Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Mark Levin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Conspiracy theory thing

Re this.

The subject of the text includes several stories which are indeed considered to be conspiracy theories by reliable sources: Obama wiretapping allegations (which is indeed false) , "Deep State" bullshit (which is indeed a conspiracy theory) , the "Muslim Brotherhood controls US government" nonsense , and of course the climate change stuff.

At the very least, it's completely POV to present the theories themselves as just "controversies" or "theories" (without the "conspiracy" part).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the "conspiracy" material in the text. My point is that section headings must be neutral. Adding the terms to the section headings does NOT comply with this requirement. (Also, see the discussion above.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Let me add that the musings about "conspiracy theories" etc. are simply opinions. This part of WP – the section headings – must be free of such opinions. 04:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

WTH? The entire section on the White House wiretapping claim controversy has been buried in the Obama section? That's really dumb. It's the thing that got Levin the most exposure, the one thing a non-listener of Levin might have heard in the news about concerning Levin. Why bury it??? Calling Kirby & Snooganssnoogans --Localemediamonitor (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hardly buried. If more prominence is desired a {{further|Trump Tower wiretapping allegations}} hatnote can be added. Those seeking to expand on the "conspiracy" are free to do so too. But at present the one and only RS connecting Levin to a "conspiracy" is the Brian Stelter article. Adding "conspiracy" to the section headings is clearly WP:UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)22:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad sentence/paragraph needs fixing

This part of the wiretapping section is missing a word, and it seems like the whole paragraph is redundant and pointless. I can't fix the sentence because I don't know what the original meaning of the sentence was supposed to be. Maybe cut the whole paragraph? : "The Guardian writer Jason Wilson said used information about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrants from outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post. The Guardian confirmed that they previously reported that in the summer of 2016 the FBI had sought a warrant from the FISA court in order to investigate four members of Trump's team who were suspected of having irregular contacts with Russian officials, but the FISA court turned down the application" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Localemediamonitor (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just remove it. The aforementioned incomprehensible rambling is intended to show that Levin's conspiracy theorizing was true. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Group Advocacy Section Not WP/NPV

This section(Group Advocacy), is a cleverly worded and slanted smear/slur of Levin"s integrity and is prima facie not WP/NPV. It should be stricken from the article, as such. I am able and willing to provide sound argument for my contention, if, anyone is either, too obtuse or vindictive to see this immediately upon reading. I don't feel like being engaged in disingenuous disputation over such clear cut bias, as Non/WP, and, 'in bad faith', as that may appear. --Bjhodge8 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The section is very modest, and is text based on reporting by RS of numbers and sequences of events. Levin's response to the reporting is even in there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WMDs

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, can we take this to talk before making any more changes? Localemediamonitor (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd certainly prefer that. Localemediamonitor is referring to Mark Levin#WMDs in Iraq, which (currently) states:

In 2014, Levin cited public reporting "on the U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq by the decayed remnant of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal" as vindicating the Bush administration's original rationale for the Iraq War, despite the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)'s finding that "while a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." Furthermore, Levin faulted the Bush administration for not doing more to publicize these remnants of Iraq's former WMD program. Source: Maloy, Simon (2014-10-21). "Meet the Iraq War truthers: Why they're convinced Bush was right on WMD". Salon. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

I believe that that summary accurately reflects the following relevant excerpts from Maloy's Salon opinion piece:

Last week, after the New York Times published an amazing piece on the U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq by the decayed remnant of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal, there was a flurry of renewed conservative enthusiasm about Iraq and the case for war. George Bush's invasion of Iraq stands out as a generation-defining foreign policy blunder that left an indelible stain on the Republican Party. In the Times' report, conservatives saw redemption—there were WMD in Iraq after all! Bush was right! Here, finally, was incontrovertible proof that the liberal media was wrong, and now they could shove a decade's worth of "Bush lied us into Iraq" back down the throats of smug Democrats.

Only there were a few problems. The first was that the presence of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq was not news (it was first reported in 2004), nor did it bolster the administration's case for war. The White House argued that Iraq had an active chemical weapons program and "the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent," as Bush himself said in his 2003 state of the union address.

... After the Times story dropped, the Daily Beast's Eli Lake reported that in 2005 and 2006, some Republicans tried to get the Bush White House to go public with the remnants of Iraq's dilapidated chemical weapons arsenal, but they were stymied by Karl Rove, who didn't want the administration to get into a fight over Iraq's WMD ahead of the 2006 midterms.

It's hard to find fault with Rove's political logic—the White House was getting hammered on the Iraq War and had little credibility with the public. Also, the White House had already accepted the Iraq Survey Group's conclusion that "while a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." If they had suddenly reversed course and pointed to a few hundred degraded and unusable chemical weapons shells from the 1980s as proof that they got it right, they would have looked like fools.

... Here's talk radio host Mark Levin screaming with anger into his microphone last week, accusing the Bush team of betraying their own cause:

"This is outrageous, how this administration shot itself in the foot, how people who defended this administration, both in the administration and outside the administration, going to war for, among other reasons, to get to these chemical weapons. And then Karl Rove and other senior advisers to the Bush White House, when evidence of the weapons started to appear, because soldiers saw them, were taking pictures from them, and some of them were affected by these chemicals, were told 'no, don't say anything because it might hurt us politically.' ... We sent people to war to get these damn weapons, and the president of the United States and his staff – I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I know families who lost sons over there. And the president of the United States and his staff should have announced 'we found these weapons.' But they didn't. Because they say they lost the argument. Why bring it up now, in the 2006 election cycle? It's beyond us, it's past, let's not get into it now."

Levin's rant was heartily endorsed by Sarah Palin, who believes the Bush administration—which went to war to find WMD—engaged in a "WMD coverup."

It's worth reiterating that the Salon article in question is an opinion piece and therefore hardly ideal for factual assertions in a WP:BLP. Maloy's reference "to a few hundred degraded and unusable chemical weapons shells from the 1980s" actually understates the "thousands of chemical munitions" reported by The New York Times. Moreover, Maloy omits the part of Lake's report in which Lake emphasizes that "At least part of the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein was based on the fact that he never properly accounted for the chemical-weapons stockpile he had built up in the 1980s"; more on that was later revealed in 2015 (see Operation Avarice). Even so, few would disagree that Levin et al. have engaged in dishonest revisionism on the subject of the Iraq War, although there is room for nuance—none of which was conveyed by Localemediamonitor's misleading and inaccurate proposed revision:

Regarding Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as the pretext for the American invasion during the President Bush administration, Levin claims WMDs were found in Iraq, contrary to the admissions by the Bush administration that they were not; Levin claims that the White House admissions about not finding WMDs were false and made for political reasons.

In the above edit, is Localemediamonitor denying that "thousands of chemical munitions" were found in Iraq, or attributing the view that Iraq had an active WMD program to Levin? In either scenario, Localemediamonitor is mistaken. The current version is far more accurate to the source and should stand.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I respect what you're saying and your clarifications are important, but the current entry has some problems. First of all it uses quotes from the article in such a way as to appear to be quotes from Mark Levin, effectively putting words in his mouth. Second, it's worded in such a way that the point of how the paragraph belongs in the "controversial views" category gets pretty lost (the controversial view being that WMDs were found in Iraq and then covered up by the Bush admin.) So I have added a summarizing sentence at the beginning of the entry, taken out the possibly misleading quote marks, and left the bulk of your changes intact. Good? Localemediamonitor (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Localmediamonitor's new proposed revision reads as follows:

In 2014, Levin claimed that the Bush administration's original rationale for the Iraq War, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), was vindicated by the discovery of WMD but the discovery was covered up by the Bush Administration itself for political reasons. Levin cited public reporting on the U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq by the decayed remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal as vindication of the WMD rationale, despite the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)'s finding that "while a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

While I appreciate the effort, I would still reject this edit, for the simple reason that it is not supported by the source. The New York Times used the term "cover-up" in connection with the case of two soldiers that "inhaled sarin vapors" and "became 'the only documented battlefield exposure to nerve agent in the history of the United States'"; Lake also referred to a "cover-up," as did Palin—but there is nothing in Maloy's article to suggest that Levin ever employed such language about matters that were, after all, the subject of public reporting. (BTW, according to Lake, "One explanation for why the White House was not interested was so as not to tip off Sunni insurgents in Iraq. As The New York Times reported this week, some of the main areas in Iraq used to store chemical weapons are in areas now controlled by ISIS.") If the current version is "worded in such a way that the point of how the paragraph belongs in the 'controversial views' category gets pretty lost," that may be more symptomatic of the fact that open-ended "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Finally, "the U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq by the decayed remnant of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal" is a direct quote from Maloy, not a paraphrase, and should therefore either remain in quotation marks or be rewritten to avoid WP:COPYVIO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, again I understand where you are coming from, but I think the entry is still unclear, and I don't think the summary I had in there was not unsupported by the article--I think it's the whole point of the article. I think this could be resolved with a simple introductory summary and then leaving your version intact after. It really needs it, the point is not clear as currently worded. I think we need another opinion. Maybe Snooganssnoogans? Localemediamonitor (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Levin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Header needs modification

What someone has been called is hardly something that you would put directly below the heading of an encyclopedic section intro for a political figure or talk show host. The problem I see with it is not just that it's also subjective to one point of view and not a balanced. Before moving, removing or revising I'm opening up a discussion to clean this part up. Personally I feel it's slanted far left wing opinion and should be either removed or included in another section with proper balance or context. Mikestilly (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

This edit request to Mark Levin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first paragraph in the "Views on politicians and other individuals" section should be deleted. The dates are out of order and are a misleading attempt are summarizing a complex issue. This attempt displays deceiving left-wing bias. TweetFund0AUM (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I am rather fine with WikiPedia's Mark Levin political views entry opening with "according to The Guardian," if only to set the tone and declare basic allegiances. haha Oversoul (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

Pls add to the article

Please add to the Biography: "He was previously married to Kendall Levin with whom he raised two children; a son, Chase Levin and a daughter, Lauren Levin, in Loudoun County, Virginia. He is currently married to Julie Prince.

Source: http://liverampup.com/entertainment/mark-levin-married-separated-personal-life-status-now-wife-divorce-wedding-interview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxQuark (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this to the article into the section called 'Views on politicians and other individuals':

Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear L293D (☎ • ✎), How can I view this part of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.220.130 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

On July 12, 2018 Levin, on his show, said that he never heard of a "Julie Prince". He has referred to his wife as Julie.--Nyctc7 (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Views on Wikipedia

In January 2018, Levin called out Wikipedia for its "left-wing slant" and its misrepresentation of his views. He accused Wikipedia "poison" and "cut-and-paste cherry picking" for its characterization of his views.^[1]

He did not dispute the facts of the article's "Views on political issues" section but chastised the article for one-sided bias and its choice of what he considers left-wing sources.^[1] Levin went on to dispute allegations presented in the "Controversies" section.^[1] "If you want to know about me, you should go as far away from the Wikipedia page as possible," he proclaimed.^[1] Levin called on the page to be "locked" "so miscreants and malcontents can't abuse the posting"^[1] "Avoid Wikipedia like the plague" because it has "a definite left-wing slant".^[1] He said Wikipedia is "absolutely unreliable and so much of it is propaganda" and challenged listeners to "look up any conservative".^[1] He noted that the "administrators have the power to lock the page" and have done so in the past, but they now will not "stop the abuse".^[2]

"They ought to police the page," he went on.^[3] Levin argues that Wikipedia "holds itself out...as an authority" providing a "definitive" description of a person"^[3] "It's not merely a social site," so "don't just let leftists just go in and load it up."^[3]

In May 2018, Levin singled out Wikipedia for inspiring personal and anti-Semitic attacks on himself. He said, "I blame entities like Wikipedia" and he contended that from reading his Wikipedia page, "You wouldn't even know it's me."^[4]

[1]
The Mark Levin Show. 19 January 2018. 19:08-19:18
[2]
The Mark Levin Show. 19 January 2018. 19:22-19:24
[3]
The Mark Levin Show. 19 January 2018. 19:40-19:41
[4]
The Mark Levin Show. 31 May 2018. 19:10

POV issues

Freedom of the Press

Page protection

Changes from 2018-09-18

Politico and Washington Examiner material

Mark Levin discusses "his" wikipedia page, including debunking various statements and conspiracy theories attributed to him by others. 19 Nov 2018

BLP violations by account created yesterday

Man in the Glass Booth - art?

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

This edit request to Mark Levin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My suggested change is to the information regarding Mark Levin's father, Jack E. Levin. Mark was born in 1957, and the link (footnote #9 in Wikipedia's article on Mark Levin) shows Mark's father having been born in 1941. While this is possible, it is unlikely. Further, there is a "Find-A-Grave" site with Jack E. Levin's information AND THE SAME PICTURE AS THE SIMON AND SCHUSTER webpage cited in Footnote #9 about Jack E. Levin, which shows his birth date as June 11, 1925. This would make him roughly 32 at the time of Mark's birth, not 16. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/194179636/jack-e-levin

I do not need, nor do I want, any credit for this change - but I would like for the information to be correct.

If anyone wishes to contact me, my name is Paul Weiss and my email address is <paul@weisslawsatx.com>

97.105.41.66 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paul. Thank you for your suggestion. Jack E. Levin's year of birth does not appear anywhere in the article. The page linked in fn. 9 (this page on Simon & Schuster's website) indicates a date of birth of 1941. Of course, we do not have the power to correct that since it is not part of Wikipedia. The fn. is provided in the article in support of the following assertion: "[Mark's] father, Jack E. Levin, was the author of several books." We could perhaps link a different page to support that assertion, but I'm hesitant to link to findagrave.com as opposed to simonandschuster.com because the latter is more authoritative with respect to the assertion in question (that the subject of the article's father authored several books) as Simon & Schuster appears to be the publisher for each of the books authored by Jack E. Levin. If the source were provided to support the subject's father's date of birth, my opinion would be different. Other users may have different opinions. Respectfully, Rajulbat (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC).

Not done: There was no need to modify any of the prose in the article, but I added a hidden comment about the source in case people have this question again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Biased, Not an Encyclopedia Article

This article is too thoroughly biased to reference every weakness line by line. Rather, I would like to make some general suggestions to the Wikipedia staff on how you can prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. I guess I don't understand how Wikipedia operates. The people with the job of monitoring its content seem to lack the editorial skills, or perhaps the experience, to identify biased from neutral writing. I would not like to think that the staff allows this kind of thing because they agree with the sentiments expressed in the article.

Mark Levin is a political commentator. That means there are a lot of people who disagree with him--and who agree with him. This article contains mostly quotes from other political commentators who disagree with him. It begins in the second paragraph with "He has been described...." Then again in the section called Writer, almost the entire section is a listing of quotes from other political commentators who disagree with him. A neutral description of his writing will be a much more difficult undertaking than merely inserting a quote that, "no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book." Again in the section called Political Views, the entire first paragraph contains nothing about his political views, but rather it expresses opinions of disdain for Mark Levin. The section called Views on Politicians and other individuals serves no purpose from a neutral point of view. Its content has relevance depending only on the political sentiment of the reader.

In the last three subheadings, President Obama, Wiretap Claim, and Deep State conspiracy theories, the subject matter has to do with current political controversies. It would be a valid criticism that these subsections serve no other purpose than to express disdain for Levin's views on these controversies, and therefore to merely take a side in those controversies. Political controversies are better researched in a historical context, with hindsight and neutrality.

The article is sprinkled throughout with words or phrases in quotation marks. In the sense of good writing they make for poor diction, and the case could be made they are mostly used incorrectly, because a particular person is not attributed to these quotes. But the astute reader can judge for himself that these quotation marks are an editorial device that add satire to the meaning of the writing.

An encyclopedia article should be a source of information that everybody can trust. It should be a source that transcends the emotions and bitterness that obtains in the disagreements over controversial issues. It is one thing to disagree how a particular scholar presents a topic about the person he or she has researched--they could have used a different adjective here or there, or perhaps they left something out that you think is important. But this article about Mark Levin is itself journalism, not scholarship. Some person is using Wikipedia as an alternative media outlet to express political editorial viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex777ander (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias Plain to See

This page is loaded with bias plain to see, including via the use of fake news from sources such as Huffington Post. You would never see these types of things in a real encyclopedia. It reads like it was written by Media Matters for America who listens to him everyday and reports fake news on everything he says. It reads like a long page filled with one harangue after the next. Not encyclopedic. It completely makes him look hated by everyone but a few racists -- and that's likely the point of the bias, but it's not supposed to be the point of Wikipedia. Here are some instances, and if some of it is long, it is because this article is long on bias and short on being encyclopedic:

Levin is known for his incendiary commentary.[8]
Levin receives a salary of more than $300,000 per year as president of the non-profit Landmark Legal Foundation, whose donors include the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and ExxonMobil.[23]
conservative talk radio
Slate magazine's Dahlia Lithwick wrote that "no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book".[31]
Other reviewers critiqued the book as "analysis utterly useless in understanding more than half of the American political landscape" while charging "Levin resorts to the same old misinformation to sell his brand of conservatism".[38][39]
The Atlantic's review criticized the book's argument that statism is based on utopianism,[43] and a review by Professor Carlin Romano in the Chronicle of Higher Education called the book "disastrously bad from beginning to end".[44]
Hans A. von Spakovsky of National Review called the book "required reading for conservative bloggers".[46] Ana Marie Cox, writing in The Guardian, said the book "contains some radical notions about a complete overhaul of the US constitution, but to debate the specifics of their merits is to ignore the larger insanity of the project" while noting "the ludicrousness of his specific 'fixes' and the near-impossibility of achieving them".[47] In the Washington Times, Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Lotfi criticized Levin's idea as "the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution". Also in the Times, Richard Rahn wrote "If 'The Liberty Amendments' can help foster a national debate about which corrective actions, including constitutional amendments, are needed to increase liberty and prosperity, Mr. Levin will have performed a great national service".[48] Hoover Institution fellow David Davenport wrote in Forbes that Levin's book used "weak arguments".[49][50] Also in Forbes, Ralph Benko credited Levin with "notably and nobly proposing to change the rules of modern politics and governance".[51]
Political views: A 2016 study which sought to measure incendiary discourse on talk radio and TV found that Levin scored highest on its measure of "outrage". The study looked at 10 prominent radio and television programs, known for incendiary discourse on political matters, and scored content on the basis of whether it used "emotional display", "misrepresentative exaggeration", "mockery", "conflagration", "slippery slope", "insulting" or "obscene language" and other factors, finding that Levin was the radio host who engaged in the most outrage. The study found that he utilized "outrage speech or behavior at a rate of more than one instance per minute."[8] In How Democracies Die, Harvard University political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky write that Mark Levin was among the popular right-wing talk radio hosts who "helped to legitimate the use of uncivil discourse" in American politics, and contribute to the erosion of democratic norms.[53]
Views on politicians and other individuals: According to The Guardian, "constant attacks on Democrats and the left are important components" of Levin's modus operandi.[54] According to Politico in May 2009, Levin pronounced "almost daily" that Obama "was a failure, a liar and a "statist" who is trying to destroy individual freedom."[55] In June 2017, Levin accused Senator Bernie Sanders of being "a radical Marxist who believes in violence."[56] According to Rutgers University political scientist Stephen Eric Bronner, Levin tends to use "socialism" as a "catch-all term to condemn any policy that strengthens the social welfare function of the state."[57] In July 2014, he called Jon Stewart "a knee-jerk idiot", and suggested that Stewart was a self-hating Jew.[58] He has stated that "Nancy Pelosi’s politics comes as close to a form of modern-day fascism as I’ve ever seen."[8] In January 2019, he called Pelosi "America’s first fascist" when she refused to provides billions in funding to President Trump for a border wall.[59] He has criticized Republicans – including Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham,[5] John McCain, and Mitch McConnell[60] – with whom he disagrees on "constitutional conservatism." He sometimes refers to these people as RINO's.[54] In July 2009, Levin called former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum a "complete and utter fraud".[61] Levin endorsed Orrin Hatch when he faced a primary challenge in 2012, but later apologized for his endorsement when Hatch said that he would be willing to support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.[23] Since then, he endorsed a number of Republican primary challengers to incumbent Republican senators.[23] Levin supported the Tea Party Patriots' campaign to "fire" House Speaker John Boehner.[23] Earlier in 2010, Levin criticized Glenn Beck for his criticism of congressional Republicans.[62] In March 2016, Levin endorsed Ted Cruz for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.[63] Over a month after Donald Trump was nominated, in September 2016, Levin stated on this radio program that he would vote for Trump in the general election, following his declaration earlier that year that he was in the "Never Trump" camp.[64] He qualified his support by stating that, "I take no responsibility for the dumb things he says or the dumb things his surrogates say."[65] Levin supported U.S. Representative Mo Brooks in his campaign in the 2017 Alabama special election against incumbent Luther Strange, who had received a temporary appointment earlier that year.[66] Levin strongly defended former EPA head Scott Pruitt while he was under a dozen separate ethics investigations. Levin said Pruitt's "policies on the whole have been outstanding," and "I don't throw good people under the bus because the left targets them."[67]
Sponsorship and conflicts of interest: During the 2012 election cycle, Levin's show was paid at least $757,000 in sponsorship by the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity to run ads for the group.[23][68] After the sponsorship ended, Levin began doing ads for the Tea Party Patriots.[23] In 2014 the "Senate Conservatives Fund paid at least $427,000 to Simon & Schuster to purchase copies of one of Levin's books in September and October of 2013."[23] During the same period, Levin frequently promoted the group, which has funded primary challengers of Senate Republicans, on his radio show and Facebook page.[69] Levin did not disclose that the group had made $427,000 of purchases of his book.[69] Levin endorsed Orrin Hatch when Levin was being sponsored by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) which also endorsed Hatch. Levin withdrew his endorsement of Hatch when Levin was being sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots, a group that funded challengers to Hatch; and Levin endorsed primary challengers when the Senate Conservatives Fund, a group which funded primary challengers to incumbent Republicans, purchased $427,000 worth of his books.[23][68][69] Levin dismissed the allegations that he engages in "pay-to-play".[69]
President Obama: In 2009, Levin described as "absolutely right" the statement by Sarah Palin that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) includes death panels to decide whether elderly people or sick children were worthy of medical care.[70][71] In 2011, a caller to Levin's show, claiming to be a neurosurgeon, said that the Department of Health and Human Services had issued a document saying that people over age 70 would not be allowed to receive medical treatments. Levin said to the caller, "so Sarah Palin was right." The call was later revealed to be a hoax and the death panel claims were revealed to be false.[72][73][74] Levin satirically noted the similarities between a gathering of "hand-picked" supporters of the Affordable Care Act chosen by the Obama administration to Nazi Sturmabteilung or "Brownshirts" drawing comparisons of the propaganda techniques of the two groups.[75][76] Levin stated in 2013 that "the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government" and called President Obama a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer".[77][78] In February 2015, Levin stated that President Obama of "seeking to destroy Israel" because "Obama has an affinity for Islam far more than Christianity or Judaism." Levin also blamed Obama for the Ebola crisis, saying "the political policies of this administration which opens the door wide to people from the poorest parts of the world. We don't know who they are, we don't know if they have diseases."[75]
President Trump's unfounded Trump Tower wiretapping allegations.[54][80]
Wiretap claim: In March 2017, Levin alleged that the Obama administration had used "police state" surveillance tactics against the Donald Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. The Associated Press said that Levin "voiced without evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower". Levin protested the AP report vigorously, demanding a retraction and an apology on the grounds that his sources for the statement included The New York Times and other newspapers.[79] His statement was reprinted by Breitbart News and reportedly became the basis of President Trump's unfounded Trump Tower wiretapping allegations.[54][80] In September 2017, reports emerged of a court-ordered Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wiretap on Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort; while certain Trump supporters alleged that this surveillance vindicated Levin and Trump's unsupported assertions, The Atlantic noted: "This is not true – Trump claimed he had been the subject of Obama-ordered, politically motivated surveillance, for which there remains no evidence."[81]
"Deep State" conspiracy theories: Levin has claimed that there is an-going "coup" occurring against the presidency of Donald Trump waged by Obama loyalists.[82] Levin's coup claim was referring to investigations of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and of alleged obstruction of justice by Trump. Levin responded that "I am making the point that what's taking place here is coup activity" and that Robert Mueller's Grand Jury was trying "to destroy the constitutional system. It is the use of the law to subvert the election."[83][84] He has also suggested that former FBI Director James Comey used the Trump-Russia dossier "to blackmail the president."[85][86] In February 2018 Levin said the Nunes Memo shows "Hillary Clinton paid for a warrant" and "Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians...it appears the FBI at the senior-most levels colluded with the Russians too."[87] Levin's claim was based on the fact that the FBI paid former British spy Christopher Steele for intelligence information relating to Russia that led to the warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016, and that Steele had been paid indirectly by sources affiliated with the Democratic Party. However, the memo says Steele was a "longtime FBI source" and that the separate investigation into Russian contacts with the Trump campaign was not based on information in the Steele dossier; Page had under FBI investigation since at least 2013.[88][89] In August 2018, Levin stated that Mueller is a "greater threat to this Republic and Constitution than anything Vladimir Putin did during the [2016] campaign."[90][91]
Further reading: Jeffrey M. Berry and Sarah Sobieraj. 2016. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. Oxford University Press.

Lawfare (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Not surprised that I don't see a response from the morons who edit this garbage site. I really enjoy when you post requests for donations to keep your site going after reading crap like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.26.135 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't the Leftists on this site follow the news? "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that President Obama wiretapped Trump". The citations are all op-eds by Obama apologists. Embarrassing.

Hutcher (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Conspiracy Theory ?

Levin's military service?

He is nicknamed “the great one”

DcFlyer's edits

Lede should cover his pro-Trump commentary

Omitting that Lord and Coyne are conservative partisans

Deep state "conspiracy theories"

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

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

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

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

It's reliable sources that characterize his views as conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Include, but be specific and use in-text attributions... don’t state use contentious labels in Wikipedia’s voice (as being “truth”), phrase them as being opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Levin's anti-Soros smears belong in the article

UberVegan has been blocked as a sock

RfC: Whistleblower - George Soros conspiracy theory

The consensus is against the proposal.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we insert a sentence about Mark Levin's conspiracy theories about the Trump-Ukraine scandal whistleblower, which includes falsely linking the whistleblower to George Soros?^[1]

References

[1]
"A look at the whistleblower's legal team". @politifact. Retrieved 2019-10-29.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Yes. Levin is renowned for his incendiary rhetoric (which has been the subject of peer-reviewed research and academic treatments ), right-wing conspiracy theories and pro-Trump advocacy. His conspiracy theories about the Ukraine whistleblower is just one piece of basic content that fleshes out Levin's rhetoric across a range of issues during Trump's presidency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, I wasn't able to fully access either of those sources to confirm they address Mark Levin. The first one seems more focused on Hannity, Limbaugh, and Ed Schultz. The second is just a book, and I do not see that it is very notable nor that it directly addresses Levin. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
If you can't access the books and you don't recognize the authors (the book that is "not very notable" is by Harvard University professors), then maybe you shouldn't comment on them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you can answer my question and point out how they refer to Mark Levin. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
They're cited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It depends - Are there a significant number of reliable sources that discuss Levin’s role in promoting/spreading this particular conspiracy theory? If not, then our mentioning/highlighting it will be UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No per Snoogan's general editing pattern of advocacy. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No, It is not our job to "flesh out" anything. Per Blueboar, without coverage of this, it just another example of Levin expressing his opinions. MB 15:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No per Snoogans misguided beliefs in what is encyclopedic based on their history of NPOV editing, and because it is UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

*No One citation over such a controversial topic and edit is not enough. Per Wiki's RSs/Perennial Sources, PolitiFact is a "reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates". Levin is not a politician nor a candidate. This is a continuation of Snooganssnoogans' ongoing WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that they are exhibiting across Wikipedia. UberVegan🌾 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What does Levin being a politician or candidate have to do with anything? He's a pundit and he's spouting these falsehoods and conspiracy theories to a sizable audience. Also, please elaborate on what is controversial about the topic - is it in dispute that George Soros is behind the whistleblower complaint against Trump? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

:::I think it was clear. You cited only one source with questionable reliability per WP:RS/P. Without more reliable sources, "spouting these falsehoods and conspiracy theories to a sizable audience" is WP:OR, and WP:BLP extends to the talk page. UberVegan🌾 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

PolitiFact is not a questionable source. The last RS noticeboard discussion was about a very specific use of PF, which is why the perennial sources listing words it that way. PF is obviously a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No Snooganssnoogans arguement makes no sense. If Levin is renowned for his conspiracy theories, then there is no need to list each and every one of them. Johnny Carson was renowned for his opening monologues during his 30 years on the Tonight Show. That doesn't mean we insert 7,500 sentences or one each for every one of them, in fact it means the opposite. TFD (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. His false claim is notable enough for mention here and PolitiFact is a RS, with more due weight than his false claim. That limited RfC has no application here. PolitiFact is generally a RS, especially in their area of expertise, which is vetting claims that may or may not be false or misleading. This certainly applies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No / Procedural Close The RfC question is in essence requesting an open cheque; and based on the edits precipitating the RfC, it appears likely that that cheque will be cashed inappropriately. We cannot provide meaningful approval or rejection of what we cannot see. Propose some text based on sources. Also as premature, there is insufficient discussion prior to raising this RfC. (Additionally: No per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV (in the context of the specific proposed text below); No per WP:DUE@WP:NPOV (in the context of any future proposed text without such issues, but without additional sources)). ~~Procedural close, defaulting to No~~. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC) - amended Ryk72 ^talk 14:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC); Ryk72 ^talk 01:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Ryk72 ^talk 15:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This is one way to word the content: "Levin criticized the whistleblower who revealed that Trump had requested an investigation into his political rival. Levin falsely claimed that the Hungarian-American philantrophist George Soros, who is the subject of a wide range of right-wing and anti-Semitic conspiracies, was involved in funding the whistleblower and the whistleblower's lawyers." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why mention Soros at all? ... if we omit that, then there is no need to use politifact to counter it. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That text fails WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV in more ways than I care to count. I also note that on review PolitiFact appears to have significantly misrepresented Levin's statements - they claim he says "Soros involved in funding all of them"; he clearly says "Soros involved in funding one of them". - Ryk72 ^talk 14:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that PF erred on "one" vs "all". However, none of the people involved were funded by George Soros. I'll send a message to PF to see to it that it's corrected. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

::::::I can't imagine that Snooganssnoogans' edit above doesn't violate any Wiki policy. He's essentially becoming an OR editor for an RS, then using that information in the article. It seems that there is supposed to be at least the appearance of arms distance and neutrality, rather than "see to it that it's corrected", so that the RS conforms to his argument. I'm interested in the community's opinion. UberVegan🌾 22:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I note that a correction has now been made; which is to PoliticFact's credit. But that the accurately quoted claim has not been retested; which is not. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing implies that Levin is an anti-Semite without explicitly saying so. While that may be good polemical writing, Wikipedia articles should never imply anything. TFD (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, None of those apply (it's verifiable, accurate and from a reliable source). But UNDUE probably does. Guy (help!) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Core policy always applies. Someone might like to quote the text from the PolitiFact piece which supports the underlined text: Levin criticized the whistleblower who revealed that Trump had requested an investigation into his political rival. Levin falsely claimed that the Hungarian-American philantrophist George Soros, who is the subject of a wide range of right-wing and anti-Semitic conspiracies, was involved in funding the whistleblower and the whistleblower's lawyers. I read through it more than once and couldn't find it. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, You are clutching at straws in your evident desire to exclude this source. The source is reliable both generally and specifically, the precise wording is a matter of editorial judgment, but inclusion is IMO not warranted unless other sources cover the incident. Guy (help!) 08:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Guy, I’m not. But thank you for the assumption of bad faith. I’m happy include something based on this source; providing that it’s actually something that the source supports. But it doesn’t support the text that was proposed above. If someone wants to suggest something else, I’ll happily change my !vote, as appropriate to whatever is suggested. It will probably be something similar to your !vote below, because I happen to agree that we want coverage in additional sources to warrant inclusion. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, "Left wing lawyers, left wing firm, Soros involved in funding one of them" etc? Did you listen to Levin's show? Regardless of the specific wording, he is spinning conspiracy theories. Overall though it's the depressingly familiar theme: anyone who is not part of the Trump cult is a socialist agent conspiring to overturn the democratic will of the people (and let's forget that more of them voted against Trump than for him). I hold to my original opinion: reliable as a source, reliable specifically, UNDUE requires other sources, and the precise text is a matter of editorial judgment. Your arguments go against specific text, not against this source. The source is plainly valid. Guy (help!) 09:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I think we're talking past each other, and that it's partly to do with us each using the same or similar terms to mean different things. I agree with the vast majority of your original opinion, and probably have only a semantic disconnect which would be resolved through clarification of definitions on the rest. I'm not sure that it would be edifying to other editors, nor assistive to the closer for us to continue here; but am more than happy to continue discussion on my Talk page. I do think that one potential point of issue is that it may appear that the text currently in my !vote above is a direct response to the (unmodified) RfC question above; to address this, I will restore my initial response - that the RfC be procedurally closed in the absence of any proposed text, and add "as premature". I hope that helps clarify things. I tried to make it clear that the policies I referenced apply to the proposed text and source in combination, and not to either in isolation - but appear to have failed. I note that the same text also appears to have precipitated this RfC. I try to make it a rule not to directly comment on article subjects. I will say that I have the advantage of not being "in the West", so am unfamiliar enough with Levin & his work as to be able to practice a callous indifference. - Ryk72 ^talk 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, truth be told, I have barely heard of Levin either. His significance outside the right wing media bubble appears to be limited. I am happy we agree on the important things, and on the rest, I suspect, as you suggest, that we'd find common ground if we spend long enough talking about it. Guy (help!) 12:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue is not so much with “Hungarian American philanthropist”, and more with “Levin claimed the whistleblower was funded by Soros” and “criticized the whistleblower”. I can’t find support for those in the source, which is a verifiability issue. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No: The PolitiFact article is not sufficient to establish weight for this material especially since the question being asked doesn't say exactly what is being added. Other editors can't easily verify that the added content is directly to the point of the PF evaluation or is twisting something said in the source to suggest something else in this article. Also, it's not clear that PF evaluations should be used as secondary sources or if they are primary sources. Do we have other RSs saying this and PF backs or disputes the claim or is this being added only because PF mentioned it. Finally, it's generally poor editorial form to run around and add what amount to unintegrated factoids to articles. By factoids I mean individual facts/claims that are not integrated into the larger narrative of the article. It seems this is done most frequently to smear/tar article subjects by associating them with the text equivalent of sound bites with no context. I guess it's a way to get a high edit count but it doesn't make a better Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"By factoids I mean individual facts/claims that are not integrated into the larger narrative of the article." Except that Levin is renowned for incendiary rhetoric (which is the subject of peer-reviewed research), conspiracy theories and his pro-Trump advocacy. This item fits perfectly within the larger narrative of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't wp:bludgeon those who don't support your POV. Springee (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to wait for one or two other sources to note Levin's commentary and then link those as sources for his statement with the PolitiFact piece as rebuttal. Single-sourcing to Politifact is a bad idea. The story is true, and the source reliable, but it's only a fact check and doesn't establish the significance of the allegation - BLPs should be small-c conservative in that way I think, even when the subject is a noted blowhard. Guy (help!) 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve updated your comment. BLP applies. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary: I already toned it down from "colossal blowhard". Guy (help!) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the approach suggested here better aligns with DUE. I would also attribute PolitiFact's assessment. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I would still like to know why this article needs to mention anything about Soros in the first place? Why not just omit the entire thing. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
No it's not a conspiracy theory. There could be accuracy issues in that the RfC subject may be stretching the truth a bit in some aspects, but the there appear to be very real ethical concerns with respect to Hunter Biden's sitting on the board of a Ukraine company, which is what I presume the RfC nom is discussing. Also per Ryk72, Deacon Vorbis, and JzG. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Doug Mehus, do you have RS for that claim (that it's not a conspiracy theory)? Keep in mind that the same sources which accuse Hunter Biden of improper behavior do not make such accusations against Trump's own children for their roles in the White House, roles for which they have no experience or qualifications, which are nepotistic in nature, for which they couldn't even get security clearances in the proper manner, and which make America a laughing stock because that situation looks more like what one sees in a banana republic. Do you see the double standard here?

But... just to avoid any appearance of a COI, Hunter Biden has stepped down from his positions. Will Trump's children do the same? No. Thus the double standard is maintained. -- BullRangifer (talk)

Dmehus, Please clarify what you think is not a conspiracy theory. Bear in mind that Victor Shokin was sacked because he wasn't investigating Burisma - or anything else. There was a substantial consensus throughout the West that Shokin was enabling corruption, or at least turning a blind eye to it, and his sacking and replacement with an effective prosecutor made it more likely, not less, that Burisma would come under scrutiny. Shockingly, the right wing media never quite finds time in its coverage to point this out... Guy (help!) 11:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG, By "right-wing media," the most conservative of media sources I use is Fox News. I don't think they've reported on any conspiracy theories. I know very little about it because most of the media seems focused on whether Trump's allegedly trying to persuade the Ukraine government opening an investigation into Hunter Biden on the condition of increased foreign aid was unethical. I haven't seen any media sources actually looking into it on any in-depth level, but let's be clear, lack of reliable sourcing does not mean something is a conspiracy theory. It just means it's not yet been uncovered and there's a lack of transparency.--Doug Mehus T·C 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, my advice to you, as a friend, is don't use Fox News. Read Network Propaganda. Fox is a part of a very dangerous movement in modern America. Guy (help!) 00:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG, true, but perhaps I should clarify. I don't generally cite either Fox News or CNN on Wikipedia, likely, at least in part, for the reason you cite, when citing on Wikipedia or in other academic writing. I just prefer Fox News in terms of watching personally because it allows me to see different sides, with which I may not always agree. In terms of my preferred sources, of the broadcast and cable television signals, I generally prefer Al Jazeera, the BBC, Bloomberg, and CGTN. It really depends on the type of article, though. For example, for technology-focused articles, I avoid the flowery prose of TechCrunch, favouring, say, CNET/ZDNet. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, a valid comparison would be Fox and MSNBC. CNN is mainstream. I tend not to use it (it lies just outside the green box of joy on the media bias chart) but it scores mid-30s for reliability compared to Fox's 23 and is left-6 on partisanship versus Fox's mid-20s right bias. The closest left-wing analogue to fox on bias and reliability is Daily Kos, which I remove whenever I see it.

What you see when you analyse media bias is that the right-partisan sources are in a bubble that is drifting further right and less reliable, because of an asymmetric incentive: they lose revenue and market share if the challenge the "conservative" narrative, even if the challenge is based on fact and the narrative is conspiracist twaddle (e.g. on Ukraine). Mainstream sources, by contrast, tend to suffer if they fail to correct factually inaccurate statements, and will tend to exhibit bias by selective inclusion rather than by inclusion of bullshit.

A mainstream source such as MSNBC would exhibit bias by not covering a story that shows Trump in a good light. Fox exhibits bias by claiming, outright, that Biden intervened to protect Hunter's firm, even though Viktor Shokin was sacked for not investigating firms including Burisma, and replacing him with an effective prosecutor made it significantly more likely that Burisma would be investigated. Guy (help!) 10:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG, "Mainstream sources, by contrast, tend to suffer if they fail to correct factually inaccurate statements, and will tend to exhibit bias by selective inclusion rather than by inclusion of bullshit." Well said. Still, that type of bias is problematic and I suspect why you tend not to use CNN. Yes, CNN is probably fine for most types of stories, though I personally still wouldn't use them for political stories or stories with topical links to charged political issues (i.e., immigration, gun control, etc.). But yes, the Ukraine is a good example in that Fox News, though less than pure bullshit sources like InfoWars, is the tendency to include information which suffers from source information. Like you said, CNN et al. simply won't cover the corruption allegations in the Ukraine; they focus instead on whether Trump's telephone call was improper, unethical, and, potentially, illegal. Doug Mehus T·C 15:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, what happened regarding the investigation into Burisma after Shokin was fired? I'm not able to find many RS covering the next steps. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, there are conflicting reports about that situation. Shokin defends himself as an innocent victim who was stopped from investigating corruption, and that is the narrative currently pushed by Trump and the GOP as part of their conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. Our Viktor Shokin article contains some serious bothersiderism false balance coverage, but the following is an accurate picture:
Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.^[1]^[2]^[3] However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.^[4]^[5] Also, the investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before Hunter Biden joined the company.^[6]

That may not have answered your question about the follow-up, but Biden wanted Shokin fired because Shokin was corrupt and not doing his job, and that paved the way for a better investigation of corruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No I agree with the reasoning provided by Springee Garp21 (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a five-week old single-purpose account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

[1]
[2]
Vogel, Kenneth P.; Mendel, Iuliia (1 May 2019). "Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies". The New York Times. New York City: The New York Times Company. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 4 October 2019. Retrieved 5 May 2019. "A version of this article appears in print on May 1, 2019, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: For Biden, a Ukraine Matter That Won’t Go Away."
[3]
"Biden brought his people in Ukraine's Prosecutor General's office to cover his son's business, - Shokin". 112 Ukraine. Taras Kozak. 8 May 2019. Archived from the original on 21 September 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
[4]
Baker, Stephanie; Krasnolutska, Daryna (7 May 2019) [First published 6 May 2019]. "Timeline in Ukraine Probe Casts Doubt on Giuliani's Biden Claim". Bloomberg News. New York City: Bloomberg L.P. Archived from the original on 5 October 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
[5]
Jacobson, Louis (7 May 2019). "Fact Checking: Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Ukraine". PolitiFact. St. Petersburg, Florida: Poynter Institute. Archived from the original on 4 October 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
[6]
Ivanova, Polina; Polityuk, Pavel (27 September 2019). "Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined". London: Thomson Reuters. Reuters. Archived from the original on 3 October 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2019.

Mass-removal of reliably sourced content

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

The material was added with a three word edit summary, "WMDs in Iraq", that didn't come close to address all the changes made. An experienced editor shouldn't make such poor edit summaries. As for the content of the changes, I object to using a low quality source like buzzfeed and thedailybeast to justify, in wiki voice, that a BLP subject is making false claims. The relevant text is:

During the Obama administration, Levin promoted false claims that the Affordable Care Act entailed "death panels", and called Obama a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer", and accused him of "seeking to destroy Israel".

This shouldn't be even a question. In a BLP any claim that the subject lied, mislead etc should be attributed and should be clear cut. That means we shouldn't accept, "Buzzfeed said..." either. Snoogan's bad faith accusations don't make a logically sound case nor do they follow policy. Springee (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(i) The "edit summary" in question is the title of the subsection that I first edited (before going on to edit other parts), and it's clearly distinguished in the edit summary with a lighter font, as any seasoned editors can tell. I added nothing to the edit summary. (ii) The text in question is all verifiably accurate (Levin did say these things, and there is no doubt except among feverish rightwingers that "Obamacare entails death panels" is a falsehood), and sourced to sources that are categorized as reliable on the RS perennial sources list. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the edit summary doesn't cover all the topics nor areas you were changing. Please review WP:ES. By adding the "falsely" you are suggesting that Levin may have knowingly lied when making the claims. If you want to claim others have said these claims are incorrect because XYZ, go for it. Again, you are using clearly partisan sources to claim the subject of a BLP in effect lied. Per WP:RSP Buzzfeed is semi-reliable. DB includes a caution when used for controversial claims related to BLP. I'm not opposed to an attributed claim but I oppose one in wiki voice. Springee (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(i) There is not a single citation to Buzzfeed News, unless one of the sources is completely mislabelled. If there were one, Buzzfeed News is a RS (per the RS perennial list: "There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable"). (ii) Daily Beast has this qualifier: "Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact". There is zero controversy over the fact that the "Obamacare entails death panels" is false, and that Levin said the things that he's on the record as saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. Not sure where I got buzzfeed. But that raises another question. Why did you use the same DB citation twice? Ignoring that, the DB article is in the "Mad as Hell" section. That looks like an opinion section here. Again, we need to use caution when using DB for controversial claims related to BLP. Finally, why did you feel this was due for the lead? Anyway, I don't think either of us will convince the other. Springee (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The material is non-encyclopedic and I agree with the removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Which of the changes? Or do you just instinctively support reverting everything I did? Do you also agree with the rationale that the content should be removed because it cites Buzzfeed News? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would you ask a deliberately deceptive question when you know that was a mistake I made. It looks like you are trying to play a gotcha game. Not cool. Springee (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Neutrality is clearly finessed in this item.

Can false claims of election fraud be described as "false"?

The editor Springee removed "false" in front of indisputably false claims of fraud in the 2020 election, leaving it unclear to readers whether there is merit to accusations of fraud or not (there is no merit). The editor cried BLP, but there is of course no BLP violation. The text reflects both the cited source and is required per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You can describe them as "false according to the NYT" or other attributed source. We should not state in wiki-voice that a person has made a false claim. It is a BLP claim, in this case BLPGROUP to suggest that people are making "wild and false" claims in wiki voice. Additionally it violates NPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.". Springee (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. NPOV requires we remove opinion, not facts. Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Calling something "wild" is an opinion. The allegations of voter fraud are in a gray area since we aren't reviewing a specific claim. Again this should be attributed if we are going to say false and "wild" is a label that shouldn't be included at all. Springee (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Since claims of election fraud have been thrown out by the Supreme Court (and other courts), the results of the Popular Vote have been certified by the 50 states and the Electoral College has met to declare Joe Biden the winner of the Presidential election, I believe it is entirely possible to describe claims of fraud as being "false". Philip Cross (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Which case? For example, the Texas case was not rejected based on the evidence, rather based on the view that Texas didn't have standing. Also, as the WaPo says here[], "There has not been evidence presented of any significant fraud, which is the second qualifier. We’re not concerned here about a few dozen illegally cast votes, should such a thing be demonstrated. We’re talking about the existence of enough fraud to call the results of the election into question — meaning tens of thousands of fraudulent votes." So if someone says "no fraud" the WaPo wouldn't claim that has been proven. They would only claim that any level of fraud is not enough to change the outcome of the election (BTW, that is a view I agree with). This is why I think we have to be careful to present this impartially. The term "wild" is hyperbole and shouldn't be included. Even "false" is proving a negative and thus isn't a claim we can logically make. "Unproven" or "no evidence of significant" is demonstrable and better follows IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Springee. Leave out terms that are not necessary to convey the facts neutrally. MB 17:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Philip Cross's edits are improvements as it's more true to the source. However, we shouldn't say what it lead the audience to think. We simply don't know that. Instead we should say what the guest argued for. Thus, "He frequently had guests on his show who led the audience to think Joe Biden's win in the presidential election could be overturned." could be "He frequently had guests on his show who argued Joe Biden's win in the presidential election could be overturned." Springee (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Springee. There are still some ongoing legal cases, and I'm pretty sure we have readers who would appreciate (and maybe will even contribute to the next WMF fund raiser) if our articles represent all significant views, in addition to being accurate and informative. It's not quite time to sweep it all under the carpet. Atsme 💬 📧 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Smear campaign?

Adding who makes claims about him

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

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

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

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

Attribution now added. I did not do so for "conservative" because it meant repeating the phrase The New York Times. As it is both descriptions seem uncontentious for someone like Levin who uses the phrase "Republican in Name Only". As far as I am aware, Breitbart is the only online outlet which might describe CNN as "left wing", but editors' on this website cannot use that website. Philip Cross (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to attribute the "right-wing" description when multiple RS say it, and it is not contested in any way. If Levin isn't "right-wing", then no one is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail states "Google's left-leaning media bias revealed: Academic study exposes how search engine massively over-promotes results from liberal news websites over right" by referring to a paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300683 that "Google's bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others. ". Nsaa (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Restored the correct order of comments, Snooganssnoogans followed mine. The Daily Mail is deprecated on Wikipedia. Philip Cross (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Philip Cross you must be living under a rock if that is the only time and place you have ever heard CNN called "liberal" or " left-wing". EPicmAx4 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

EPicmAx4, You’re distorting Phillip Cross's position with a strawman fallacy. He never said that the “only time and place I have ever heard” CNN called liberal. His observation was specifically referring to online news outlets that describe CNN as liberal. WP:CivilityKerdooskis (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Views on politicians and other individuals

Views on Wikipedia

Survey

Related Articles