Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 2

message: Thanks for stepping in here.  For the most part, I think the current page is in decent shape, if not a little over-zealously trimmed back in previous edit wars - particularly sections on Levins prior experience and the format and content of his show.  But what is left is factual, NPOV and verifiable.  My biggest issue now is the "External Sources" section of the page, which has had three recent additions by anonymous editors that are all "anti" Levin and not all as relevant or notable as others.  They've seemed like attempts to pad the article with "anti" sources.  I've deleted and given reasons, others have added back, and I've suggested we discuss on this page (see first entry above) when all hell broke loose with accusations and incivility.
Let's look at the External Sources currently included.  My understanding is these should relate to the subject of the article itself (Mark Levin).  We have: 
* a link to Levin's own blog at NRO (relevant to Levin, consensus has previously been to include), 
* a link to the Legal Foundation Levin runs (relevant to Levin, consensus has previously been to include), 
* a link to a Levin fan blog with show audio and articles on Levin (relevant to Levin, consensus has previously been to include), 
* a link to an unfavorable review of Levin's book at Salon.com (relevant to Levin, consensus has been to include), 
* a link to a Glen Greenwald blog post on the "crazed face of neo-conservatism", that mentions two Levin blog posts from July 2006 among criticism of other conservative pundit comments. I thought the source was reather unremarkable, however another editor has pointed out he is a best-selling author. (added by anon user recently, mixed consensus on including.  Given the broad nature of Greenwald's commentary, I suggested in my edit comment that the editor cite it in the text as a specific criticism of Levin's philosophy, rather than have as an External Source)
**Eleemosynary's response: FLeeLevin is incorrectly stating that "consensus" has been reached to include these links.  Though the first three haven't been disputed, there was no "consensus" discussion on the Talk Page for them.  I disagree that the Landmark Legal Foundation link has any place on the page, but I'm not going to fight for its removal.  Regarding the Greenwald link, it is not "broad commentary," but addresses Levin in detailed paragraphs before going on to address other conservative authors.  I'm fine if it's cited either as an article or an external source, but not if it's deleted and tagged as an "unremarkable blog."
* a link to an entry at "albionmonitor.com" criticizing a Levin guest hosting spot on the Sean Hannity show from 2004. (added by an anon user, mixed consensus on including.  This seems a tad irrelevant/unnotable/unsubstantive, especially since it is not related to Levin's show and the article already notes how there are critics of his style and how he treats his "Lib" callers.)
**Eleemosynary's response: This source could easily be removed.
* a link to a Media Matters release from 2004 in response to Levin accusing them of being a partisan organization that he would be keeping an eye on.  Other than repeating Levin's 2004 quote, the rest of the release is a description of Media Matters, discussion on their funding, tax status, political affiliations and an invitation for readers to visit their site.  No criticism, commentary or discussion of Levin. (added by an anon user, mixed consensus on including.  Was originally presented as documenting MM's "dispute with Levin", which is not accurate.  My opinion is there is nothing substantive or notable contained within the text that warrants inclusion in the Levin article).
**Eleemosynary's response: Ah, here's the rub.  It's not a "release," or a "press release," as FLeeLevin has claimed several times.  It's an article, among hundreds of other articles, on an extremely heavily trafficked website, that addresses Levin's own words and links to audio of them.  Do a search for "Mark Levin" on Media Matters and you'll find several other articles about Levin.  The "funding and tax status" information which FLeeLevin claims makes the article unworthy of linking to directly addresses what Levin is accusing Media Matters of (that they're Kerry-Edwards shills, etc.).  That's why that information is on the page.  FLeeLevin's insistence that the page is a press release is disingenuous.  The Media Matters page states Levin's position, links to audio of it, and rebuts it.
So of the above, we have consensus on the first 4 items and mixed views on the last three.  The anonymous users who added the last three have not put forth any rationale or reasoning for including them and the editor who has put them back has stated his reasons, most of which have to do with accusations that I'm not editing in good faith, for putting them back.
My view is as stated above.  Of the three "disputed items", I think the Greenwald link, as it is not specifically about Levin, is better cited in the body of the article as an example of criticism of Levin's "neocon" positions.  I still maintain the "albionmonitor.com" link is irrelevant and unnotable, given the article already criticizes Levin's style, however it is at least solely devoted to Levin, if not very dated.  The Media Matters link adds nothing to the article, does not represent a "dispute" with Levin, and offers no information that would add to a Wikipedia reader's understanding of the subject of this article.  It should not be included.
I think we need relevance and substantiveness standards for including an external source in the article, otherwise this becomes a clearinghouse for including every pro and anti Levin link on the internet - and subject to oneupsmanship to balance out "pro" and "anti" sources - in direct violation of the policies you posted on biography standards for living persons.  I can surf the conservative blogosphere right now and find a dozen "pro" Levin blog mentions of his show, book or blog.  I could argue these "belong on the page" using the same thin rationale as used for the disputed "anti" links, however I wouldn't be improving the article or adding anything to a reader's understanding of Levin.  I think we should strive for quality over quantity.FLeeLevin 23:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FLeeLevin's position

message: Final issue: Media Matters. Tommy changed the link to a more general page on Levin from MM. I think we all agree that Media Matters is an allowable source. Do you, Eleemosynary, agree with the changes? This is our last point of contention, correct?  - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the last point in terms of my original request for discussion at the top of the talk page.  However I'm also interested if all other editors are OK with the changes made to the "legal" sentence and the "neocon" sentence introducing the Greenwald link.  I'm glad everyone is now collaborating and discussing the article itself on the Talk page.  I think things well beyond the three anon blog links have now been improved.NYCTommy 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Eleemosynary 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Matters

message: The mediation is completed. Thanks for your coöperation, and I hope you will continue likewise in the future. It was a pleasure to meet both of you, Eleemosynary and NYCTommy. See you around. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing comment