Talk:Frank Luntz

message: Not only is the following literary review out of place in a biographical article, but the review itself violates Wikipedia's NPOV as it ascribes an opinion to a deceased author.
It seems unlikely that Orwell would have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied. The loose definition of the term and the often poor correlation between the real-life situations people describe as Orwellian and his own dystopian fiction leave the use of the adjective at best inexact and frequently politically inaccurate. In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derides the use of cliché and dying metaphors, which "even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent" and goes on to say "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
In many of his essays and letters Orwell criticised words with formally precise definitions being used badly and the vague slide in meaning for many of these words. He was a fierce critic of Fascism but he would freely mock the promiscuous use of the word:
I don't know if the author of this passage was quoting a book by Frank Luntz verbatim or summarizing a passage from it, but Luntz's opinion's of the term "Orwellian" should only be discussed here in purely descriptive, past tense language as opinion's belonging to Luntz.Waxsin (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Orwellian Language 

message: This is one of the more divisive figures in American politics today, and this article casts him a completely positive light. Even the criticism is quite weak. There is no mention of the more accurate criticisms that he purposely obscures the meaning of phrases in order to frame them in the most positive way for his viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfrei (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ryanfrei. This BLP isn't biased in favor of  Luntz.--FeralOink (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problem 

message: One of Frank Luntz most famous PR acheivements is reframing the term "estate tax" as "death tax." Surely this needs to be mentioned here. Can someone with more knowledge of the topic please add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusl (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Tax mention/coinage 

message: I was a recent particpant in a presidential debate focus group run by Luntz and I can tell you with all honesty that it was totally manipulated and a fraud. It served no purpose whatsoever in judging the candidates because only the ones who said what Frank liked were promoted while people like me were censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.138.56 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Luntz Experience 

message: We have a problem.How do we get to the facts? The best measure of Doctor Luntz is his own words. The archives of Frontline and Now contain interviews with the good doctor. In my research I made a strange discovery. My desk was covered with the transcript of an interview with Joseph Goebbels. When I opened Doctor Luntz's interview I could no longer tell who was speaking without looking at the top of the page. I'm serious, do it some time. You cannot tell the difference.
Ron Giles
*The guy might be a loser, but to compare him to a Nazi is a little harsh..actually, the way he distorts polls and creates propaganda, OK, Nazi works with me....
People please stop ruining wiki for the rest of us. If you want to rant do to it with your friends i was hoping to get some info from this page, but now I really cant thanks a whole bunch The Isiah 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... huh?? @_@ The reason you can't get any info from this page is because it was discovered to have been plagiarized and was therefore removed from Wikipedia. The only appropriate topics of conversation are on how to construct a new article from scratch without repeating old mistakes. -Kasreyn 09:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I could add how he's the foremost marketer and spin-doctor in the Republican effort to reframe American political debate... but since that's a highly controversial and partisan issue, I'm not sure how best to state it without starting a revert war. Wikipedia is already too politicized, I don't want to make it worse. He has been highly influential in national politics in recent years, though, and certainly is more than just a garden variety pollster. He was allegedly involved in writing the language of the so-called "Contract with America" of Gingrich fame. He was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research in 1997 for polling work he did. (I can provide a cite for that, btw, if needed). He is less famous for lengthy notes (often over 100 pages) which are disseminated to campaigning Republicans on recommended verbiage and rhetoric to employ for best political effect. Luntz is certainly not solely responsible for recent Republican gains, but he does deserve some of the credit. What information is conveyed in a candidate's speech is often not as important as what words are used to convey it. Connotation and word association play a large role in how people emotionally react to what they hear. It's a field that Republicans are light-years ahead of Democrats in. -Kasreyn 08:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: This article seems to present a very positive image of Frank Luntz. I go to a fairly liberal school, and have heard more bad than good about the man. Also, it seems that in the past people have attempted to add information about some of the darker aspects of the man, and all that remains is a single sentence at the very bottom of the article, practically mentioning off-hand that this stellar individual was accused by the AAPOR for violating standards of ethics. I'll admit, i don't know too much about frank luntz, but I feel asthough the presentation I'm being given is fairly biased. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if he had a hand in editing his article. 134.173.121.223 02:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It appears that many would-be editors of this article feel strongly that Luntz's defense was "unbelievable". Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal soapbox. We are not here to report on what we think. If you can find a link from back then, of someone from Penn saying quote "We couldn't believe what Frank said" or the like, then we can include the claim. Otherwise the claim violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, not to mention failing to present a Neutral Point of View and I must continue to remove it. Ask any admin, I'm certain they'll agree with me.
Do I personally find Luntz's claim "unbelievable"? Yes. But so what?! - I wasn't there, and furthermore this encyclopedia isn't about my personal opinion, or yours. Respectfully, Kasreyn 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. The excuse was unsourced anyway and would probably eventually have been culled as Original Research. -Kasreyn 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: girlfriend claim and "unbelievable" 

message: This guy has been a scumbag since his days at Penn. The guy "rigged" the results of a 1984 freshman UA vote, counting the votes behind closed doors BY HIMSELF and he hasn't looked back since, doing the same with his "polling". He should be taken out and shot, IMHO. TH 3/23/06
:Are you for real? You know this is Wikipedia and not a forum, right? JettaMann 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scumbag since his days at Penn 

message: Rather than remove, requesting verifcation of the assertions made above in "Scumbag" post
Mattjans 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence here

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Frank_Luntz
I guess we'll try again??
It must be nice to be a NEW admin....Tom 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to both 71.252.82.127 and Threeafterthree, the article was deleted because it had extensive copyrighted material; it was plagiarized. Wikipedia is very forgiving of many faults, but there is absolutely no tolerance or leeway allowed for copyright violations. The WikiMedia Foundation is not rich and cannot afford to be sued and forced to pay damages. Kasreyn 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article got nuked

message: Please stop reverting my edits. They are sourced now. The page is a description of a TV program, which is why you see nothing on the page. You'll have to get off the internet to see his interview, at 3 minutes 50 seconds in from the beginning (among other places). Please stop reverting, threeafterthree, or this page will always be a stub. Thank you. Brianski 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not rv useful edits 

message: Maybe someone should review this broadcast and edit the phrase "When offered the chance to redefine "Orwellian," Luntz, flummoxed, is unable to provide an answer."
In the interview, he redefines "Orwellian" as the opposite of the meaning to which it is generally understood, i.e. that it means clearly and unsubjectively written, such as the style of writing promoted by Orwell himself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.81.193 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 January 2007
:You read my mind. I put a sentence in the paragraph, quoting Luntz. For FWIW, the exchange begins at about 4:45 or 5:00 into the interview.--HughGRex 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there are some really good quotes from that program. Terry Gross was so polite and Luntz was hypocrital -he contradicted himself more than once and Gross' questions and demeanor helped reveal what an idiot this guy really is. I was led to believe during the interview that Luntz himself realized what a fool he is, and I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. -Teetotaler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: About the hypocrisy, self-contradictory stuff on NPR, I listened to the broadcast, and while I'm personally pretty far left and I don't like this guy for what he stands for, I don't like the "weasel-worded" paragraph on "He goes on to contradict himself, etc." First, I don't think the contradiction is spelled out in a concise, convincing way, and second, such a statement looks to me like original research—a wikipedian connected the dots to find the hypocrisy, and we're not really supposed to be doing that. If we can't have a sharp, concise quote from Gross or someone out in the media supporting an opposing view we ought to strike a lot of the paragraph. Further, to me the contradiction is not that he's not being clear, but that if he applied the same process from "exploration" to "Orwellian," there's no chance he'd be able to redefine "Orwellian" apart from newspeak. Anyway . . . Dvmlny 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luntz normally conducts research polls to reframe politically loaded words or to change their loading. It literally takes months of research to do this for just a few words. But to accuse Luntz of not being able to reframe "Orwellian" on a TV show during an interview is clearly intended to defame him. The man may not be a slick, polished, quick on his feet interview subject, but he does have a talent for finding catch phrases that influence how people receive a message. Although I don't agree with the political leaning of his current customers, I've learned quite a bit from reading his books. Let's steer the article towards his skills/talents and away from a meaningless flummox moment during some interview. That whole section needs to be deleted.Kgrr 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On NPR 01/09/06 

message: I've nominated the "Use of language" for a POV check. The rest of the article seems pretty fact-based and neutral, the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of this section are ok. But the 3rd paragraph (added after 05:50, January 10, 2007 by HughGRex) presents a problem. Its first sentence reads:
However, within a few minutes he contradicts himself when discussing "energy exploration" (oil drilling).
::I'd like to emphasize that I was not the editor who added the POV-OR phrasing quoted above. It was added by anon 63.197.255.72 in this edit. (Mobius's phrasing is ambiguous and could be read as naming me as the editor who added that phrase.)--HughGRex 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreeKgrr 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Nomination 

message: Echoing previous comments - 4th and 5th paragraphs in "Use of language" section make unsourced/verified assertions. In particular the 5th which quotes something from MMS (whatever that is). Pending some discussion on this topic I plan on removing the offending language.—Mobius 08:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have marked many of the places with  tags. Rather than finding sources for the material, the unsubstantiated claims should probably just be deleted to stop the article from becoming more of a coatrack.Kgrr 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: This Luntz guy is a cunt. What is written in this entry portrays a man who had the tools available (through his unique position as a an adviser and political strategist) to deceive voters and discredit the established research of hundreds of career scientists around the world. Now, he was not alone since the media swallowed his propaganda hook, line and sinker and ignored the hundreds of scientists around the world. His words about believing in it now and "at the time" with the available data he made the right decision is ludicrous. Don't let him get away with it. He is a master of lying to people and will trick anyone of you again. Don't be fooled into defending him on NPOV grounds. An analysis of his words and actions at the time, along with his motive and intent to deceive the public are on the record. Still, if the average American is so apathetic or ignorant as to vote and be swayed by this lying, then what can be done if they breed like rabbits?-ZERO00
:I know Frank from Penn. The stories I could tell you about him then would blow you away. He is on Hannity/Combs tonight, can't wait. --Tom 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, not for general discussion of the subject of the article. If you love the guy or hate him, go start a blog. But please don't ruin Wikipedia for everyone else. --JHP 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "ruin Wikipedia for everyone else"? Give me a break, what a load of crap, please! --Tom 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used poor wording. Looking back, I can't believe I actually said "ruin Wikipedia for everyone else". My point is, whether one thinks Frank Luntz is a "cunt" or not really doesn't belong on Wikipedia talk pages. --JHP 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey JHP, NO problem! Sorry I said "what a load of crap". You are RIGHT that the talk page should really not get off into discussing the subject of a bio personally, but should stick to the FACTS at hand. Just because I knew Frank from my Penn days means zippo. Anyways, water WAY under the bridge at this point :) Cheers! --Tom 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: I noticed that while there is an external link to the "Luntz Memo" on the main page, it's not mentioned at all in the article. That's a little odd -- a came across a mention of the memo in this Globe and Mail article, which referred to it as the "now-infamous 2003 memo." It's essentially a guide for how Republicans should phrase environmental discussions, especially when it involved global warming. I have little interest in this Luntz wiki, but I thought I ought to point this out. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Luntz Memo 

message: I removed alot of the family unsourced material. Birthdates for parents is not needed. Also, if father is as notable as mentioned, mayne he should have his own article(no I do not want to write it, thank you very much)? --Tom 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summer cleaning

message: This is my first attempt to contribute so bear with me.
Diane Rehms interviewed Mr. Luntz on WAMU. WAMU is an NPR affiliate in Washington, D.C.
The interview is available in the archives: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/02/01.php#12645
Frank seems to own up to the "death tax" phrase in the interview. So if I knew how I would fix the first citation needed in the Use of Language section, I would.
Ms. Rehms takes Mr. Luntz to task several times for evading questions.
IMO, the last caller to the show categorically rebuts Mr. Luntz's arguement for calling it a death tax. Luntz is saved by the bell.
I find the above reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels educational. I liked it better when the follow up pointed out Goebbells was a Nazi.
RufusBugleWeed 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Look Here 

message: I saw Frank Luntz on TV and they mentioned he worked for Bill CLinton. Is this true? If so this should be included because the article focuses on his work for George Bush. JettaMann 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worked for Clinton?

message: Ding, dong, cleaning service. This article seems to be bloating with unsourced material again. Can sources be used going forward? Thanks, --Tom 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the youtube citation and material. If we can find a RS that might be different. Thanks, --Tom 13:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm - sorry. I have nothing against you removing the youtube link - but the text and citation (of P&T) is reliable. We can discuss if it has weight enough to be here, though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a RS secondary source for the Penn and Teller material? Just citing a show and date isn't really enough it seems for this type of criticism. Anyways, --Tom 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i have a reliable source: "Penn&Teller: Bullshit - Numbers" Season 4 Episode 9, May 2006. The show itself is a reliable source to the show itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the problem in itself. Can you provide a transcipt of the show? Did they actually say "he uses numbers in order to give validity to his own views"? or is that somebodies interuptation of what they were saying. The best thing to do is to defer to secondary sources that comment on the show and independently verifiy the material that is being put into this article, especially per BLP. Thanks, --Tom 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can watch the show to verify it if you want. WP doesn't require that reliable sources are available online - and a lot of them aren't... books, films etc. The youtube video makes it possible for you to verify it personally, even if we cannot link to it for copyright reasons. So what is the complaint? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He can watch it anyways ;-) - but i agree with your deletion of the youtube link, as it is an obvious copyvio. I've reinserted the critique with proper citation. As mentioned in my edit-summary, it is debatable though, whether its notable enough to be mentioned though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Winter cleaning

message: An IP keeps adding large block of unsourced, original resaerch sounding material to the article which I keep reverting. IP, if you can provide sources here, they can be reviewed here and the community can decide if the material is worthy of inclusion. Anyways, --Tom 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be - but without references to back these additions up - they are out per WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced material being added

message: Should it be "lede" or "lead" section? I thought it was lead but I keep seeing lede?? Anyways, I have removed the material about Luntz shaping talking points for the repubs since it seems to be sythnesis of the cited source. Can the lead be crafted here and then added? Thanks in advance, --Tom 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede section

message: Should his toupee be referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.140.21 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Toupee

message: While introducing a panel on the results of Obama's joint meeting with Democrats and Republican leaders, Mr. Luntz said that the Philadelphia hospital was the first in
america. WRONG. The first hospital was built in the 1611 Citie of Henricus in Virginia. It was called Mount Malady, or Mount Malado. It could house 40 sick or injured men, sleeping them two-to-a-bed. This early hospital was a vst improvement over the crowded, filthy English hospitals of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.45.175 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to his on-air Fox statement of Feb. 26, 2010 

message: The External Link "Frank Luntz Interview" (http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1414) does not resolve to an actual link of an interview with Frank Luntz but is not found and resolves to the CBC main page. Unless this can be corrected the link should be removed.
--96.255.159.197 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Link 

message: :Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.
Not true at all. By the time Luntz made that comment, climate science had solidified its consensus for more than a decade. Naomi Oreskes calls Luntz out on this. It's not just a false statement, it deliberately ignores the scientific consensus that was in place when Luntz made his recommendation. The dates don't lie. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Global warming 

message: The "Information Clearing House" article being used as a citation to support Luntz's involvement in that memo does not mention Luntz's name at all. Therefore, per WP:BLP, since that assertion is disputed and is not supported by a reliable source, it should not be put back into the article unless such a source can be found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinserted the deleted passage and added the missing source. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gingrich GOPAC memo 

message: None of the accolades listed in this section are sourced. While unsourced positive content is less of a problem than unsourced negative content, if sources can't be found for them, they should be removed. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this as unsourced. --Mollskman (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Accolades' 

message: In an interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFYM5GOyL0 (first 40s) he says "Oxford - Mississippi" where there is also an university(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Mississippi). Maybe this was a joke, maybe not.
So any proof he got a PhD from Oxford, UK? Nabrufa (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really Oxford, UK? 

message: I removed the subsection "Leaked tape from the University of Pennsylvania" under "Criticism" with the comment:  "Removed Penn leak from Criticism. The notability of the story is in Luntz's views, not in the reaction against them."
9711CA reverted my change with the comment: "These are documented facts found in credible sources. Irrespective of subjective opinion, the are no less objective truths report in multiple sources."
9711CA, we can have a discussion about the notability of this section, but the fact that statements are "objectively true" or "reported in multiple credible sources" doesn't automatically make them worthy of inclusion. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, information cannot be included solely for being true; a subject must be treated with appropriate weight. As I wrote in my comment, it's Luntz's views themselves that are noteworthy, rather than a couple of opinions by conservative commentators. Washington D.C. is a massive echo chamber. If we included the (verifiably true) reactions by everyone about everything then every page in the Politics WikiProject would be 10 times as long. As editors it's our job not only to seek out the truth but to separate the wheat from the chaff. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of political facts are covered by both conservative and liberal news sources and still aren't sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. How many and which sources are we talking about? And what was being reported, Luntz's views, the American Spectator's reaction, or the Penn scholarship? --Nstrauss (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaked tape from the University of Pennsylvania 

message: Does anyone agree that the article should have POV and advert tags, as DGG added? Olorinish (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the bulk of the article is written rather more like an advert or puff piece than like an encyclopedia article. (The lead is particularly bad.) And the "Criticism" section is written like an advert taken out by people who don't like him. So the answer to your question is, sure, why not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Certainly  should be encouraged to weigh in and explain why he/she believes the article is biased and reads like an advert. I personally don't feel that the article is biased (either the criticism section or the rest of it), but I do think the criticism could be better integrated into the rest of the article in line with WP:CRITICISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the extensive quotations throughout are the main reason why it reads as promotional, supplemented by the full paragraphs for all the polls he has taken, supplemented by the list of all the magazines in which he has published. Confusing minor with major achievements is a common promotional technique--NPOV articles focus on the important.  (The tag uses "advertisement" as shorthand for various related styles of writing--a more precise wording would be good, but it will be hard to agree on changing such a widely used tag.)  As for POV, like many articles on controversial subjects, the basic POV is supplemented by a strong POV on the opposite side--that is not neutrality. (I have in  mind particularly the long paragraph about the UP tapes, which seems to me trivial. The American Spectator is blaming him for being willing to criticize the far right--it's worth a mention, not two long quotations,)     DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look at some of these sections in greater detail, I agree that there are too many Luntz quotes and worse, way too many unattributed Luntz quotes. (There should be zero unattributed quotes.) I don't think these make the article biased overall but they do require clean-up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and advert tags 

message: This article is flagged for sounding like a press release or an advertisement, and I agree.  Luntz is primarily notable for his tenure with the W. administration, and his involvement in shaping the "death tax" messaging.  His Warhol moment needs to be more prominent than whatever he's doing lately.  That is, after all, how history works. — MaxEnt 20:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources suggesting that's what he's known for? My research indicates otherwise. In fact I think he's better known for his work with Gingrich in the 90s. He also has a successful non-political corporate practice. Here are some representative bios: ,  --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Can someone find out the title of Frank Luntz's dissertation at Oxford?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.54.202 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissertation

message: It only embarrasses  Wikipedia to leave out the ONE document for which Luntz is most famous 
The PDF file is widely taught on college campuses, and was key to changing language for decades.   Try https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/45/LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf
Does Wikipedia really want to exclude this one page from the 16 page briefing document?
Also some text mention is on the waybackmachine - it smells like there may have been a campaign to remove the text of this very influential document. Time to grow up on this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpauli (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the actual Frank Luntz Memo from 2002?   

message: Creating a section for posterity on recent interest by editors (such as ) on Luntz's sexuality. According to this 2014 Atlantic profile, Luntz explicitly said he was straight. However, this 2017 Logo TV article makes a passing mention that he is gay. Looking to aggregate more information/discourse here before adding anything to the article about his sexuality (if that's even necessary as he appears to be a private man?) — BriefEdits (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality