazi salute, or Ward Churchill's infamous "little Eichmans" essay. A conservative pundit expressing a widely held conservative opinion is not controversial. Can you at least admit that much?!? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste my time with your silly arguments. RHB100 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that last response to mean you can't come up with a better reason as to why Levin's words were controversial besides, "I think they are." So we'll go ahead and close that chapter. It's decided. Levin's interpretation of the First Amendment is not controversial. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No that is untrue, all interpretations of the First Amendment, including Levin's, are, by the vary nature of the First Amendment, controversial. RHB100 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to be going in circles, and is unlikely to achieve any agreement. The purpose of an RfC is to get input from outside editors. I suggest that we just wait for that input.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some inappropriate things have been said on both sides and I ask all parties to review WP:CIVIL before you continue this debate.

RHB100, I think you either aren't grasping or aren't responding to the concerns of other editors here. Of course Levin himself is controversial, but that doesn't mean every opinion of his is controversial or worthy of note. Saying every opinion about the 1st Ammendment is controversial is overly broad, inaccurate, and not a reasonable standard for us to work with here. The issue here is this: we cannot take not of every opinion from a controversial figure. We must decide which ones to take note of, and for that we use secondary sources to guide us. So what we must ask ourselves here is why we are taking note of this particular opinion and is that an appropriate choice for us to make. Gamaliel (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I have fully and completely responded to the so-called concerns of other editors about controversy both with regard to Levin and Levin's interpretation of the 1st Amendment. RHB100 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I did not say "every opinion about the 1st Amendment is controversial'. I said "all interpretations of the First Amendment, including Levin's, are, by the vary nature of the First Amendment, controversial." These are two totally and completely different statements. You can express the opinion that the 1st Amendment is a very important protection of free speech and religious freedom and it probably will not be controversial. But when you interpret the 1st Amendment saying that it implies a wall of separation between church and state or that it does not imply a wall of separation between church, it is sure to be controversial. My earlier statement is certainly true "all interpretations of the First Amendment, including Levin's, are, by the vary nature of the First Amendment, controversial." RHB100 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Levin is a radio talk show host. He makes his living every day by finding controversial things to discuss. We haven't seen any evidence that this chapter of this book is any more controversial than any other book and chapter that he's written, much less his spoken commentary. If we have a secondary source that talks about it, let's summarie that.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the "so-called concerns of other editors" is not particularly civil nor is it conducive to constructive debate. It is true that some comments have been directed to you that have not been entirely civil, but that is not cause for you to drag down the debate even further or lash out against editors who have been polite and respectful towards you. The concerns noted by other editors are completely valid and you have not addressed them fully, despite your protestation to the contrary. It all boils down to what Will Beback just wrote: We haven't seen any evidence that this chapter of this book is any more controversial than any other book and chapter that he's written, much less his spoken commentary. Arguing about the nature of the first amendment does nothing to address this basic concern. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback and Gamaliel, Nobody has responded to the simple and straightforward logic of the "Cost Benefit Analysis" I wrote above and repeated below. I set this section up as "Response to Cost Benefit Analysis" but nobody has responded to this analysis as of yet. I have responded to all the questions about controversy including a definition whether other people like my responses or not. I ask that you, Will Beback and Gamaliel, read the "Cost Benefit Analysis" repeated below. If you think there are any fallacies in reasoning please be clear and specific in stating what they are. Also if you think there is anything more important than these simple and straightforward principles, please state what that is and why. "The question of overwhelming importance that should be asked is, are there any people who would like to read this material? If there are any such persons, then these people benefit by having the material available to read? In the highly unlikely situation in which there are no such persons then nobody is harmed since nobody has to read it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that it is simply not how Wikipedia works. We do not (especially in articles involving living persons in some way) simply throw in material and say "well, someone might want to read about that some day". We rely on secondary sources to guide us regarding what is worth discussing and what is not worth discussing. Your cost benefit analysis doesn't enter into the equation. Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I maintain it should take more than simply citing a person who disagrees with Levin's First Amendment views to have them considered controversial, even if the cited source claims they are "controversial". Controversy can be measured by consequences. Ann Coulter insinuated John Edwards was a "fag", it made big news, she got rebuked by fellow conservatives, and several papers dropped her columns. Dick Durbin compared U.S. soldiers to Nazis, there was a large outcry, and he eventually apologized. Don Imus made the "nappy headed hoes" comment, apologized, and was fired. Playboy ran an article on their website about conservative women they'd like to "hate-%&@#", a boycott was threatened, and the column was pulled. Those are genuine controversies. They make news across the country, and involve the offending person(s) admitting their mistake and/or suffering a significant setback as a result.

That being said, there is little to nothing controversial about Men in Black. Of course, it's highly partisan and opinionated, and many people in the country will disagree with much or most of what Levin says. In this regard, it is like almost every other book ever written by a partisan dealing with political issues. If you search the traditionally acknowledged "reliable sources" for Men in Black, you won't find any sort of major discussion about the First Amendment chapter. In fact, all you're likely to find from news sources is that Men in Black was on the New York Times bestseller list. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as a discussion marked by the expression of opposing views. RHB100 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But what's the source showing that there's controversy over this chapter?   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By that definition, a message thread about the best Led Zeppelin song would be controversial, because it is "a discussion marked by the expression of opposing views." Again, I suggest a less encompassing definition for something to be a controversy by wikipedia standards. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should send your message to Merriam Webster Dictionaries. If they knew what you figured out, they might decide to change all their dictionaries. RHB100 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So, is it decided? The proposed discussion of Levin's alleged disagreement with Jefferson's view on the First Amendment doesn't belong? Consensus achieved? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For anybody who has read with comprehension the chapter on the controversy associated with the religious clause of the First Amendment in the book, "Men in Black", Levin's disagreement with Thomas Jefferson is quite obvious. RHB100 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we concede this point, so what? You need to establish why it is important that we mention why Levin disagrees with Jefferson and why this is more important to mention than Levin's many other controversial stances and disagreements. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, where in the Wikipedia standards, guidelines, 5 pillars, etc. do you find that "You need to establish why it is important that we mention why Levin disagrees with Jefferson and why this is more important to mention than Levin's many other controversial stances and disagreements"? It seems to me that you are coming up with more ways to exclude information than the Wikipedia guidelines, etc. call for. Your excessive standards on keeping information out makes it almost impossible to improve Wikipedia. Keep in mind that Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. RHB100 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to get you to address the central question here, but now I realize that you feel you simply don't have to. This is a mistake. You can't find common ground and consensus with other editors by simply refusing to address those concerns, and your personal interpretation of WP rules and guidelines misses the point. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources (see the core WP policy WP:NOR) and we do not simply add sections to articles based our our personal opinion of its controversial nature. To say that this material is not prohibited by the pillars, rules, etc. is to miss the forest while reciting the words written on the trees. But to put aside principles and focus on pragmatism for a second, you surely must realize you aren't going get this section to stay in the article unless you address in some matter the concerns of the editors here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Best compromise? Start up a Men in Black page and write a few paragraphs about Levin's general philosophy on the judiciary and views on the nine major social/political issues covered in the book, including but not focusing on the separation issue.

It would have to do without the editorializing, in particularly the "takes issue with Jefferson" interpretation. RHB100 has failed to produce any sort of "money quote" to justify such strong wording. To provide a little context that RHB100 has missed, I offer this, from 'In The Court We Trust?', the chapter in which RHB100 has pulled his quotes (one of which is actually someone else's quote, cited by Levin). Comment and emphasis added. "For the last several decades, the Court, based on a misreading of Thomas Jefferson's now famous letter to the Danbury Baptists (the initial source of the "separation" quote), has seized on the mistaken idea that the Constitution requires a severe 'wall of separation' between church and state." The main point Levin attempts to make in the chapter, a view common to conservative pundits, is that Jefferson never intended the modern interpretation of "separation of church and state" and that too much was read into the letter he wrote. It still doesn't seem Levin disagrees with Jefferson, just that he disagrees with how people have used Jefferson's words. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Charity involvement

I added a mention about Levin's involvement with Troopathon, a charity which makes care packages for soldiers. Is it okay to use the charity's homepage as a source, since Levin is pictured on the front page as a featured speaker? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable enough source for a brief mention. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters

Someone tried to add a "comments and criticism" section citing a bunch of Media Matters articles. Can we agree that a web-only, admittedly partisan opinion outlet fails to rise to the level of reliable source? And can we agree that if only the only sources we can find of these "controversies" are from partisan attack websites, then the incidents fail to rise to the level of notability?

I'm really annoyed that Media Matters, who's entire purpose is to attack the credibility of anyone they don't agree with, gets to decide what is controversial and what isn't. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the section in question, and I did so because it adds balance to an article that otherwise presents an incomplete picture of someone who is inarguably a controversial figure. And Media Matters is no less valid of a source than the right-wing National Review and Human Events, both of which are cited as sources in this article. Just because you personally disagree with Media Matters's politics doesn't make the information they provide any less truthful or valid.

If you believe that there are problems with the section I added, you're more than welcome to improve on it by citing sources that counter the information I've added or add context to it. Or if you have any evidence that anything I added is factually incorrect, feel free to remove it after specifically citing evidence to that effect. But attempting to suppress valid information from this article simply because you personally don't like the politics of the source that it came from, or because you're a fan of Mark Levin and don't want the article to contain any negative information about him, amounts to censorship and runs counter to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.76.187.136.200 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters does have a POV, but it is also generally reliable and notable. If we use their opinions they should be clearly attributed. The material added by 76.187.136.200 was probably much too long. I'd suggest cutting it down to a sentence or two, just listing their primary criticisms. Something like,"Levin has been criticized by MMA for what they characterize as ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source?!? It's a web-only opinion outlet. Nothing more than a well-funded BLOG with an openly stated partisan purpose. Not only are they non-POV, but they come close to fitting the definition of an extremist source.

It's the stated purpose of Media Matters to criticize people like Levin, so it's not at all noteworthy that an admittedly partisan watchdog site has complaints about a conservative host that is on the radio for 15 hours a week. If these instances were noteworthy, I maintain traditional news sources would have picked up on them...yet none can be found.

Levin has criticized Media Matters, yet his complaints don't appear on MM's wiki page. I can't support the double-standard that gives one opinion outlet prestige while denying it to another.

Sponsors have dropped advertising on Glenn Beck's show. Don Imus got fired. Dick Durbin apologized for comparing troops to Nazi's. Keith Olbermann was criticized by the ADL. That's because the events that lead to these consequences were truly controversial. Nothing in the screed against Levin has generated any sort of consequence or even bad publicity for Levin...in fact his show keeps getting picked up by more radio stations. It's asinine to consider his words to be "controversy" just because David Brock has been well-paid to say they are controversial. We need something a little stronger, don't you think?

Don't be surprised if other web-only opinion sources like Olbermann Watch and Hot Air are cited for nitpicking criticisms on the pages of left-wing pundits, considering the low standard for reliable sources we're setting here. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Will Beback. This seems like a reasonable approach. Gamaliel (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Before I reverted the section, Media Matters was cited 10 times (out of a total of 22 citations in the entire article). Media Matters doesn't get to write the entire criticism section, nor dictate its length. C'mom...if they are the ONLY source of criticism we can cite for these alleged "controversies", then THEY ARE NOT CONTROVERSIES! Can any partisan pundit with an audience of millions and 750 hours of airtime a year avoid any and all criticism? Don't controversies have consequences? Don't they make waves outside the far-left blogoshpere?

Or do we just contact someone who works at http://www.olbermannwatch.com/ to write a multi-paragraph, single-source "Criticism and Controversy" section on Keith Olbermann. In fact, I notice that any reference to Olbermann's use of the Nazi salute (while wearing an O'Reilly mask) has been scrubbed from Olbermann's wiki page, in spite of the fact that he was criticized openly by the ADL. THAT is more of a controversy than anything Levin has done to elicit the steady stream of whining from David Brock at Media Matters.

Furthermore, there is no reference on Jim Webb's page about the criticism he received for campaign literature that was viewed by some as anti-semitic, yet Levin gets accused of being a self-hating Jew for a SINGLE, LIVE COMMENT he made all because Media Matters said he was a anti-semitic? Nonsense!

The double-standard is a joke. Don't expect me to passively let Levin's page be turned into a pseudo-mirror site for Media Matter's anti-Levin section. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for the histrionics. Will Beback suggested a mere "sentence or two". Gamaliel (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. The article had become extremely unbalanced, and the criticism section nicely balances what had been pretty close to PR. I'm open to discussing here, but I think we can all avoid what Gamaliel correctly termed as "histrionics." --BobMifune (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's check the score. Three editors have reverted the edit in question. Two editors have said the edit needs to be drastically scaled back. On the other hand, two editors with a very sudden interest in this page keep re-adding the contentious edit. Both have ignored the growing consensus, and one of them has shown unprovoked hostility towards me in the past by using vulgarity and insulting me in an edit summary on another page.

10 out of 22 citations would be from Media Matters. It's unreasonable to claim that this is somehow up to Wikipedia standards. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's accurately check the score. Two known editors have reverted the edit in question. One with a history of reverting at will without explanation, and the other who has waged a hysterical POV campaign for months to remove any criticism of Levin from the page (that is, when he's not trying to claim the "Southern Strategy" never existed). Another revert came from an anon IP, which hardly is a case for consensus. I'd be happy to have the criticism section scaled back by a non-POV editor, but blanking it will not wash. --BobMifune (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking me to other talk pages then misrepresenting my words won't make your case. If you want to rail against users with anon ip's, then you're the only editor with any "standing" left defending these contentious edits...except that your very brief editing history doesn't lend you much credibility. Nor does your stalking, nor ignoring consensus, nor vulgar and abusive behavior. I'm going to seek admin intervention as you are way out of line.

And blanking it will wash. It's better than giving nearly half of the citations to Media Matters. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And this appears to be your fall-back mode. Throw a fit like a two-year-old, claim "stalking" when someone points out your contentious edit history, and start a revert war. Please "seek admin intervention." It will be a pleasure to bring your actions to light.

Media Matters is an acceptable, reliable source for subjects like this throughout Wikipedia. I've no wish to violate 3RR, so I'd encourage any non-POV editors to restore the criticism section, honing it as suggested by Gamaliel and Will Beback. --BobMifune (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters seems over-represented to me. It's fine saying what they think is controversial about the subject person, but it is a bit much when we dedicate several paragraphs to the opinion. The whole thing comes across as giving undue weight to the "controversy." HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the editor formerly known as 76.187.136.200 - per the above discussion, I have readded the controversies section but have reworked it in a way that I hope will address some of the reasonable suggestions that have been made. I've cut the section down - it's not quite down to 1-2 sentences but it is a lot shorter now - and have also added a few sources including a conservative source, and removed some of the MMFA cites since relevant text was remved from the section. I've also placed the section at the bottom of the page.

I don't want to wade too deep into the flame war that appears to have broken out here, except to say in response to Ynot4tony2's remarks about edits to the Keith Olbermann and Jim Webb pages that for the record, I think a similar section in both of those articles would be equally appropriate, and I personally wouldn't delete it if he added such a section (though I would reserve the right to make corrections or add context if I thought it were needed, as I would suggest he do here rather than simply deleting).BigTex71 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BobMifune, you obviously needed to misrepresent my edit history to make me look bad. All I need to do is point to yours. Vulgarity, abuse, and edit wars are the sort of things admins intervene on...not people guilty of "editing while conservative".

And someone, anyone, please address this question...how and why is any of this criticism actually noteworthy (aside from "Media Matters said it was")? You mean, a far-left pundit has criticized a far-right pundit? Stop the freakin' presses! That NEVER happens in political punditry. We MUST put this in every encyclopedia because it's so ground-breaking and outside the normal American experience. /sarcasm off

Oh, and also citing a "conservative" critic does NOT remove the POV of the section (and David Frum is a conservative every bit as much as Dick Morris is a liberal...get the parallel?). The section in question has cited a blog (Media Matters), another website so insignificant it doesn't even have a wiki page yet (Frum's New Majority), a blogger (Goldstein), Media Matters several more times, a seemingly unknown writer from yet another non-notable website, and David Frum and his obscure website again. No major news outlets, mind you...none of the traditional "reliable sources"...just a bunch of glorified, INTERNET ONLY blogs. If any of this were notable, couldn't someone at least find a single mention of each event in a major newspaper, or something that an actual honest to goodness television reporter reported on? Or can a blog determine what's noteworthy? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let us know when you wish to begin discussing the article reasonably, and in good faith. If you keep up the tantrums, there is more than enough harassment in your edit history to earn you an article ban, beginning with this one. --BobMifune (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ynot4tony2, of the 12 cites that were on this article before I added the controversies section, 8 were from either right-wing sources or Mark Levin's own writing - 2 from the National Review, and 1 each from the American Conservative Union, the Ronald Reagan Legal Center, Human Events, Move America Forward, and Chronicle Christian Newspaper, and one of Mark Levin's books. That's 2/3 of the cites in the entire article before I added what I did. Strangely enough, you didn't seem to have a problem with any of those sources despite their unmistakeable bias.

As for David Frum, I'm sorry if he's insufficiently orthodox as a conservative for your personal tastes, but he's widely acknowledged to be a conservative by people on both sides of the political spectrum, self-identifies as such, and he's a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, for god's sake. I'm pretty sure there aren't too many people, Dick Morris included, who consider Dick Morris a liberal. And to suggest that Frum isn't notable because the web site that he happened to be posting his opinion on is a few months old is laughable - aside from being Bush's speechwriter, he's also written for several prominent national publications in this country and abroad, has several books in print, and has appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher, Larry King, the O'Reilly Factor, the Colbert Report, Hardball, and Countdown. If he's a nobody then I suppose there are a lot of booking agents at these television shows who need to lose their jobs.

Media Matters is no more partisan than Move America Forward, and at least as noteworthy. The American Prospect is no more partisan than the National Review, no less prominent a national publication, and has twice as many readers. Your criticisms of what I added are ridiculous and clearly motivated by political bias. As said before, I believe I've done my part to address the constructive feedback that was offered above, but if you have a problem with what I posted, feel free to improve on it by including properly cited information that counters what I added or adds context to it. This isn't a Mark Levin fansite, however much you might want it to be. BigTex71 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole section is not encyclopedic -- it sounds like a rant. A rant about ranting, no less.

Look at the first sentence: "Levin has been accused by critics on the left, including blogger Dana Goldstein, [15] of sexism for derogatory remarks that he has made about about female political figures and organizations." Accused by a blogger? So what? Wikipedia does not allow blogs as sources for anything other than the blogs themselves. So why is opening the whole section based on what a blogger said any different. It's not different. It's a rant about a rant, not encyclopedic, and should be removed.

Mr. Levin's rants are part of what make him entertaining, sometimes newsworthy, but particularly successful. See, for example, http://www.wabcradio.com/rant/ . So perhaps the page should include a section about his rants, and include some of the existing ones that now sound like unencyclopedic rants about rants. But all the Media Matters links to prove sexism, etc., is over the top when Media Matters is a reliable source for reliably taking snippets out of context and spinning them in one direction only.

Lest anyone think the purpose is to remove all criticism, that is not what I am suggesting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Goldstein is a professional journalist, not just a blogger, and the blog that her remarks appeared in is afffiliated with a nationally published political magazine. She is an associate editor at The American Prospect, and her writing has appeared in several national publications that are both partisan and non-partisan. So the identification of her as a mere blogger was an error on my part, and has now been corrected with my apologies.

As for the assertion that the section sounds like a rant and is unencyclopedic, that's just nonsense. The fact that what you refer to as rants (or what others might refer to as hate speech) might be entertaining or widely listened to is irrelevant to the fact that they were controversial and have garnered notable criticism. If there are sources that have countered the allegations that some of his remarks were sexist, or have otherwise defended his remarks against the general criticism that has been leveled against them, then they would certaintly be appropriate to include in this section and I would defend doing so. But to blank out almost the entire section is an attempt at censorship, nothing more. BigTex71 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Goldstein? Who? And that link that's linked, it goes where? To a blog? To a blog. The "liberal intelligence" blog. Does that mean the usually rules about blogs not being reliable sources need not apply in the interest of using Wikipedia to cast the page's subject in a negative light by singling out snippets here and there? There's a reason why Wikipedia steers clear of blogs--this is one of them. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules refer to self-published blogs, and the blog in question is not self-published - it's on the web site of a nationally published magazine. Keep trying. BigTex71 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "keep trying" is not very wikifriendly. While you are belittling me here, each time I have said something you have edited/improved the page in response to my legitimate concerns. BigTex71, please consider working collaboratively instead of making editing a drag waiting for the next snide remark of a personal nature. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider practicing what you preach. While I've been working to improve the section in question, you and a couple of other Mark Levin fans keep trying to blank out all or most of it, in a thinly veiled attempt to keep the article free of anything that might make Levin look bad. Where was all this concern before I added the section, when 2/3 of the cites for the article were from right-wing web sites? BigTex71 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not for the reason you stated. Rather because a list of rants is just not encyclopedic. People have said, and I agree, a quick summary that Media Matters says so and so, but the long list of rants is just plain not encyclopedic. I edit lots of pages in a similar fashion, whether I'm a fan of the subject matter or not or neither. It makes no difference. As to where was my previous concern, I just plain didn't notice previously--I don't edit here much. Will you please stop directing your comments at me personally? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't realize there was an edit war going on. I'll not partake in an edit war, but the section as currently written is not encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I just noticed this Media Matters hit piece: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280012 The subject matter is substantially similar to the list of rants sought to be added here. I am certain, what, plagiarism?, of a Media Matters hit piece?, is one more nail in the coffin of the list of rants sought to be added here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism? Really? This discussion is growing increasingly absurd as the members of the Mark Levin Fan Club grow increasingly desperate. BigTex71 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)