User Alien3 thinks I m edit warring which is confusing since I m not even close to 3RR But anyway I thought I d drop by and explain my reasons for pulling the cite from the first sentence of the article Per WP LEDECITE Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body and information in the lead section of non controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source Pedantic semantic squabbling aside I don t think there s anyone who contests the validity of the characterization of MM as progressive Given that the same assertion is sourced exactly one paragraph later I think the citation should be cut from the lede All that said I m not sold on MM being a reliable source for characterizations about itself Suppose for the sake of argument that MM described itself as impartial it doesn t btw Would it be alright then for Wikipedia to describe MM as an impartial media watchdog replete with cite to their web site IMO MM can t be a WP RS for information about MM they re biased and anything they say about themselves is inherently POV What s more if we re not taking MM at their word but instead only citing them for claims that Wikipedia editors find credible that s differently problematic for being WP OR It s not our place to weigh the veracity of primary sources we shouldn t even be using them To the end of sidestepping the whole issue I d like to offer this source instead for the claim that MM is a progressive organization But I don t think it should appear in the lede either I ll leave it to some other editor to use the ref or not I m easy lest I be accused of further edit warring 24 177 120 138