Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 2

message: You're not actually claiming that Media Matters is a living person, are you? - Crockspot 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rush Limbaugh is a living person.  Remarks (some not even within quotation marks) have been on this article for two months with no attribution.  That is a BLP problem. Italiavivi 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also an attribution/verifiability problem.  If you want to restore the material, just find a reliable source.  It's not a complicated issue. Croctotheface 06:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: Hello - The case brought by Andy Martin was dismissed with prejudice last month and I notice that the article claims that it is ongoing. I'm a member of the technical staff at MMfA, so I didn't want to make the updates myself for fear of appearing to violate NPOV. Could another community member make these updates, or should I just do so myself?
Media Matters founder David Brock was sued for defamation and false light invasion of privacy by Illinois Republican Andy Martin in May, 2007. [ 14 ] The case was dismissed with prejudice in June, 2007 with the court citing a Connecticut injunction prohibiting Mr. Martin from, "filing new lawsuits, actions, proceedings, or matters in federal fora" without obtaining the court's permission. [ CITE 1 ] Subsequent motions to remand, vacate, and recuse by Mr. Martin were denied and, in its ruling, the court held that the plaintiff, "fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted" additionally noting that Martin’s complaints about Media Matters’ characterizations were without merit. [ CITE 2 ]
Here are the relevant court documents...
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/07C3154MartinvBrock-01.pdf
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/07C3154MartinvBrock-02.pdf 
Thanks for your help.
PAW 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case against MMfA dismissed, question re: update 

message: I have noticed that about 12 of the 15 footnotes are attributed to MM themselves which is mainly for verification purposes and the rest are critical responses.  Are there any non-editorializing secondary sources to help establish the notability of this subject?  MrMurph101 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources 

message: In the header Bill O'Reilly is referred to as "independent" which in itself seems to be NPOV as it is how he likes to refer to himself, not how he is generally referred to. He is widely recognized as being a conservative commentator (does anyone really need proof of that fact?)  Some are objecting to referring  to him as anything but "independent," while simultaneously removing any reference to this being self-designation.  This is simply a way to inject POV into the article.  The fact that he is "registered independent" has nothing to do with it.  The label has nothing to do with his voter registration, it refers to the opinions he expresses on his show.  Coulter and Limbaugh are not "registered conservatives" after all.  Comments? Loonymonkey 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure he is conservative on all matters.  And he claims to be independent.  I tend to say "Remove all adjectives" for NPOV.  --Blue Tie 01:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current form isn't much better. Currently it reads "Their targets include both news reporting and commentators such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly." This basically groups O'Reilly together with avid and self proclaim conservatives, not solving the problem of his political standing. I personally like "Their targets include both news reporting and conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and independent Bill O'Reilly." because it seperates O'Reilly from the avid conservatives. CO2 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this article, O'Reilly's self-identification does not really matter.  He is a commentator, like Coulter and Limbaugh, and MM does items about him.  The fact that other MM targets tend to be self-described conservatives is not surprising, considering that they seek to target "conservative misinformation".  Croctotheface 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move the labels and "targets" to the criticism section. No names or labels are needed in the lead. CO2 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why information about people they often do pieces on belongs in criticism.  However, I'm fine with the current formation, which just mentions that they target both opinion journalism/punditry and non-opinion journalism.  Croctotheface 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was going to suggest removing it entirely from the lead which seems to be the consensus now, anyway.  The current form goes a long way towards making this a better article.  (personally, I think it's still got a long way to go, though, especially when we get to "criticisms."  It still reads like one of those "liberal sentence/conservative sentence" debate pages).  --Loonymonkey 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have a better way to characterize differing points of view?  We can evaluate facts, but that doesn't really seem to be the issue here.  If it's just a matter of disagreement, it's not really our job to evaluate opinions.  Croctotheface 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O'Reilly "independent" or "conservative." 

message: Now that the pro-O'Reilly POV problems have been removed from the Criticisms section (thanks to Croctotheface), I'd like to mention one other issue I have with the section about O'Reilly's perceived racist comments.  Juan Williams's comment on The O'Reilly Factor, made the day after the incident, strikes me as bizarre if taken as an attack on Media Matters.  "It's so frustrating," Williams is quoted as saying in the sourced article. "They want to shut you up. They want to shut up anybody who has an honest discussion about race."  Clearly O'Reilly fans will want us to believe that Williams is "frustrated" solely at Media Matters because the organization wants to censor anybody who ever attempts to have a discussion about race.  But is that what he is really saying?  I haven't read a transcript of the conversation but based on the quote in the article Williams's vague reference to the mysterious "They" could very well mean "The Media" as a whole, not specifically Media Matters.  If any transcript exists, I'd like to know if he was absolutely and categorically accusing MM.  Was he asked a direct question about MM, and responded, "They want to shut you up."?    I'd like to point out that I'm unfamiliar with Williams and any positions he may have.  Has he repeatedly and specifically attacked MM regarding this issue before?  If not, I submit that his quote is sufficiently ambiguous to possibly warrant removal as a criticism of MM.-Hal Raglan 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the opinion piece he wrote for Time regarding the incident, Williams clearly wasn't specifying only Media Matters.-Hal Raglan 03:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to know what exactly he is refering.  The quote listed is in response to the criticism leveled by MM and subsequently picked up by CNN.  However, I think he was generalizing to any group that might bring this up as criticism.  BOR is clearly talking about MM and Moveon.org when Williams made the comment, and I think that most people understand that his comments were in part directed towards MM.  Arzel 04:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right about the intent of Williams's remarks.  I've kept the comment in the section but expanded it to correspond exactly to what the sourced article quotes him as saying.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current sourcable information, I think it reads in a NPOV fashion.  Arzel 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm unsure how we could clarify the use of "They" without being accused of interpretation, since its ambiguous as to exactly what Williams meant in the sourced article.  He's not specifically referring to Media Matters.  In the Time piece I provided, Williams's makes a similar reference to the mysterious "They",  meaning " critics [who] want to shut up Cosby, O'Reilly, me and anyone else who points out the crisis in black America."  I think if Williams's defense of O'Reilly is to be included here -- and it makes sense to do so since he was present during the conversation in which the controversial comments were made -- a better, more MM-focused quote should be utilized.  He specifically slammed MM a couple times, I believe.-Hal Raglan 01:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think something more specific to MM would be better, if it's available. Croctotheface 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They want to shut you up." 

message: The fact that he makes a statment, without evidence, does not mean that we must include it in the article.  I read the transcript, and he provides no evidence supporting his assertion.  We don't know what basis, if any, he has for what he's saying.  As such, I see no reason it merits inclusion.  Croctotheface 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glenn Beck does not state that Clinton is funding MM in the linked transcript. Herb London of the Hudson Institute says that "there is some connection between these dots." Due to IP vands from last night, I believe I'll violate 3RR if I further touch the article today. --guyzero | talk 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funding is a seperate issue.  As far as I know, even the nuttiest of blog pundits haven't claimed that Clinton is directly funding MM.  A vague quote about "seeing a connection between dots" is completely meaningless on an encyclopedia page.  --Loonymonkey 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --guyzero | talk 00:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The assertion is basically slander to begin with as nobody has ever come up with any evidence to support it.  The fact that it is mentioned at all should be enough.  We don't need to add a new quote every time some right-wing pundit repeats the claim.  --Loonymonkey 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly does a political commentator's questioning of MM's dubious funding sources resort to slander?Fsjonsey 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "slander" is necessarily the correct word, but repeatedly alleging that the funding sources are "dubious", w/out basis, is obviously intended to make MM look like its involved in something potentially illegal.  Its not a case of honest "questioning", its rightwing propaganda.-Hal Raglan 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are making an accusation about a living person yet present no evidence whatsoever and have absolutely no evidence to back up their claim.  That's the very definition of slander.  The fact that the accusation is made is probably noteworthy, but it is not necessary to catalog every single instance of some blogger repeating the accusation. --Loonymonkey 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, thats funny, considering Mrs. Clinton said she "started 'and' supported" MM.  After all, Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" line is in his wiki article.. It would appear that your concerns Hal are... inaccurate.--68.115.80.156 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn Beck is not an authority on MM funding by definition 

message: :I need some help converting all references from the simple 
http://yoururlhere.net 
:to
 
:It will really help when/if we try to get this up to featured article. Carbon Monoxide 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh,  Done anyways. Carbon Monoxide 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|cite web}} 

message: This section was cut from the page. I see no reason for it to be removed. It's a cited source, it's certainly criticism, and it's not a "gotcha quote". Carbon Monoxide 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from "slime machine", which is just a generic insult, I don't see what criticism is being articulated there.  The rest of that section is just a quote, and I don't know what purpose it serves.  Croctotheface 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the POV problems are unbelieveable:  "MMfA has been criticized by John Gibson of Fox News for links to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" seems to indicate that there are links when, in fact, none seem to exist.-Hal Raglan 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about ..."MMfA has been criticized by John Gibson of Fox News for supposed links to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"... ? Carbon Monoxide 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's better, but I don't really see the criticism, or even the factual basis.  Hillary makes an off the cuff remark about "helping start and support" liberal organizations, lists MM as an example, and that means that there is a link?  Croctotheface 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have mixed feelings about this.  In a way, I think it would be notable enough of an attack on MM to include in the article if additional conservative pundits of Gibson's stature were to make the same claim.  Outside of blogs, my Google search did not find anyone other than Gibson who makes such an accusation.  If this ever develops into a widespread allegation in notable conservative publications, it could possibly be included in the article, perhaps in a separate section such as "Conservatives allege link to Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign".  But then we would have to consider wikipedia's BLP policy, which does not allow for unsupported accusations of possible illegal activity to be included.  To play it safe I don't think this should be inserted into the article at this time.- Hal Raglan 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if being linked to the campaign is illegal for whatever reason, then that leads me to a couple of different conclusions.  First, that kind of criticism, properly based in fact, certainly is weighty enough to mention.  Second, it would be unusual, if there were some sort of breach of election law, that it would not be investigated by relevant authorities.  Croctotheface 02:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure how much I agree about that.  It's clear at present that despite the fact that MM is not classified as a wing of the Democratic party, it's partisan.  It clearly has a point of view, and I don't think anybody could look at the group, its work, or its mission statement and think that their goal is neutrality.  So I'm not really sure what substantive impact anything that you're talking about would have on MM's power as a source.  Croctotheface 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of MMs 

message: I reverted a recent addition of this, which editors a while back decided was not a significant item.  I dug up an old version, with neutral phrasing.  If we do decide it should go back in the article, this is more along the lines of what it should look like:
On August 19, 2005, Media Matters for America posted an item regarding a letter that Cliff Kincaid, editor from the media watchdog organization Accuracy in Media, said he had received from an Afghan ambassador. Media Matters for America wrote that the letter was not a scanned document and that it "bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job."[10] Within hours of the post, Kincaid posted scanned images of the letter and envelope he said he had received, and wrote that Media Matters for America had accused him of "having fabricated or forged a letter from the Ambassador of Afghanistan."[11] Media Matters for America then issued a subsequent post stating that Kincaid "misrepresented the original Media Matters item” in which they "simply pointed out that the letter as posted on the America's Survival website consisted of separate elements cobbled together from various sources."[12]
-- Croctotheface 09:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current version of the article explains this addition just fine. Carbon Monoxide 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you prefer had POV problems; I've reverted to Croc's more neutral version.- Hal Raglan 02:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version represents the facts.  America's Survival was the response from Kincaid from which the original version included.  I simpled added an additional statement from that citation stating a valid criticism.  Exactly what are your POV problems with it?  Arzel 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My latest edit should make clear what the POV problems were.  I've rewritten for neutrality.  If you still are having problems noting my POV concerns, I'll explain here.  But it should no longer be necessary.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the version you have reduced to removed the citation which was in the version Croc included.  Your version only includes references back to MM which makes the section pretty much meaningless.  Arzel 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was in no way meaningless, but the removal of the citation was unintended.  My most recent edit removed the obvious POV problems and reinstated the citation, while clarifying that it was Kincaid who was making the complaint.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hal, you're last edits seems to solve the issue. Carbon Monoxide 03:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm glad you agree.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Arzel 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cliff Kincaid 

message: You can find all kinds of EVIDENCE of this organization's mischievous deeds at fox news's website. EVIDENCE, as in, not doctored information.
As a factual encyclopedia, shouldn't we include the evidence in the article? I mean, we have comments of various people, evidence cant hurt. 65.27.139.162 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence and facts are quite different from mere interpretive opinions expressed by rightwing propagandists.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha. Evidence on Fox News website. That's a good one. They're still connecting Saddam to 911 and AlQaeda. Cheers 12.146.184.9 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're full of crap.  FNC doesn't connect Saddam to 911.  Leave the analysis of FNC to those who actually watch FNC, because you obviously do not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: As I wrote in an edit summary, this section has begun to balloon out of control, unbalancing the article by occupying a disproportionate amount of space.  I'm sure there are criticisms of MMFA to be found all over the internet.  That doesn't mean they all have to appear in the article.  The section should not be allowed to dominate the rest of the article.  Please see WP:Undue weight  --Rrburke(talk) 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is starting to get a little sloppy.  It would be good to note the more relevant criticisms and leave out that which bloats the article.  MrMurph101 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Notable criticisms only should be included.  Recent additions of trivial complaints from conservatives have caused the section to dominate the article.-Hal Raglan 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just make a Criticism of Media Matters for America article. CO 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By its own nature, NPOV is bland.  To address your concern the section could be called "responses to Media Matters" and present the reactions of those they target.  MrMurph101 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Criticisms'' section 

message: I'm not going to get involved in this edit war, but I have to say that while both terms are neutral, it's hard to get more neutral than "said" for when someone says something.  MM's response comes shortly afterward, so I'm not concerned that "said" will somehow misinform the readers.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that "said" seems pretty beneighn(sp) I would refer readers/editors to WP:WTA for further clarification. As you point out, the statement/claim/alegation/augument/ect is countered in the next following sentences and isn't just left out there. It also appears the the sources back up the funding claim. I don't know enough about this, but i am sure I will be enlightened :) Cheers, --Tom 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recent edit to "According to Bill O'Reilly and others..." is a satisfactory compromise.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" vs "said" 

message: I realize this is a hot button issue for Media Matters, but she clearly said what she said and it has been reported, for [] for example.  Arzel (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this multiple times in the past.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is what?  It is still a point of discussion, and going through the history there doesn't appeat to be any type of concensus at this point.  This biggest argument against inclusion is the lack of RS.  Previously the debate has been if RS exist then it could be included.  May I ask exactly what is your problem with inclusion?  Arzel (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That had not been my argument: my argument had been that we had no way to know what she meant by "helped start".  The Washington Times article seems to just accept as a given that MM is "Clinton formed", but it doesn't actually provide evidence to that effect.  The notion that people who donated to her campaign also donated funds that were used to start MM proves nothing.  Your edit did not address the nature of the dispute, and it made a POV/OR determination that their expression of not being linked to a political party or candidate constituted a "passive denial", when in fact I suspect that they had that language on their site well before this business erupted.  Regarding the Washington Times article, though, I'm OK with material in WP that discusses the notion that groups like MM are doing work that could be considered political.  That's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact in dispute.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clinton unambiguously says she HELPED START Media Matters in a speech and you say it depends on what "helped start" means?  Unbelievable.  This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's dancing on the head of a pin about what the definition of the word "is" is.  It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret what she meant.  The simple fact is that SHE SAID IT.  It is a notable claim that is independently verifiable and very pertinent to include here.70.58.66.127 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous consensus regarding the comment was that the quote was too vague to include in the article, and that if it ever was to be added it should be when any follow-up information was provided by Clinton or Media Matters as to the actual meaning.  No such further details seem to have been released.  The quote certainly shouldn't be included in the way that Clinton/Media Matters-haters interpret it to mean, as "proof" that the Clintons are mastermind controllers behind MM.  Its hilarious that the anonymous editor claims it isn't up to Wikipedia to "interpret" her comments when placing the comment in the "Funding sources" section is strictly interpretive.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, putting it in the "Funding Sources" section is interpretive... So I suggest that we start a new section titled "Controversies" like many other entries have, and it would fit right in.  70.58.66.127 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of like this from FNC Controversies[]. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has stated that "Fox does tilt right," but that the network does not "actively campaign or try to help Bush-Cheney."[].  The hypocritical nature surrounding MMfA on Wikipedia is quite astounding to say the least.  They use video and audio clips to promote their point of view which gets linked here in vast amounts, yet when video or audio clips of something which might be viewed negatively against MMfA is added here the will to hide this information is unending, even when that information is backed up by RS.  I have read through the history, there is no concensus to not include this well-documented statement.  The primary reason for exclusion appears to be "I don't like it".  The only question that we really have is in what way should it be incorporated to be presented in a neutral tone. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "I don't like it" theory is a grotesquely simplistic misinterpretation of all previous commentary.  If you've actually read thru the history, specifically Archive 2, you will see that there does indeed seem to be consensus not to include the quote.  One of the numerous reasons was that it involved a possible BLP issue, as revealed by one of the more gleeful Clinton-haters who repeatedly claimed he wanted the quote in the article because he wanted it on record that Clinton "is a candidate for elective office claiming a role in starting a 501(c)3 organization prohibited from providing support to people running for elective office. Whether her role and support was or is illegal is wide open for debate..."  While I still have some concerns regarding this, since the Clinton comment is undeniably real, if it can be added here in a completely neutral tone as you suggest, w/out the POV/OR problems of your recent attempt to insert the quote into the article, I would not argue against its inclusion.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read that section.  I don't believe that that is a good reason to include.  What I find most interesting, is that she said it.  It is documented.  It has been commented on by sources other than blogs.  And that MMfA has not denied the quote, and in essense by lack of denial admits that it is true (not my OR, it is what is discussed in the WP).  This is especially poignent given that MMfA vigorously denies any connection to Soros whenever BOR or others make that connection.  And they vigorously defend Clinton for the most minor and mundane topics like NY Times' Healy, USA Today advanced myth that Clinton switched baseball allegiances [].  Yet there is absolutely no mention of this subject, no mention of falsely attributing HRC to starting or helping to start CAP and MMfA.  That said I think a simple sentence in the history or funding be stated that HRC stated at the Daily Kos convention that she helped start MMfA.  It is reliabely sourced, it is verifiable, it is extremely notable, and it has not been denied by either HRC or MMfA.  Arzel (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that it is "extremely notable"; it seems that conservatives love it for all the reasons the editor Hal quotes above did.  I basically agree with Hal--if there is something neutral and relevant that we can say about this, then OK, but I don't really see what that would be.  If we don't actually understand what she means by "helped start", it's not really informative to throw it out there without any kind of context.  The context you suggest is relevant is basically all OR and POV.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The leading Democratic presidential candidate says she helped start MM and you say that is not notable?  I already stated what could be said in a neutral tone.  The additional context I mentioned is not mine, it is what was reported in the WP so it is not OR.  What is so hard to understand about "helping to start"?  Arzel (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's "hard to understand" is that there is no way of knowing, simply based on the quote itself, what Clinton meant.   Also, I probably missed something but what do you mean by "reported in the WP"?  Has the Washington Post done an article on Clinton's comment and her alleged affiliation with MM?  The only reference I noted before was to the Moonies rag, The Washington Times.  -Hal Raglan (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops meant the WT, but I see you have already dissmissed this source.  But it is a reliable source, if MMfA america can be used for a source then I don't see why the WT cannot be used.  Arzel (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the Washington Times published a story that demonstrated that Clinton "formed" MM, I would be OK with putting information to that effect in the article.  Merely saying that the group is "Clinton-formed" does not establish anything, especially when the evidence supporting that assertion is just that there exist people who have donated to both MM and Clinton's campaign.  Again, that doesn't prove anything.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this completely.  When and if actual facts emerge, they can be placed in the article, but until then this encyclopedia article shouldn't be a conduit for extreme interpretations of out of context quotes. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is the exact same consensus reasoning represented in the previous lengthy discussion regarding this issue.  As noted by MrMurph101 in Archive Two, "there needs to be more pieces of this puzzle to get the scope of the matter presented properly and within policy. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the latest news and rumours."  Until that happens, simply dropping the quote into the article sans context seems a little absurd.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I hope all involved here will back me in similar situations where MM is used as the primary source for their POV.  Arzel (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're not proposing to add material that references some opinion that originates in the Washington Times.  The issue is whether, as the WT states, MMfA is "Clinton-formed".  That's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.  Considering that there is no convincing support for the idea, it would be irresponsible to include it here.  When MM is "used as the primary source for its POV", it's a matter of opinion, not fact.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Omitting the quote entirely seems POV to me.  It has created quite a stir.  Look at all the mundane minutiae documenting every tiny little controversy on Michael Savage's entry in the  section entitled "Controversies."  The solution seems obvious to me, we start a "Controversies" section like many other entries have and detail both sides of the issue there.  Short and sweet, like this; document the quote, and then document how MMfA denies any ties to any candidate. Simple, and represented for what it is, controversial. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be the case that there is too much "minutiae" about criticism of Savage.  It may also be the case that most coverage of him in reliable sources deals with criticism.  In either case, we are not bound by any kind of "what would the editors of Michael Savage do" standard.  This article already has a criticism standard--if there were some foundation to a criticism based on the Hillary bit, then we could include it.  As it is, and I realize that I'm repeating myself at this point--we just don't know what Hillary meant when she said "helped start".  Considering that this quote is basically the only foundation for the criticism/controversy, it is irresponsible to include it.  To the extent that there have been accusations that there are violations of campaign finance law, there is also a [{WP:BLP]] concern as far as Clinton goes.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth COULD "help start" mean but HELPED START?!70.58.66.127 (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't speak to that case, but if the scope of O'Reilly's comment is unclear (or if he clearly just means they tilt right regarding the war), then that should be clear in the text.  If the quote is unremarkable with these changes, it should be omitted.  Regarding the Hillary Clinton quote, my argument has nothing to do with references, truth, or context.  I have said all along that we don't know what she means when she says "helped start", and we have no information that helps us understand what that means.  To include something like this when we have no way of understanding what it actually means does not inform our readers whatsoever.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this will clear things up.  Words do still have definitions.help (verb) 1. To give assistance to; aid. 2. To contribute to the furtherance of; promote.start (verb) 1. To commence; begin. 2. To set into motion, operation, or activity. 3. To introduce; originate.70.58.66.127 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She actually said "start and support" and "institutions...like", naming the Center for American Progress as well as MMfA.  A more reasonable, non-conspiratorial interpretation would be that she merely supports the work of organizations like CAP and MMfA. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Helped start" could mean dozens of different things.  "Aid and assistance" could mean that she expresses her support for the work they do.  It could mean she wants her people to return their calls.  It could mean she donated money.  Or, it could mean that she has some sort of illegal relationship like people have been crowing about.  "Set in motion" could mean asking somebody to start the group.  It could mean asking someone who wants to work for her staff to instead accept a job offer from MM instead.  It could mean donating money.  Or it could mean this illegal relationship that people have been crowing about.  There are probably dozens of other combinations of ways to define the terms.  Considering that there is this range of meaning and we have no insight into what it is, and considering that attempting to deduce that strictly from the comments and some ambiguous related facts would run afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, there is no informative purpose to including this information. Croctotheface (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your stance, but it is not a reason to exclude this controversy from the entry about MMfA.  It should be included, and represented as controversial, with no interpretations of what Senator "meant."  Her words can speak for themselves, and MMfA's policy of "no ties to any candidate" can speak for itself.  It should be transparently reported and mentioned on the entry, as what it is, a controversy in a new section titled "Controversies."  I suggest no interpretation or misrepresentation, ONLY information. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My position, to reiterate, is that it is NOT informative to recount words when we have no insight into what they mean.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would we, or anyone, consider Clinton's remark "controversial" if the exact meaning is unclear?  Anonymous, your suggestion does interpret/represent the quote in the POV manner you want.  By dumping the quotation by itself into a "Controversies" section you are inserting negative reporting of her comment. None of us here knows what Clinton meant, not even you.  If/when further information is developed by reliable sources regarding this issue, the quote and all pertinent details can be added to the article.-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. This discussion has come full-circle a couple of times now, both in this round and in the previously archived one.  We should consider it settled until any new credible information arises.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is true only to the extent that casting any kind of editorial judgment about anything is "POV".  Incidentally, though I'm guilty of this as well, I don't like using "POV" as an adjective.  You mean to suggest that if we omit the quote, we are editing from a non-neutral POV.  If you concede, as you appear to, that the quote's meaning is unclear and that we have no way of knowing what it is, I can't see why you feel that it can have any informative value at all.  You have yet to respond to this argument that I've made.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote's meaning is self evident, perfectly clear, and in context.  Your argument that we can't possibly know what "helped started" means is merely a cop-out intended to stuff the words back into from whence they came.  These words are definable, not vague, and your interpretations of what they COULD mean are laughable.  I'm not surprised.  The only reason NOT to include this information would be if it were a verifiable lie. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's so obvious how Hillary Clinton "helped start" Media Matters, could you tell us what she did?  Croctotheface (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done repeating myself, we've gone through it all already. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you haven't addressed this point at all.  You've simply asserted that it is the case and dismissed all other alternative interpretations without presenting any facts at all. If it is so obvious and clear, then you will have no problem answering the question. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the only dissenting voice here has noted that he/she has nothing else to add, we should bring this discussion to a close until more actual facts develop.-Hal Raglan (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We are not obligated to include any and all verifiable information into the encyclopedia.  How can a statement like "helped start and support", which has dozens of viable interpretations, be informative if we don't know what actually happened.  Do you know what it is that she did?  What does "helped start" mean in this case?  Croctotheface (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary Clinton and Media Matters