Talk:Neal Boortz controversies

message: I had a media Matters article, but it was removed by NatusRoma because "the references included in the Media Matters section do not support anything sufficiently encyclopedic for inclusion." The section was as follows: 
 Media Matters for America, Boortz has often been a hot subject of Media Matters' online reports. 
 "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and 
 information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting 
 conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Although Boortz questions and refutes the 
 claim  and points out that they are funded by billionaire George Soros, is a liberal 
 web-based organization that reports and criticizes what it describes as "conservative 
 misinformation in the U.S. media" Boortz has made comments that Media Matters distorts the truth 
 and many times will cut a clip to make it say what they want. However, he thanks them for 
 spelling his name right and to "Just keep on keepin' on" and to "Just get that "Boortz" name out 
 there..." 
Media Matters is constantly trying to assert that Boortz is a liar, he's dishonest, he's a hater, and anti-Muslim, etc. A Media Matters section is quite relevant. Maniwar 13:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that this would probably be relevant, however, it should be rewritten.  I'd remove the sections that describe Media Matters as the wikilink to the article can do this.  "Boortz questions and refutes the claim" - what claim?  There is no discussion of what the claim is or how they criticise him.  Better yet, I think the discussion might flow better if we stated the criticism and then address who charges it.  For example, "Boortz has been criticised as being being anti-Muslim... by John Suggs and organizations such as Media Matters".  As I mentioned on my talk though, I'm not sure this information should exist as its own article.  I think it would be better to include it on the main Boortz article.  Morphh (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip Morphh. Regarding your comment about it being combined with the main article, I only started a separate one because I see the potential of this being larger than the main article and perused around at similar articles to see how they did it. If the consensus is to combine both, then I'm fine with it. But as mentioned, I didn't think the main body of his profile should be made up of his controversies; that's why I started this as a separate post. Maniwar (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I see you've been expanding it so I thought it would be jumping the gun to put up merge banners and such.  Usually, the main article grows to the point of split but we'll give it a shot and see how others take it.  :-)  Morphh (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Matters

message: The article seeks to put him in a negative light and simply does not comply with WP:NPOV. I have also proposed deletion. Mww113      (Talk)       (Review me!)      (Sign!) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The only source in this article for all of Boortz's controversies seems to be MMFA. CENSEI (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also feel this article should be deleted or redirected due to POV fork.  There might be some content that is suitable for the main article.  I'll see if any sources besides MMFA report on these "controversies" and try to understand the proper weight and relative notability of each.   Morphh  (talk) 17:13, 07 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I've merged the important points.  I'm good to redirect or delete.  Morphh  (talk) 5:41, 08 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV