user alien thinks i'm edit warring which is confusing since i'm not even close to rr 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