Talk:Lee Fang

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because Lee Fang is a pretty important figure in the American Political scene. There is at least one well-known article that he authored that Obama used information from to make allegations regarding the United States Chamber of Commerce. This story caught on throughout with the media and liberal politicians who used evidence from it to make it a campaign issue: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/05/121701/foreign-chamber-commerce/ Considering those facts, is there any reason to delete this page? --AlexisDT1830 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems relevant. I'll remove the tag.Churchillreader (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that Lee Fang is a "pretty important figure in the American Political scene" goes so far beyond hilarious I don't even know what to call it. The assertion that one lie told by Fang somehow makes him important is riotously funny, and it sets a  ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as important. Random "journalists" (a term I hesitate to use for a serial liar like Fang) are daily cited by various politicians. Are we going to have an entry on all of them?

Added information
Hi Everyone,

I recently created this page after having read about the United States Chamber of Commerce situation that occurred last year as a result of Fang's article. What I have added so far is a bit incomplete at the moment, but I am hoping that as I have more time throughout the coming days I can flesh this out. If anyone can help out with adding to this page, it would be greatly appreciated. AlexisDT1830 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've neutralized the language and tightened up the "controversy" section. This is a biography of a living person after all, so care needs to be taken to see that the article is adheres to the very strict guidelines for BLP's. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference to alleged criticism by the New York Times
There is no citation in the article to support the oft-added contention that the New York Times has been critical of Fang's reporting. The Times Op-Ed piece cited elsewhere in the article does not constitute or include criticism of Fang or his work by the Times; it expresses an author's personal opinion. Fang is a noteworthy observer of and reporter about the influences of private financial interests on government policy, and his biography, although too brief, should be preserved.

EFMLawSF (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) EFMLawSF (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. Fang isn't even mentioned in that article and it apparently has nothing to do with his biography.  At best it's just synthesis.  I'll remove it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fang isn't mentioned by name, but his charge he's the only one to mention it most certainly is. Please stop edit warring. There are legitimate organizations that have criticized Fang's work. The way the controversy section is worded now is a violation of WP:WEASEL. I'm changing it back until you can explain what is wrong about the criticism section. Starbucksian (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only one edit-warring. Please remember that it is up to you, as the editor seeking to add or restore material, to achieve consensus before restoring it.  Also, material which violates WP:BLP (as this clearly does) must be removed immediately.  Continuing to unilaterally add it back in will constitute edit-warring on your part. As for the content, you can't add material from articles that aren't about Fang to counter something he said.  That's a form of original research.  See WP:SYNTH for further explanation of this. And anyway, we don't use op-eds as sources for factual material in BLP's anyway.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the only one edit warring. (The other editors on this page agreed.) Please stop. I'm restoring and more than happy to have another administrator to come in. We've tried WP:Consensus. You are trying WP:sanitize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you claiming agrees with you? You seem to be acting unilaterally and disruptively. You haven't addressed a single one of the serious BLP issues raised, so per WP:BLP the material must be removed.  Again, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.  See WP:BURDEN for an explanation of this rule.  Continuing to re-add it without any consensus or even discussion of the issues will simply result in the loss of your editing privileges.  Also, just out of curiosity, what name did you previously edit under?  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing that has been added is factually inaccurate. The other editor is User:Tommyboy1215. What is the WP:BLP issues with the page? I'm more than willing to edit collaboratively.Starbucksian (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could claim that editor agrees with you since he hasn't commented here and wasn't involved in this material. The BLP issues are discussed above, please read through it again. Also, again, what name did you previously edit under (just for reference)?--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The claims that you are making have been answered already on the page. I have inserted a line about Factcheck.org as I have about the New York Times. I'm sorry but you appear to be a Single-purpose account. A WP:BLP issue isn't a "serious" issue merely because you say it is.Starbucksian (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) The two seriously problematic sections are the NYT article which isn't even about Fang, and is therefore pure WP:SYNTH, and the powelineblog editorial. Powerline isn't a reliable source for anything and the opinion of some blogger isn't notable to a BLP. There are problems with the other material too, but that's more content-oriented, not necessarily BLP issues (they have problems with WP:WTA and WP:NOTNEWS for instance. Rather than revert back and forth, let's remove the seriously problematic parts for discussion and leave the others in (while discussing). Fair enough? --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above commenter claims that blogs aren't reliable sources. I agree, so why have an entry on Fang, who is, for all intents and purposes, a blogger whose only noteworthiness stems from the fact that he made a sensationalist charge and has since provided absolutely no evidence to back it. It should be noted that no other individual or organization has been able to provide even the slightest shred of evidence supporting Fang's claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above commenter claims that blogs aren't reliable sources. I agree, so why have an entry on Fang, who is, for all intents and purposes, a blogger whose only noteworthiness stems from the fact that he made a sensationalist charge and has since provided absolutely no evidence to back it. It should be noted that no other individual or organization has been able to provide even the slightest shred of evidence supporting Fang's claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New York Times Articles
Loonymonkey, I noticed that Starbucksian is temporarily blocked for edit warring over the NYT articles. WP:SYNTH doesn't appear to have been violated in this instance though. This article makes a reference to Fang's claims, and this article contains a direct link to Fang's piece. I'm concerned that reasonable dissent is being silenced to allow for non-NPOV editing. I'd be in favor of limiting edits to minor edits only unless discussed on the talk page first. That being said, I think we should remove the commentary on Rick Santorum being "anti-gay." Tommyboy1215 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's textbook WP:SYNTH. You can't write things like "Smith states that the war is costing $200 Billion a month. According to the NYT, the war costs only $90 Billion." That's what's happening here. You can't present Fang's view and then follow up with an article (that is not about Fang) as "evidence" that Fang is wrong.  A reliable second-party source must draw that conclusion directly about Fang.   Neither of these articles even mention Fang, (one mentions the organization he works for in passing), they're about much more prominent people making inferences and claims that are similar to what Fang said. But there is no biographical value regarding Fang (and one is an op-ed, which we don't use for factual material in a WP:BLP.  This has nothing to do with dissent, it's about the rules of a BLP.  If a reliable secondary discusses Fang, we can consider it here.  If not we can't. As for the Santorum piece, I agree, but probably not for the same reason that you want it out of the article.  It falls under WP:NOTNEWS.  Fang writes a lot of articles, there's no reason to pick any particular one to summarize here, particularly when, again, no secondary sources have mentioned Fang or the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the Factcheck piece was referenced saying that the organization said of Fang "the claim has little basis in fact." Having just read the article again, they clearly are not talking about Fang or his article. The organization he works for is mentioned in passing by way of a timeline, but they are responding to what other other, more notable people have claimed. Others went much farther than Fang did in accusing the Chamber of Commerce and that is what they are responding to. The article takes on three specific claims by Obama, MoveOn and the DNC, none of which have to do with Fang. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct, the article never directly mention Fang. However, as I stated before, they both discuss his work, even linking his story in one piece.  I'm not sure that mentioning different takes on Fang's work is a violation of WP:BLP as many BLP's have a section dedicated to other's views on that person.  I also remain concerned that edits aren't being discussed here before they are added to the page. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, User:Loonymonkey is incorrect. The New York Times directly mentions Fang's article.

The issue of the chamber’s funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline '“Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.”

The piece detailed the chamber’s overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns."

That's Fang's article! It's discussed by Eric Lichtblau, the very same guy who wrote the initial story about Obama making those claims. As for the Fact Check claim, I quote. Emphasis added. The October 5 report is the Lee Fang one, for those at home reading.

The charge that the Chamber of Commerce might be using foreign money to help fund political ads arose in an Oct. 5 report by the left-leaning ThinkProgress, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John Podesta, former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. The allegation has been picked up by the liberal group MoveOn.org Political Action, which calls it "potentially a very serious crime." MoveOn is running a "petition drive" urging an investigation by the Justice Department.

And President Barack Obama himself has echoed the allegation. At a political rally in Maryland on Oct. 7, he said: Obama, Oct. 7: Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from. The ThinkProgress report said that the chamber, through affiliated entities such as the U.S.-Bahrain Business Council, as well as through direct membership, takes in dues from foreign-owned, and in some cases state-owned, corporations that amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Dues are paid into the chamber’s general account, the report says, and the chamber can use them for any purpose. ThinkProgress concluded that the chamber was "likely skirting" the law.

Given that User:Loonymonkey seems to want to remove this and given that it is, as best as I can tell, the most notable instance of his work getting national attention, I think he's dead wrong. The definition of WP:SYNTH] does not apply here. I encourage [[User:Loonymonkey to build WP:consensus and not try to block other editors. I'll draft a paragraph which he can feel free to read and make sure it complies, but it absolutely should go in an article about Lee Fang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, none of that has anything to do with a biographical understanding of Fang. Fang is not Think Progress.  The whole "no basis in fact" thing is about subsequent things said by people other than Fang (Obama, MoveOn, etc.) Trying to tie that to Fang is classic Synthesis. By all means, draft a paragraph (and discuss it here before just adding it back into the article).  But in the absence of new sources specifically relating this to Fang the person, rewording it won't solve the underlying problem. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If NYT didn't include links to Fang's work and direct discussion of it in the pieces, you'd be right. However, Fang is not guilty by association.  He's the writer of the piece that's mentioned.  That being said, I have 2 major problems with the piece:

On October 5, 2010, Fang wrote a story on ThinkProgress.Org stating that the United States Chamber of Commerce funded attack campaigns from its general fund which solicits foreign funding. The article, after consulting with unnamed legal experts, cited that the chamber is "likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections."[5] On October 7, 2010, President Obama said in a speech that "Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations... so groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.”[6] Unline the NYT pieces, the President never makes any connection with Fang or ThinkProgress.org.
 * 1. Here's an actually violation of WP:SYNTH

Tommyboy1215 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. Loonymonkey- In an earlier post you wrote, "Fang writes a lot of articles, there's no reason to pick any particular one to summarize here, particularly when, again, no secondary sources have mentioned Fang or the article."  I agree. Therefore, his piece on Rick Santorum and Peter Haller should be removed.  If Fang is worth having an article on wiki, it most certainly must focus on his most contentious articles, like the Chamber of Commerce.


 * Okay, here goes. I drafted what I think the proper section on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be. Remember, this is the only story that Fang has ever written that got that sort of national attention from The New York Times, Factcheck.org, and the Associated Press.User:Tommyboy1215 and User:Loonymonkey, feel free to critique it. I think it comprehensively answers all of the objections that User:Loonymonkey makes. I agree with User:Tommyboy1215 that this should absolutely be included in his biography.Starbucksian (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody said it shouldn't be mentioned in this article, the issue is that it must adhere to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc. and avoid undue weight. You changed some of the words, but you haven't addressed any of the underlying problems (in some ways you made it worse by introducing new problems).  Tommyboy is correct when he says that the whole bit about Obama is WP:SYNTH. It really has nothing to do with Fang.  That entire NYT piece is responding to charges made by Obama or MoveOn which are more direct than what Fang said. Likewise all the bits describing Think Progress, etc., are irrelevant and have nothing to do with this biography.  The Factcheck quote is still incorrect, they are not saying that about Fang, they're saying it about people who subsequently made more direct claims than Fang did. There is a lot of redundancy in there which is just poor writing (such as starting two paragraphs in a row with "the story attracted attention...." in order to essentially make the same point twice.) Really, the entire thing only needs to be one paragraph.  The gist of it is this: Fang wrote a story, the Chamber of Commerce denied the charges.  Unless you can find secondary sources that tie the rest of it to Fang specifically, it's just so much WP:OR.  It was a good effort, but you can't add all that material back in without addressing the problems.  Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the bit about Obama then. I disagree about the relevancy of the NYT articles to his bio. When NPOV publications reference someone's work, particularly in a controversial situation, it seems important to note in the article. As Starbucksian and I have stated before, the NYT linked Fang's article and even discussed it directly in another piece. These are examples of legit secondary sources that should be addressed in the article. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on an earlier exchange, I believe we agreed that removing summaries of inconsequential articles is ok. That being said, may I remove the piece of Santorum and Haller?

Tommyboy1215 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should remove the Santorum bit. I can't see anywhere that it was picked up and given that I added it, I think you are right. Moving on to the charge about Fang and New York Times now. I suspect that User:Loonymonkey is acting in bad faith so we may need another administrator to come in and chime in, as he seems to be willing to ignore the articles that mention Fang by name or mention Think Progress, even when I spell it out for him up top.Starbucksian (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for the drama. The new edits, actually go pretty far towards addressing the WP:BLP issues. The essential point is that the Lichtblau article is not just referring to Fang's article in his conclusion, but also to the much more direct charges made by others, but that all of that resulted from Fang's article, and that ultimately he doesn't see any evidence to support it. Last night I was trying to think of a way to make that point without once again delving into WP:SYNTH or making it all about Fang. I think the new language is pretty close. There are a couple of small outstanding issues. The first is that the Center for Competitive Politics is not a WP:RS and, like all opinion sources, can't be used to state factual claims in a WP:BLP so that bit will have to go (and it's basically just saying the same thing as the Times piece anyway). Also, referring to an editorial carried by AP as "AP said..." isn't allowed (and it's not really necessary in there either. The section header is not-neutral as no reliable source has mentioned any sort of "controversy" involving Fang, so it would be editorializing to call it that ourselves. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections are generally frowned on anyway, as they often become coat racks and it is recommended that they only be used when absolutely necessary and when commonly referred to that way in reliable sources.  Other than that, there's just some clean-up in the writing needed, a few redundant bits (MoveOn is mentioned twice in two different paragraphs) and a couple minor WP:WTA issues.  I would say we're pretty close to consensus. And yes, the Santorum and Haller bits should go. There isn't any reason for us to repeat Fang's attack on Santorum if it isn't some larger issue cited by reliable sources.  Leaving it would introduce additional BLP issues against Santorum. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, also, it looks like the references section got duplicated and destroyed (the article links are broken). We should repair that.--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With the removal of Santorum and Haller, the Political Coverage page is about the Chamber. Should we give it a title reflecting that? Tommyboy1215 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might make sense. I would caution to make it as neutral as possible and let the facts speak for themselves.  We should probably avoid slanting in the one direction with "controversy" or in the other direction with "reporting."  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "Chamber of Commerce Article" or something along those lines. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Telecom Accusation
In 2010, Fang claimed to discover a powerpoint presentation authored by different telecoms that opposed net neutrality. He used this piece of evidence to expose these companies for undermining efforts to impose neutrality. However, closer examination reveals that the presentation was designed by students for a competition. Seems important. I've included the link below.Baconian-Kevin (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004758-38.html
 * See comment below. Blog posts aren't acceptable reliable sources to be used in a biography of a living person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party
This fellow's reporting is questionable. Here is yet another piece criticizing Fang for drawing false conclusions from shaky evidence. At this point, the article needs to group these criticisms under a "Controversies" section. There are simply too many questionable articles to continue giving them their own section.Baconian-Kevin (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blog posts and opinion pieces aren't used as sources in biographies of living people, so much better sources would have to be found before it could even be discussed. As for "Controversies" sections, they are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia, particularly in biographies.  They almost always just become coat racks of opinion.  It is much better to weave any such controversies into the body of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

criticism section
Hey i stumbled upon this and saw there has some debate over his style/topic of writing. I think we should add in a criticism section that elaborates on this subject. It is his career, and other controversial journalists and 'public figures' have criticism sections, such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I have attached a proposition for the initial content, i thought id post it here before adding to the article.

Critics, however, have labeled Fang a partisan “attack dog” and accused him of making errors and of engaging in personal smears. In May 2010, Fang wrote a piece on major players in the telecom industry opposing net neutrality, saying that this was revealed by a PowerPoint that they had obtained. A response by CNET made note that the PowerPoint was, in fact, created by students for a project and Florida, and cost them 173.95.

Fang wrote a piece criticizing organizations accepting secret donations. This piece received negative feedback because ThinkProgress, Fang’s employer at the time, also receives secret donations.

Fang left CAP in 2012 to join UnitedRepublic, a new progressive advocacy outlet focused on fighting “the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.”

I would appreciate some feedback on this before adding it. I also found this article with similar content, I think it could be added to the section, its from the Daily caller and could qualify as rs. thanksTallMountains (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Daily Caller is not in any way a WP:RS. It's just one of many highly partisan blogs (really, an attack blog).  I'm not sure that some of the other bits are particularly relevant or well-sourced, either.  They're either opinion pieces or articles about Think Progress, not Fang in particular.  The part about him leaving CAP to join UnitedRepublic should definitely be mentioned though, it's a significant biographical detail.  As a side note, I don't think there's any way you could call Fang a "public figure" in the way that high-profile media figures like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are.  He's a fairly obscure journalist (and, of course, it's questionable whether that sort of writing is even journalism...see my description of Daily Caller above). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Where on Wikipedia does is the official statement that The Daily Caller is not reliable? Lookingthrough the history of this page, it looks like several editors have attemptedto add information about Fang using multiple sources, but if it had any criticism of Fang or mentioned controversies he was involved in, you removed all of it.  With multiple editors adding this info, doesn’t that show that there is consensus?

And you keep citing WP:RS and saying that ‘blogs’ aren’t allowed as reliable sources on biographies, but in the page with the policieson biographies it says “Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” Based on that, you shouldn’t be claiming that ‘no blogs are allowed’ or ‘Daily Caller is not in any way a reliable source’.

I understand your concern about not having a criticism section, but there is enough info from acceptable sources and enough consensus to add some of the information into the article, as long as we do it in a neutral way as was mentioned earlier on this page. The info about the Chamber of Commerce article uses Politico as its source. That should be added back in using “Chamberof Commerce Article” as the title (which was agreed on by you and other editors on this page). I’m going to work on writing a first draft of a few more things to add. Have a good day TallMountains (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Daily Caller does not qualify as a reliable source. From the policy you just quoted, it clearly fails as it is not published by a news organization and it is not subject to a "newspaper's full editorial control." As stated, it's just one of the hundreds of partisan attack blogs on the right or left of the political spectrum.  It could never be used as a source for factual material in a biography.  If you disagree, feel free to bring it up at the RS noticeboard, but they'll tell you the same thing.  Also, the rules for WP:BLP's are very strict and one of those is that opinion articles are reliable sources only for the opinions of their authors.
 * As for the Chamber of Commerce bit, you're right. There was an agreement hammered out over the language of that through extensive discussion (and one eventually banned editor, you can probably guess which one by reading the comments above).  Somewhere along the line, the section was removed against consensus and it went unnoticed. The stuff that another editor was trying to add recently had serious WP:NPOV problems which is why it was reverted.  When I get a chance I'll try to go through the history and figure out what the last consensus version of that section was and restore it (although I think it was agreed that it didn't need its own section).   --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that has been indefinitely blocked as the sock of a paid editor abusing multiple accounts. WilliamH (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone paid for that? I hope they kept the receipt! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of re-addition of Chamber of Commerce article section
I looked through the edit history and found this version of the page that included the section about the Chamber of Commerce article that LoonyMonkey and TommyBoy worked on. They both discussed this and on August 23rd LoonyMonkey said that it goes “pretty far towards addressing the WP:BLP issues” and "we're pretty close to consensus." He then mentioned a few things that needed to be fixed and then fixed those things, resulting in the version of the page that I just linked. This version page with the section on the Chamber of Commerce article stayed in place until mid-January. LoonyMonkey discussed it, adjusted it, and did not remove it for that period of time, showing that he consented to its inclusion in the article.

It was removed in January by J.R. Hercules who was in no way involved in any of the talk page discussions or edit history. He did not post (or likely read) anything on the talk page. So he removed the section, which was created through consensus, and he had no consensus for the removal. When I added that section back to the article, which had consensus from LoonyMonkey and others at the time, LoonyMonkey removed it saying that there was no consensus for it. In the post right above this, LoonyMonkey said there was a version with consensus a while ago that was removed and he would "try to go through the history and figure out what the last consensus version of that section was and restore it." He must not have gotten a chance to do this so I did, and he removed it. So I am adding it back in since I have proven here that it was the 'last consensus version'. RichardMills65 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what the problem was, there were a couple issues. In the previous version, it was arranged with a different section structure (the Chamber of Commerce bit was not its own section but under "Political coverage") but as that section was winnowed we discussed breaking it out.  I'm not sure now if the whole biography should just be in two sections with everything else under "Early life and career," that seems to give undue weight to this one thing. We should look at reorganizing it with the content we currently have, but it's a pretty thin article so there's not a lot of options.  Also, when you added the Chamber of Commerce back in, you left the paragraphs on that subject that were already there in the section above creating duplicate paragraphs (see directly above the section header in your edit).  I've fixed those minor things.  Apologies for my edit summary, I mistakenly thought you were adding back in the contentious version, not the consensus version.  Thanks for taking the time to unravel this.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article about the Chamber of Commerce seems to have been a defining episode in Fang's professional career, I think it is important to contrast Fang's opinions with what some reputable and reliable sources published in that respect.--Ianonne89 (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Politico Article
A Politico article, originally added to this article in October 2012, has been removed from the page. A user says the Politico article violates WP:BLP, and that the addition was made recently, so that's a reason to remove it now. First, the question of when an addition was made doesn't help us determine whether an addition is appropriate for inclusion--not to mention that October 2012 is not that "recently," after all. Second, how does this Politico article violate WP:BLP? That's a serious charge. Politico is a well-respected source. Could you demonstrate why you think including the Politico article violates WP:BLP? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that a single opinion piece was being used to inject paragraph after paragraph of criticism into a WP:BLP which is clearly undue weight and is the very definition of WP:COATRACK. You should understand this well, as you've argued the exact same point on the biographies of conservative figures (although you seem to be taking the opposite position in this article).  Nearly doubling the size of this article with quotes from an opinion piece, simply for the purpose of injecting criticism, is a clear violation of WP:BLP.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree the Politico article was given undue weight, as it is only one source. But you removed it all together, without explaining why you thought it was problematic. I restored the Politico article as a source, without restoring the two full paragraphs that were sourced exclusively to the Politico article. Do you not find it to be a reliable source? Safehaven86 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to have your refs confused. The Politico article that you restored has nothing to do with the subject of that paragraph (it's about the Chamber of Commerce, not Contango, and in fact predates the article you're claiming it criticizes). I'm going to remove it again, you can find another ref to discuss but please don't just add it back again without discussion.   As for the lede, In the first sentence, we briefly describe a person for their accomplishments, as noted in the the article.  Starting the lede with simply "...is a liberal writer" seems more pejorative than anything, and designed only to "warn" readers of the perceived slant of the subject.  That's not what we do in BLP's.  Let the reader decide, you don't need to try to make up their mind for them in the first sentence. We can summarize his political leanings in another way, though later on.  Maybe a sentence about "He writes for progressive and left-leaning publicantions...."  I'll tweak it.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Politico article that you removed features this information relating to Fang's Contango reporting:

"Take ThinkProgress blogger Lee Fang’s efforts to portray the political activities of the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch as motivated by a desire to boost their profits - an argument even some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature.

Nonetheless, Fang’s relentless chronicling of the Koch brothers have made him something of a star on the left and have helped make the brothers into bogeymen for Democrats decrying the influence of undisclosed big money in politics. In a January press conference call promoting a panel to be held outside a summit of big conservative donors hosted by Koch Industries, Fang explained the worldview undergirding his blog posts.

Rejecting a question from POLITICO about why CAP declined to reveal its donors while calling out the Kochs for not disclosing their donations, he said “It’s fundamentally different when you have wealthy individuals that want to donate to a worthy cause, and the Koch brothers and some of their cohorts that are funding groups that are essentially just advancing their self interests and their lobbying interests.”

Fang further charged that POLITICO doesn’t “reveal all of its advertisers and all the money it receives from corporations.” And he has kept up the attack on his Twitter feed, criticizing POLITICO for not writing that his side of political debates is morally right and suggesting that it would do so, “if Politico had socioeconomic diversity on staff.”

Back in Washington after the panel and a subsequent protest outside the resort that hosted the Koch conference, Fang attended a meeting with representatives from Common Cause, Greenpeace, Public Citizen and the Service Employees International Union at SEIU headquarters to figure out how to make the most of the sudden focus on the Kochs. Meeting participants have continued to trade research about the Kochs and strategize via a Koch-related email listserv and a rolling series of conference calls.

Shakir defended ThinkProgress’s journalistic independence and integrity, as well as Fang’s participation in the left’s discussions about targeting the Kochs."

Regarding the lede, you removed these two sources because you said they didn't support the claim that Fang is a liberal writer:
 * New York Times: "The liberal writer Lee Fang got a taste when he wrote an article for The Nation linking work that Orion has done for Taiwan to articles in The Free Beacon voicing criticism of the Obama administration for blocking a sale to Taiwan of F-16 jets. "
 * Salon: "The Nation‘s Lee Fang became the first progressive writer I know of to defend these state actions against the restaurant chain."

It's not pejorative to describe Fang (or anyone else) as liberal. In Fang's case, it's simply a reflection of what a variety of reliable sources have said about the topic. The discussion about Fang in Politico represents some of the most in-depth, high-level coverage Fang has received. In an article that's been nominated for deletion several times, the six paragraphs devoted to him in a Politico article certainly point to his notability, and warrant inclusion in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, that article has nothing to do with the section in question, Fang's Contango story. It came before Fang published the story, so obviously it's not in response to it. There isn't anything particularly notable or biographical about Fang in that article and it's hard to see what CAP's funding has to do with Fang's biography (he does not run, nor is he synonymous with that organization, you know). Cherry-picking all of the quotes in the article that are critical of him (while omitting the quotes which defend him) serves no purpose other than to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK of criticism.  As I've noted above, you yourself have argued this exact same point on the articles of conservatives figures.  So it's very odd that you're taking the 180° opposite position here.


 * "Establishing notability" isn't a valid reason for including something in a biography and notability isn't an issue with this article anyway. Yes, the article was nominated for deletion (tendentiously in at least one case, which came a mere week after a previous nomination was closed).  The consensus was "keep."  The issue is closed and the subject is notable.  But WP:BLP will always be an issue and this article is not the place to make a political point.


 * As for the opening sentence, "Lee Fang is a liberal writer." (period) is just terrible wikipedia writing style. In correct Wikipedia format, we should say "Lee Fang is an American Writer and....yadda yadda (describe accomplishments)" I'm not saying there isn't room for a discussion of his ideology, but that's not the sum-total of his notability as you seem to be implying with that first sentence.  As for the word itself, surely you recognize that "liberal" is a loaded term in the United States.  Since he self-identifies as "progressive" (and we tend to use self-identification first and foremost) at the very least we should use that term when describing his work.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't "Cherry-pick all of the quotes in the article that are critical of him (while omitting the quotes which defend him)." If you read the article, you can see I posted the entirety of the section regarding Fang. How that is "cherrypicking" is beyond me. What I posted, which again, is the entirety of the article's text regarding Fang, actually does include a quote which defends him ("Shakir defended ThinkProgress’s journalistic independence and integrity, as well as Fang’s participation in the left’s discussions about targeting the Kochs.") I also never claimed that he runs or is synonymous with CAP. It's standard practice to describe a journalist's political views in the article lede. See Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly for good examples of that. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm implying the "sum total of his notability is that he's a liberal writer." You say he self-identifies as progressive, but I don't see any sources for that. The sources we have describe him as both liberal and progressive. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lee Fang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131021195049/http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8B8E1D74-C6A7-4CA7-A9C4-60103E217BA7 to http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8B8E1D74-C6A7-4CA7-A9C4-60103E217BA7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced contentions
I deleted the last half of a sentence regarding Fang's reporting for which the cited source did not provide any actual basis. There was a clearly unusable synthesis that cited a source that had nothing to do with Fang. Activist (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

To add to article
Basic information to add to this article: Fang's family background and ethnic heritage. Did his ancestors come from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)