Talk:Mark Levin/Archive 6

POV section dispute
The addition of a second POV tag is mis-applied and I have amended it to reflect a section dispute. However, as Gamaliel has applied a POV tag to the entire article, application of a "POV-section" tag is redundant and, perhaps, should be removed. Agree? Disagree? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd pointed it out last week I believe. Malvenue (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's been over 3 months with no further comments appended, I am removing the section dispute tag from the article. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation (cont'd)
Moving discussion into what appears to be a continuation of Talk:Mark Levin. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole article and discussion has become a mess. I do not consider myself to be a BLP expert, but I cannot see how any fair, rational, and sober reading of policy can lead to anything like this. Now do I take it that we are debating what part of the article to debate? Can we please end this and just get some mediation? Ericsean (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I twice proposed compromise language that kept the spirit of both the criticism and rebuttal but it has gone ignored by the anti-Levin editors. Some seem to only want to insert biased criticism with no context and will brook no dissent. Malvenue (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article currently reflects your ridiculously unbalanced pro-Levin proposal. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually most of the article is (now) neutrally voiced in accordance with WP:BLP. You shouldn't read articles through your rose-colored editorial glasses. Secondly the introduction of the biased criticism is simply vandalism of a neutrally voiced article about a subject whom you and your co-conspirators simply dislike. Again, leave your editorial feelings at home. My compromise was deliberately crafted in the netural voice and preserves both your criticism and the context for said criticism in the subject's view. Frankly I don't see how anyone can strongly reject it out of hand as you and your buddies have done without exercising bad faith editorializing. Malvenue (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any Wikipedia article should feature the non-notable weblog posts of a borderline radio host. That is the good faith explanation for my opposition your edits. It is unfortunate that you have lost the ability to discuss this topic without engaging in personal attacks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not made any personal attacks upon you and in fact my comments pale in comparison to the viciousness with which you and others have attacked me[][] and anyone else who disagrees with you here. You are entitled to your opinion but your own comments referring to the subject as a "borderline radio host" (amongst others) merely proves my point about your motivation. Malvenue (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest. You can't claim you are trying to find a compromise when you are angrily derailing discussions like this.  If you actually addressed the responses to your proposals, we might get somewhere.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you make assumptions rather than WP:AGF. I haven't "angrily addressed" anything as I am anything BUT angry. I made several compromise suggestions, every one of which was dismissed out of hand. Where's YOUR compromise? Where's YOUR suggestions to improving MY compromise? There isn't one because you obviously have no interest in reaching consensus. After 3 weeks of discussing this and getting absolutely nowhere with any kind of progress from you and your buddies it's become pretty obvious to me you are not editing in good faith, and when I say so suddenly I'm the one making the personal attacks when I've been the one under constant verbal assault for that period of time. Malvenue (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whine, whine, whine. The facts remain that I have conceded to nearly every compromise on this page, I have even conceded to your interpretation of BLP (one soundly rejected by everyone not on this page and most of the editors on this page, mind you) and went to find sources that met the Malvenue rules.  Then you rejected those sources and added anti-Frum material that did not even meet your special rules and won't even provide a straight answer as to why you think this double standard is acceptable.  You claim I am not interested in compromise, but I've been trying to compromise and I can't even find out what the compromise is from you!  This is truly Kafkaesque.  Look, if you really want to compromise, either 1) propose a compromise that does not have a blatant double standard or 2) propose a standard that applies equally to both anti-Frum and anti-Levin material.  You haven't done either. Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it slipped your mind, even though you've referenced it by rejecting it out of hand. I even boldfaced it for you above. [] Maybe you missed it while writing your latest personal attack? --Malvenue (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note 1) above. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there is double standard in how the sourcing rules advocated by you are applied in your preferred version and in the version currently in the article.  You must address this before you can honestly claim you are offering any sort of compromise. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop dodging the issue. There is no double standard, therefore there is nothing to address. You simply want the criticism to stand unchallenged. --Malvenue (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I want is for you to stop lying and apply a consistent standard to both Levin and Frum. There are blogs and partisan publications sourced in the anti-Frum material, while there are - as per the Malvenue rules - neutral third party news publications that source the anti-Levin material. How is this not a blatant double standard? Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're accusing ME of picking biased sources and publications? That's rich. In all seriousness you should make a suggestion to work on my proposed neutrally-voiced compromise. You're an administrator. I'm sure you were familiar with WP:BRD and WP:CIV sometime in the past. --Malvenue (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. You are, after all, the editor who just added Newsbusters as a source to this article, a source which is universally rejected on Wikipedia.  This is exactly the double standard I'm talking about, and the double standard you are so desperately fearful of addressing that you must attack and accuse whenever it is brought up.  But since you asked, this is my suggestion for a compromise: accept your special Malvenue rules for sources and apply them to the entire article, including the anti-Frum material.  This means, of course, you get your extra hurdles before anyone can sully the great name of Levin, and we get the material that does not comply with WP policy removed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "This means, of course, you get your extra hurdles before anyone can sully the great name of Levin, and we get the material that does not comply with WP policy removed."


 * Thank you for admitting your edits are not in good faith. It's obvious you cannot separate yourself emotionally on this subject and as such you cannot edit in a neutral voice. All your actions have detracted from the neutral voice of the article, you have made no attempts to reach consensus at all and until you do your edits should be removed. --Malvenue (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't even begin to understand how you connect A to B here. I've made every attempt to reach a consensus here.  I've done everything but beg, I've basically said above - tell me what the rules are and I will abide by them.  The only thing I ever demanded was a consistent standard, and for that I get attacks and contempt, because you are completely unwilling to abide by any standard.  Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are, after all, the editor who just added Newsbusters as a source to this article, a source which is universally rejected on Wikipedia.


 * Whoah! And Media Matters? Are they also "universally rejected" on Wikipedia? Seriously, this is news to me. Would you please provide a link to an authoritative Wikipedia pronouncement in that regard? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't provide one, all I can say is that in five years I've never seen it once accepted by editors and always seen it rejected as usable for WP. There's a strong consensus on this among WP editors.  Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And Media Matters? The "consensus" is? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinions are mixed. Some believe it shouldn't be used at all, others believe it is an acceptable source for citing criticism but not factual information about an individual. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...quite interesting. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a seven year old could look at this article and see that it is unbalanced. You can discuss the minutia all you want or you can "intellectualize" until you fingers cramp from the effort, but this article is UNBALANCED in its quotes. Mugginsx (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it unbalanced towards Truth, or is it unbalanced towards Error? Honestly, I don't understand UNBALANCED. Liberal vs Conservative?  Fan vs Distractor? (I'm trying to learn. Thanks in advance for explaining.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In rereading the paragraph in the Article on "criticism of the Levin show" I see seven footnotes for Critics, and five footnotes of Levin responding. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Brooks
On the whole, this article seems FAIRLY well balanced to me. However, there is one comment that seems clearly counter to Wiki NPOV, and that is the reference by David Brooks that Levin is "one of a number of 'people that I consider loons and harmful to America.'" On the level of simple justice, I thought, 'fair enough, Levin is one of the most prolific name callers around; why not stick him with a little of his own medicine?' But two wrongs do not make a right. And WP:NPOV states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves." Here, Brooks has stated his opinion, but does not provide any justification for it. The other criticisms here (both against Levin, and Levin's criticism of his critics) have some rationale and reason to them, but this is simple name-calling. Further point: We do not allow name-calling between Wiki editors, why allow it in the even more sensitive area of an article in the public domain, especially a BLP??--Early morning person (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Each of your points are flawed.
 * On the level of simple justice, I thought, 'fair enough, Levin is one of the most prolific name callers around; why not stick him with a little of his own medicine?' But two wrongs do not make a right.
 * The Brooks statement is not in the article to one-up Levin's name-calling. It is in the article because Brooks is well-known and his opinion of Levin is notable and well-sourced.
 * And WP:NPOV states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves." 
 * The article neutrally and accurately reporting the Brooks statement falls under the category of "Assert[ing]...facts about opinions"
 * Here, Brooks has stated his opinion, but does not provide any justification for it. The other criticisms here (both against Levin, and Levin's criticism of his critics) have some rationale and reason to them, but this is simple name-calling.
 * Brook's opinion is not included in the article due to any alleged logical coherency or accuracy, but because his opinion is notable and well-sourced.
 * Further point: We do not allow name-calling between Wiki editors, why allow it in the even more sensitive area of an article in the public domain, especially a BLP??
 * There is no requirement that Wikipedia cannot report on incivility. We report on massacres and pogroms, after all. I am replacing the text which you removed. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your logic, Goethan. Re-reading WP:NPOV, it seems that while it is not OK for editors themselves to assert opinions, it IS OK for editors to cite the opinions of others if they are properly sourced and notable. However, I feel that Brooks statement, on its own, without any justification, lowers the standard of discourse of the article--no lower, to be sure, than a typical Levin radio show, profuse with name-calling, but that is beside the point.--Early morning person (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to mention feuds between writers, provided they are notable and also reasoned comments about Levin. But the exchange of comments has not received wide coverage and is sourced directly to comments made by Brooks and Levin.  The comments lack the degree of detail to make them worth including.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair. The Brooks-Levin exchange should be cited to a 3rd party source. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering how any of this criticism is noteworthy. You can argue that Brooks and Frum are noteworthy people until you're blue in the face, but it fails to address the question, "Is their criticism noteworthy?"  Did it ever make actual news?  Or was the criticism contained entirely within the opinion articles form the authors themselves?  One pundit criticizing another is par for the course, not something fresh or groundbreaking that we need to document every instance for the ages.  If our standard for inclusion is, "someone somewhat noteworthy said something to criticize someone else somewhat noteworthy," wikipedia is going to begin to really, really suck as it will be bogged down in irrelevant opinions.
 * The standard should be, "was it noteworthy enough to be reported in a reliable news (not opinion) feature?" Or do we catalog every opinion from every op-ed, Meet the Press, and other opinion outlets and archive them for future generations? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism from the left(and additional McKinnon quotes)
This article has a paragraph on criticism from the right and should also have one on criticism from the left. Levin directs his fire at the left, so it is natural that there should the article should include criticism of him from them. Dana Goldstein is a journalist who writes for both liberal publications as well as more balanced ones. Her criticism is found at the website of a magazine, The American Prospect, and thus is a reliable source. The edit from Goldstein reflects that she made the criticism rather than the edit making it itself. I also included additional comments of Mark McKinnon from another reliable source, The Daily Beast, again portrayed as his comments. Biographies should include criticism of the subject, as long as the criticism appears in reliable sources.--Drrll (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am so happy you brought this concern here. This page has been subject to endless edit warring, so it's a pleasure to discuss the tough issues here instead of the alternative.


 * Now, here's why your suggested edits are POV. Yes, the sources really said what you said they said.  Yes, they may be considered reliable sources.  The problem is your selection of what portion of what to quote is POV.  Selecting that ML attacks women leaves out that he equally attacks men.  It gives the impressions that ML is a woman hater.  That may violate WP:BLP standards, but it also is POV in that it promotes your POV that he is a woman hater.


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source for information. To that end, it has rules to keeping people from inserting POV.  That does not mean you cannot tell the world that you believe ML is a woman hater.  Go ahead, do it all you want, but you cannot use Wikipedia as your soapbox for that purpose.


 * Besides, take almost any subject and you can find some RS who has said something that, taken out of context, casts the subject in a negative light or is just plain too petty for inclusion on Wikipedia. This ML page has been though long bouts of people using this page to do just that.  Allowing comments about how ML supposedly hates women is just a continuation of the use of this page to smear ML.  It violates BLP and NPOV, among other things I'll bet.


 * So while your proposed inclusions may be from reliable sources, that still does not necessarily make them appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia in the manner in which you propose. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the summary of her argument accurateley represents the import of what the author was trying to get across about Levin. The article really does need criticism of him by those politically opposed to him, not just from those who generally agree with him.  Just like his response to conservative critics is given in the article, so can his response to liberal critics like Goldstein be given.  In addition, you could suggest ways to change the wording to make even clearer that it is her opinion.--Drrll (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is pretty ridiculous that this article allows (most grudgingly, of course) right wing criticism of Levin, but has excised all left wing criticism. Levin spends most of his time attacking liberals, but if you read this article, you'd think liberals have nothing to say about it at all.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, you know I am interested in following Wiki policy. Adding a statement that ML makes fun of female body shapes ignores that he makes fun of male body shapes.  Jim Melonhead Webb, anyone?  And we have a section that gives such names.  Besides being duplicative, it's so darn petty.  You could say any silly little thing about anyone.  Does the Gore page talk about his getting lost in the woods when he went in a short distance to pee?  No.  Does it talk about Gore not recognizing the busts of early American presidents in Monticello?  No. Not encyclopedic.  Neither is what Drrll was trying to add.  What he was trying to add is silly.  Yes, the article needs to be written well, but his edits cannot be described as encyclopedic. Gamaliel, if you have trouble keeping edits on the page that are Wikiworthy, please let me know, I will try to help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's so un-encyclopedic about this edit. He was noting criticism from the left, which is completely unrepresented in this article despite the fact that I doubt anyone would contest that that's where the majority of criticism of him comes from.  Perhaps you know of some similar criticism that you would deem more worthy of inclusion? Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I do not, but you can see my pattern of editing here is not the kind that does the research then includes it. I simply do not have the time nor the interest in performing research on matters relating to ML.  But I can see when someone, especially a newbie, decides to use Wikipedia as a means to smear people.


 * I see Drrll reverted the stuff without waiting for consensus. That is very bad form and I'll go revert it now, this time on the basis of Drrll violation of Wiki expectations. Recall I was "so happy" he brought his concern here instead of edit warring it.  Well that was a prescient--the guy has now decided to start edit warring it.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, he's always like this. But this time he's right, it's absurd for the article not to contain any criticism from the left.  This has nothing to do with smearing people.  It's also equally absurd to conclude that a dedicated conservative apparatchik like Drrll is interested in smearing Levin. Gamaliel (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Being "always like this" does not make it right. Yes, I'll agree he is right on the general point of balance.  But the particular material he choose to add is the problem.  We are attempting to produce a quality product that adheres to Wiki policy.  What he added was not quality and was not Wiki compliant. His being a "dedicated conservative apparatchik" makes little difference.  It would be better if he was a dedicated Wikipedia apparatchik.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is being suggested be added for "balance" is this: "Levin has been criticized by many on the left, such as journalist Dana Goldstein,[8] who accused him of sexism for derogatory remarks that he has made about the appearance of female politicians and members of organizations he disagrees with."
 * So what? He makes comments "about the appearance of [male] politicians" as well.  So adding that he mocks females only gives the obviously POV slant Wikipedia seeks to avoid. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it back after you stopped the conversation with me. I suggested that you could reword the section (such as including sourced information that he mocks the appearance of males) or include a rebuttal from Levin.  As to being a "conservative apparatchik", Gamaliel would qualify as being a "liberal apparatchik" at least as much as I would be considered as such.  As to adding alternative crticism from the left instead of the "sexist" material, few would be more capable of finding reliable sources than Gamaliel.--Drrll (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, it is hard to tell if one has "stopped talking." I never assume that.  People have personal lives and may not answer immediately -- sometimes it may take days.


 * Regarding "including sourced information that he mocks the appearance of males," do you not see how this is not encyclopedic? It sounds like kindergarten. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair point about having "stopped talking", although you had responded to Gamaliel a couple of times in the interim.


 * No, the conservative criticism section is followed by a rebuttal, so it would be natural that criticism from the left would be followed by a rebuttal/qualification. BTW, the article as is is really too much of a fan page for WP.--Drrll (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, but anything added should be encyclopedic, not just balance as if balance was the only concern. I am 100% certain we can find better criticism of ML that is not about the shapes of people's bodies. The whole idea is silly. I am not trying to stop you from adding anything you wish, but I am allowed to point out what is being added may not be encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[OD]The question I have about this it what makes it notable. Just saying that she was critical of him doesn't add anything to the article. Lots of people are critical about lots of people. Is this particular issue somehow notable? If it were then there should be a lot of reliable sources talking about this specific incident. By itself I don't see how this is a notable crticism of ML, if it were I am sure you could find several different ones that say basically the same thing. And if the only purpose of the addition is to add criticism because "it needs to be balanced" then you have the wrong attitude. The purpose of WP is not to be a tabloid of people. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I second what Arzel just said. If the criticisms of Levin don't escape the opinion websites, blogs, and opinion talkshows, then they are not noteworthy.  Nor is praise of Levin, in the form of individual opinion.  For opinion to rise to the level of noteworthy, it should be discussed in mainstream, non-opinion news.  We don't see the hundreds of personal opinions Levin has for other people polluting their wiki bios, nor should we.  Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This argument is probably longer than the article :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.136.77 (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Nicknames
It's a bit long...a one line mention of oft used examples might better suit the page.

If the lengthy list is to remain, I would suggest removing the nicknames he has for deceased people. Unless we have proof Levin is using these nicknames to mock people who are no longer alive, we shouldn't suggest he does by keeping them in the list. I haven't listened to Levin over the past year, but I do seem to remember not hearing "Mr. Potato Head Tim Russert" after Russert passed away. The point that Levin has pet names for politicians and pundits can be adequately made with the current exhaustive list...taking a few names off won't diminish the point, and will show a bit of respect for the dead.

So, where do people stand here? I'm going to go ahead and remove the dead people from the list, just as a matter of taste and tact. If you want to keep them in, please discuss here first. Also, chime in on if we need so many damn nicknames. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea, I concur with your removals. Since there appears to be no source (and perhaps no real point) perhaps we should remove the list entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove all references to people per WP:BLP. No purpose other than to denigrate the subjects.  No sourcing to indicate they are notable in their own right.  Maybe leave a couple of the non-people nicknames as examples.  Arzel (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether the list stays or goes, but BLP has no relevance to the issue, and invoking it is simply lazy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list should be replaced with a line with examples. Better yet, reference a separate article similar to that of Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show.  The list makes the main article more of a fan page than a WP article.--Drrll (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What really needs to happen here, is that we make individual pages for Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, and his three books. Anyone willing to do the footwork? 24.12.244.13 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New section
A valid rebuttal section is needed to the many slanderous things Levin has said99.13.118.232 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, so sorry. This is Wikipedia.  We work together to produce encyclopedic content.  But I wouldn't want to get in the way of your WP:SOAPBOX.  So please feel free to say what you like, just do so somewhere other than Wikipedia.  A personal blog might be an excellent place.  On a personal blog, you can say he made slanderous statements.  On Wikipedia, we would need WP:RS for that, else we risk adding WP:OR.


 * Now don't be discouraged by what I said that you cannot add that content here. You can, it just has to be Wiki compliant or others will continue to remove it.  Sometimes things get so bad WP:BLP becomes a concern.  I look forward to your contributions and hope they will improve this Wiki page.


 * Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Levin guest list?
I have removed the Levin Show "guest list" as both unnecessary and now bloated. Is there some purpose to this "listing" other than somehow further documenting his "conservative" viewpoint by association? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The list had grown far too long and was just looking plain silly. I can see why you deleted it.  But the list I had initially created was much smaller, and was limited to guests who  have appeared multiple times, and who could be heard during promo spots for Levin's show.  I say we should re-add the smaller list we had, as it helps describe what Levin's show is like.  I say we narrow the list to his most frequent guests like Curtis Swilia, Fred Thompson, Jackie Mason, Clint Walker, Jon Voight, maybe one or two more.


 * What about including a single sentence that includes a half dozen frequent guests, and also mentions two or three people who frequently substitute for Levin when he's out of the studio? It would be succinct, and reveal much about the show. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't see the point other than filler. He's a conservative talk-show host and, quite logically and understandably, generally entertains conservative guests who share his point of view. (While I'm not a listener, I'd bet, on occasion, he's hosted those with opposition viewpoints as well). Beyond that, what purpose does a guest-list serve? Perhaps you can help me here. Can you discuss the provision of a single guest name of your choice that would somehow impact or color what a reader might glean from this article? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A small list of notable guests is welcome and gives flavor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Flavor? Whatever, but I'd suggest a dash of WP:V is generally all the "flavor" an article requires. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering there are many schools of thought of conservatism, and people can express varying degrees of conservatism, a sampling of his preferred guests does give more background information on Levin's show, and his views. For instance, it says something that Levin doesn't regularly have David Frum or Michael Medved or Michael Savage, but instead has people like Thompson, Mason, Cheney, etc.


 * I'm suggesting succinct, non-contested, non-controversial facts that help describe Levin's show in a little more detail. I only wish to include a small handful of names from the entertainment, media, and political industries, and who have been regular guests.


 * Then again, our best bet is still to create pages for Mark Levin, his show, and his books. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a huge deal and, frankly, I'm almost ambivalent save for one consideration. This strikes me as flirting with WP:OR in order to make some statement about Levin's brand of conservatism.  As I understand WP:Undue, a point not made by reliable sourcing is a point not to be included within an article.  If your purpose is to somehow better define Levin and that point is worth making, surely there should be some sourcing supporting your enhanced or more nuanced perspective? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If the guest list is accurate leave it alone.Newsandman (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Salon References
I don't think Salon, as a strictly partisan and online only website meets the criteria to be cited as a source for analysis/opinion. It certainly isn't a scholarly reference work. There are plenty of conservative blogs that render positive reviews of Levin's program, but I don't think we need list them either. I'm going to remove the salon references, therefore. Those wishing to include negative critics of Levin's book are encouraged to find established literary sources - not website (which are specifically discouraged by WP guidelines). Regards ~KC
 * I believe that Salon, while largely ideological and online-only does qualify as a reliable source. WP does not distinguish between online and non-online sources. Drrll (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure who the KC person was, theres no signature but Salon is completely a biased online publication which would be like using the website WND.com for references regarding Obamas birth certificate. I don't disagree with WND and people probably don't disagree with Salon however the references you will find on both websites is strictly in one mostly-political direction.Woods01 (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It may not qualify as a source for reporting facts in a WP article, but it does for reporting the opinions of its authors. Drrll (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The true question is...Is the opinion noteworthy enough to justify inclusion? Is the opinion of a partisan who isn't a book critic by vocation relevant?  This goes for the positive as well as the negative reviews of Levin's books.


 * For instance, wiki pages on films typically site more reliable indicators of quality, such as ticket sales, sites that chronicle mass opinion, and professional movie critics. I maintain that it's a foregone conclusion people on the left would speak ill of Levin's works, and people on the right would speak positively.  Documenting such insignificant inevitabilities is simply not worthy of an encyclopedia. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the relevant question. He also does review books for the LA Times and The Boston Globe, so I would lean toward saying that his opinion is noteworthy enough, but I'm not totally convinced that it is. Drrll (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My bad. I didn't know he did reviews.  Even still, he's technically an author by trade, not a book critic.  I just don't think his opinion on books is particularly noteworthy.


 * And to bolster my case, the article cited which contains his comments doesn't focus on Levin specifically. Rather, it serves as a catch-all to criticize any "newcomer" conservative author (and he gets the "newcomer" claim wrong on multiple counts) who was popular at the time of his writing the column.  I'd rather find a review from a professional critic who had the primary motivation of reviewing only Levin's book, as opposed to just complaining about best-selling conservative authors in general. Or, as I said, let sales numbers speak for themselves... Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Need for The Mark Levin Show subarticle
In looking at the top 9 radio talk shows, I see that only 3 of them don't have separate WP articles for their radio shows: Mark Levin (the top-rated show without an article), Dr. Laura (doesn't really matter since her show is ending), and Neal Boortz. His radio show currently is ranked #4, with 8.5 million listeners. The article could include, among other things, his various names for people and organizations.


 * A separate Wiki article may be appropriate, but it has to be for Wiki-complaint reasons, and I think just doing what the Joneses are doing is not such a reason (though it is useful for seeing where improvements could be made). That said, I agree generally that a separate page may be appropriate. Wiki policy would likely support such a page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Are there other policy reasons besides notability that would govern the addition of such a page? Drrll (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on splitting pages. It just seems to me to be common sense that at some point the page grows too large and thereby less useful in a manner that can be remedied simply by splitting the article appropriately.  I cannot put my finger on that policy, but I'm sure it exists. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear to me that the show is notable on its own. Do we really want to argue that the other top shows aren't notable?  If not, then it's hard to imagine why #3 and #5 would be notable but #4 not.   It seems just as clear that Levin is also notable in his own right.  For example, he is also the author of several books. -24.8.171.99 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Year old NPOV tag
I see this article has literally a year old NPOV tag. Yet I see no talk here anymore about NPOV. Should the tag be removed? It was added by Goethean 24 November 2009 with history comment: "extended diatribe by Levin is out-of-place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has an interest in documenting the response to Levin. WP does not have an interest in housing the rants of a talk show blabber." I'll go leave a note on his page about my adding this section here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time I read a WP guideline that all tags should be supported by a clearly dedicated talk section (with "DISPUTE" as a part of the section title). Last time I went to look for that it appeared to have been off'd by some unknown tag guidelines revision but, IMHO, it is a reasonable and workable approach to placing a dispute tag.
 * I believe your approach is the most correct one with an advisory to the user who originally placed the tag (assuming the debate has drifted off into the archives). If he/she is unwilling to re-engage the dispute in a new talk section, it should be deleted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Imperialism
Almost all of Mr. Levin's positions have been worked into the article one way or another, is there a reason that his support for pursuing unnecessary wars is not? 50.96.70.115 (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)NeAl


 * Gee, Mr. I Only Recently Joined Wikipedia And Already Childishly Vandalized A Page Twice, we should take your non-biased, neutrally worded attempt to work opinion into an encyclopedia seriously, shouldn't we? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Image
Every time I come to this page, it seems another inferior image of Mark Levin is in the article. For the Infobox, we should try to get a good, close-in shot of the subject's face and leave all the extraneous background stuff out. Anything 8 inches or more below the chin is of little value. Extreme telephoto shots in low light are also not useful due to excessive noise. Even if the image is only 220 to 300 pixels wide, as long as it is a close-in face shot made in good light, it would be sufficient. This topic has come up repeatedly on this page (see Archive 4 and Archive 5), but we still don't have any resolution, despite an attempt to get a release from the Mark Levin Show or from Mr. Levin to use a studio portrait by a professional photographer. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 23:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

constitutional scholar
in what sense is levin a constitutional scholar? he writes popular books, and he has a law degree (although juris doctor is hardly the equivalent of a doctorate in other fields), but that doesn't seem to rise to the level of being a scholar. i would tend to put "scholarship" more in the realm of doing primary research that is subject to peer review etc. he might engage in this too, i don't know. but i just wanted to toss the question out there because it seems like a tendentious claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.138.36 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As a professional doctorate, the juris doctor is the eqivalent of a D.D.S., D.M.D, D. Min., D.N.P., D.O., D.P.M., D.P.T., M.D., O.D., or Psy.D.2601:205:3:DEE2:9C2C:2056:CED3:21D6 (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there doesn't appear to be any source or material in the article to back up this description. Gamaliel (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering the same thing. My take on the meaning of the word "scholar" is pretty close to the IP's.
 * Since there's no one interested in backing up this claim, I'm going to pull it down. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Considering the amount of research into the Constitution & the Constitutional Convention in his past, and especially his latest book which is specifically on the Constitutional Convention and in particular Article V, added with his work in conjunction with his legal foundation, Landmark Legal Foundation, who has participated in, and submitted briefs in many Federal-level court cases, including the Supreme Court itself, I would think this meets the standard of "scholar". I will put it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.90.193 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is required for us to call him a "constitutional scholar" is an independent reliable secondary source labeling him one. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a WP policy matter, Gamaliel is obviously correct. Substantively, though, I think that the IP is incorrect. Writing and researching on a topic -- no matter how extensively -- doesn't necessarily make you a scholar. All it takes is a quick roll through my Facebook news feed to see that there are lots of people reading and writing about the Constitution, but I don't think I'd call any of my friends constitutional scholars.
 * If the approach is not scholarly, the writing is not scholarly; if the writing is not scholarly, the writer is not a scholar. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Levin "served"?
What's with this sentence: "Levin served in the administration of President Ronald Reagan" in the opening paragraph? Levin was a government employee. Nothing more, nothing less. It would be more accurate to simply say Levin was a government employee during the Reagan years. Let's reserve the word "served" for those (like military veterans) who really did serve America. Government employees don't "serve" America (in fact, a lot of us believe they do nothing more than leech off the public purse). It would certainly seem like Levin and his followers (of all people) would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.223.18 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Served is commonly used in this way for anyone, not just military folks. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. You both are kind of right. The initial post doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that Levin was an adviser to Reagan's cabinet. That being said, the second doesn't seem to acknowledge that "served" in this connotation is inept and poorly represented. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Mark Levine serve in the military? An earlier version said he did. But without details. Now any reference has disappeared. Because Levine is continually aggressive about U.S. military stance and policy, wouldn't we want to know details? Something to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrowen (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Levin "served"?
What's with this sentence: "Levin served in the administration of President Ronald Reagan" in the opening paragraph? Levin was a government employee. Nothing more, nothing less. It would be more accurate to simply say Levin was a government employee during the Reagan years. Let's reserve the word "served" for those (like military veterans) who really did serve America. Government employees don't "serve" America (in fact, a lot of us believe they do nothing more than leech off the public purse). It would certainly seem like Levin and his followers (of all people) would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.223.18 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Served is commonly used in this way for anyone, not just military folks. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. You both are kind of right. The initial post doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that Levin was an adviser to Reagan's cabinet. That being said, the second doesn't seem to acknowledge that "served" in this connotation is inept and poorly represented. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Mark Levine serve in the military? An earlier version said he did. But without details. Now any reference has disappeared. Because Levine is continually aggressive about U.S. military stance and policy, wouldn't we want to know details? Something to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrowen (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Attorney?
Is Levin still an attorney? It seems pretty clear that he was at one point, but I can't find anything to suggest that he's still practicing.

The most recent court filing identifying him as an attorney that I can find is from 2003, and I couldn't find him in the registry of attorneys in Virginia, D.C. or Maryland. If someone's got a reliable source indicating that he's still an attorney -- or even that he was in the very recent past -- let's get it in there. If not, I can take the identifier out. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found him.

"Conservative" commentator?
I think it is fundamentally dishonest for this article to call Levin a "Conservative," (as opposed to a Republican). Anyone familiar with Levin's radio show knows that he spends day after day, viciously blasting Democrats and strongly supporting Republicans. I listened extensively to Levin's program throughout the George W. Bush years and Levin fanatically supported Bush when the latter did all kinds of decidedly non-Conservative actions, from the 2008 Wall Street bailout to the "Patriot" Act and its Constitution-destroying provisions (i.e. warrantless wiretaps). Anyone who believes Levin is a "Conservative" simply doesn't grasp what a Conservative is. A true Conservative might well have supported Bush on some issues, but definitely not on warrantless wiretaps and the bailing out of Wall Street with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Let's face it: Levin is a Republican hack. While I don't expect that description to make it into Wikipedia, I do think it would be entirely fair and accurate to call Levin a "Republican," rather than a "Conservative." Otherwise, the latter really has no real meaning. (And please: don't tell me that Levin opposed the 2008 bailout. He was mostly quiet on it during the Bush years---and even indicated at times that he felt it was necessary to save the economy--and he only really starting speaking up in opposition to it when Obama took power). Amazingly, Levin did the same with the Afghanistan War. He ferociously attacked opponents of that war during the Bush years and it has only been since Obama took power that Levin has said he doesn't understand what America is doing in Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.223.18 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Even though I agree, it's seems that our view is too subjective, and we'd have to have sources that back it up in a non-partisan way. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems like the standard description for a modern conservative.98.232.80.37 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Levin explicitly states, on multiple occasions and in his books, that he is a conservative, and NOT per se a Republican.
 * I think the way to handle this is to simply describe the content of his show,eg, he calls prominent republicans like Speaker Boehner sell out RINOs, he often calls democrats "democrat", he call people he disagrees with extreme leftwing marxist totalitarians, etc

I think also some well chosen quotes would reveal that he is self contraditory (eg, he often criticizes liberals for calling republicans names, but he himself calls liberals all sorts of name) and often wrong on the facts and incoherent


 * The bar for a factual article such as this one is that Levin describes himself as a conservative. You may dissent from that view, but the foremost expert on what Mr. Levin is or believes is Mr. Levin himself. Thus, for example, you wouldn't kick someone out of the Republican party because you don't believe they are really republican. Thus, Levin should be able to classify himself as conservative just as you are able to file a dissent if space is provided for that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1a80:742:b0da:96b3:be0:4237 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Liberal vs Statist
Levin explicitly defines the terms "liberal" and "statist" and uses them distinctly in his books. They should not be confused or conflated in the descriptions thereof, by those whom, it would appear, haven't read them. 108.222.253.74 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional Scholar
None of the three references offered to support the identification of the subject as a "constitutional scholar" appear to be reliable sources. Most appear in polemical web sites written by political pundits or operatives, none of them prominent and none of them an authority on constitutional law. A reliable source for this claim might be (a) that this identification has appeared in reliable news sources, such as major newspaper; (b) that the subject has unambiguously acted in this role, as (for example) by teaching constitutional law at an accredited university; or (c) has been recognized as a constitutional scholar in a number of journals and law reviews. Weblogs, informercials, and partisan Web sites are not reliable sources for information of this nature. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sourcing definitely wasn't sufficient. Thanks for making the change. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Political Views & Controversies
I added a section like this on Levin, which was well-sourced. It was deleted in total by Bede735 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bede735") Is there a WP:Whitewash editorial guide? Levin is a controversial political commentator/entertainer and yet there is nothing in his wiki page about his politics or controversies--in fact it's close to an advertisement. Bede735's total deletion of a good faith addition seems mistaken, and I will undo the deletion unless Bede735 and others can justify it.Localemediamonitor (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my edit summary, I provided my reasons for reverting your edit, providing appropriate links to the WP:MOS. I recommend that you review those sections of the MOS to better understand my reasoning. Also review WP:BLP to understand the special consideration for biographies of living persons. Per WP:BRD, it is your responsibility to gain consensus for this content. Finally, using phrases like "whitewash" is not consistent with WP:GOODFAITH. Bede735 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing in these reverted sections is terrible. Blogs, unreliable sources, and the Wapost article doesn't even mention Levin.2600:1002:B118:DB1C:945C:C651:1F09:ACDD (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the sourcing with Media Matters, CNN, and the subject's own radio archives, which (as you know well) are reliable for his own opinion.  The WMD comment was repeated in last year’s CPAC talk, which surely has a transcript if you want to chase that down.  None of this is controversial or in any question, MarkBernstein (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you still haven't established consensus for why any of this is notable/is it written NPOV. Also the Wapost article doesn't mention Levin at all, and salon itself isn't good enough. Pay attention to the sources. This is getting deleted until we can figure out what, if any of this stuff is needed. It's called controversy, people, not this happened. 2600:1002:B118:DB1C:945C:C651:1F09:ACDD (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, these characteristic opinions are notable. The subject is a political commentator, and these are his opinions. Salon, perhaps the premier Web magazine, is certainly a reliable source. Media Matters is a reliable source. The subject’s radio show is a reliable source for the subject’s opinions. People desist from trying to delete material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 19:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You really haven't established how any of this is important, it's written badly with POV, and without consensus. Media matters doesn't offer anything but a video clip from his show, so once again not notable without better sourcing. We don't include everything someone has ever said on their article page. Salon isn't reliable enough by itself for a blp. Again you added a source that doesn't mention Levin at all. This is a blp so stop edit warring and work with people who find problems with the edits. CNN is just a transcript, not coverage. None of this has attracted wide coverage. It's called Bold Revert Discuss, not Bold Revert Revert Revert. 2600:1002:B118:DB1C:945C:C651:1F09:ACDD (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Locale, these are BLP issues with bad/ no sourcing for info with no relevance. Please address the issues here instead of edit warring. 2600:1002:B118:DB1C:945C:C651:1F09:ACDD (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree there isn't consensus for this material. It's clearly slanted against the article subject, and we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to WP:BLP articles. The sourcing is poor, and the content in the section appears to be largely cherry-picked. A high-quality, encyclopedic section of Levin's political views would give a balanced overview of his views on a range of subjects as they've been reported in reliable, secondary sources. The section that was added basically looked like a Media Matters hit piece. If a partisan watchdog group's video is the best sourcing available here, the information shouldn't be included. The content needs to be balanced to comply with WP:NPOV. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Safehaven Media Matters was not the original source for that particular addition, Raw Story and CNS News (the latter being a conservative news site) were. Go back and look--most of the sources were legit. I must disagree with you--the controversial words and the basic views of a political entertainer/commentator are totally appropriate, and to cut it out in total reeks of slanted whitewash. Please note that MarkBernstein went thru and cleaned up the whole section, noting "None of this is controversial or in any question." How can a decent encyclopedia article on Mark Levin not mention his views & controversies? Please reconsider.Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources were not "legit", they are all either unreliable or provide no coverage of Levin. Again WAPost never mentioned him. The fact editors insert that source back in shows clear POV. This is extreme cherry picking, and in need of much better sourcing for a BLP. 2600:1002:B118:DB1C:945C:C651:1F09:ACDD (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. MediaMatters is a solid source. Salon is a solid source. The radio transcript is also a solid source; it's a major broadcast outlet. Nor are any of these matters either in doubt or contentious: these are, as best I can determine, frequently-expressed and characteristic opinions that are familiar to the subject's audience. No one has expressed any doubt of this, or suggested a better characterization. You requested better sourcing, which as been provided. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop putting the material back in. It violates NPOV, by cherry picking comments that are not notable. You have provided no reliable secondary coverage. Media matters and salon can't be used for notability/reliably for a BLP such as this with no wide coverage. Also you are misrepresenting sources by including the WAPost article...which doesn't mention Levin. You haven't gained consensus so please stop as it appears you are trying to defame a BLP. 2600:1002:B118:DB1C:945C:C651:1F09:ACDD (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mark Bernstein "went thru and cleaned up the whole section" after you asked him to do so, which frankly looks a bit like Canvassing. Rather than attempting to add a large, clearly controversial section all at once, I would suggest that you build consensus for individual portions of content one at a time. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Would anyone care to identify the purported BLP issue with correctly describing (and usually directly quoting) the opinions of this political commentator, who is notable only for these opinions, and which are now sourced to Media Matters, Salon, and various broadcast outlets? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue was identified by safehaven. One is the fact that they are cherry picked views that aren't notable. Levin is notable for working for the Reagan administration Not just being a talk show host. Two the section violates NPOV. Three, what you just added was a one time event that has no relevance. We don't need a collection of things Levin has said over the years, that's pointless. You need consensus to add this stuff to the article but you keep ignoring that and edit warring.70.215.65.168 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernstein, you just cited bretbart. That is not a reliable source. Also we don't need up to date coverage of what Levin has said. We need to document how he is notable. 70.215.65.168 (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I cited Breitbart for a direct quotation of a public address, which was backed up by a video of his speech, which was delivered at a major Washington conference. A few seconds before that, I cited the New York Times for a direct quotation of another opinion the subject expressed. If the subject's opinions are not germane, then the subject is not notable and we should prod this.  But of course the subject's opinions are germane -- they're the reason he has a 10-year radio contract, they have made him a very rich man.  We should, obviously, document these opinions. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What we don't need to do is document random opinions. Please tell me how those views you put down are notable. That wasn't the NY times reporting on it, it was an opinion column, hardly establishing what he said as notable. Try to build consensus for what views of his should be in there. Also looking through I noticed that There is mention of a Breitbart award. Is that even a notable award?70.215.65.168 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because the subject is notable for his views, those views should be explained and illustrated in his encyclopedia page. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He's certainly not notable for the views and points you showed. If he was there would be actuall coverage. Let's try build up a view section, that doesn't rely on one time events and is written without a slant. 70.215.65.168 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump supporters probably modifying the article to discredit him
I opened the article and in the intro there was a pretty obvious attempt to discredit Mark Levin by writing " It has recently been discovered, during the 2016 GOP Primary. On his radio show, Mark Levin has been paid by a GOP super PAC to speak poorly of front runner Donald Trump. The sudden change in opinion of the candidate came as a surprise to many of his loyal listeners, who have decided to stop listening to his show.“The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC, purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books, in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/08/gop-establishment-money-funding-mark-levin-glenn-beck-erick-erickson-to-attack-trump/#ixzz463vF99ig" So as it was poorly cited and badly formatted, I removed it. Hopefully that's acceptable, especially considering the notice on the top of the edit page. I copy pasted it here if anyone wants to follow it up somewhere else in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.149.34 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Information
Because Levine is an on-air personality, shouldn't there be more about him as a person?: His marriage(s), religious affiliation, and his military service (once in this article and later suppressed)Bobrowen (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. 2601:405:4301:1F2D:6112:8F93:B24F:C848 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll second that. 72.192.119.52 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no legit reason to exclude the inflammatory remarks that Levin has made about fellow conservatives
See this removal. This content is highly notable, and has been reliably sourced (the Guardian). To simply say that Levin "harshly criticized" his fellow conservatives is not satisfying. He's calling them offensive names and comparing them to traitors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your "highly notable" claim based on? This is just one source. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
 * Note that The Guardian says "he once called Mitch McConnell 'The Benedict Arnold of the US Senate'" [emphasis added]. Wilson doesn't use the word "traitor" and McConnell isn't mentioned as someone who has a "patented nickname". The other two nicknames aren't related to betraying one's country, so I don't have BLP concerns about them. If you have an idea how we can mention the three senators and include "goober" and "McPain" without mentioning "The Benedict Arnold of the US Senate", I'm open to suggestions. Politrukki (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless this has been widely reported or discussed in mainstream media, I think this is WP:UNDUE weight. I do not think it's a BLP violation, just not significant enough on its own to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.  If it's part of a pattern of similar remarks by Mr. Levin, there may be RS that discuss a general tendency to speak in such a manner.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing about Mark Levin is going to be discussed widely in mainstream media, except when picked up by Donald Trump, so no I haven't found any coverage on this except by that Guardian piece. His Wikipedia article does state that this is Levin's pattern: "Levin is known for his frequent use of the pejorative "moron" and "puke" for people he opposes." There's also no shortage of fringe commentary in his recent past, though I can't find any of this covered in reliable sources, so I wasn't planning on adding it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No evidence for Obama wiretap order?
Jonathan Lemire of the Associated Press wrote:
 * Radio host Mark Levin voiced without evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.

Should we put this quote in the article? If so, should we put in Levin's denial too? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should absolutely say that Levin's claims are "without evidence", which is the language that reliable sources use. I just edited the Wikipedia article to fix this. The previous version obfuscated the accuracy of Levin's remarks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, as often happens, I have not written clearly what I meant.


 * I did not intend to ask whether "his claims" were / were not backed by evidence. I was wondering aloud just what those claims were. Is there, in fact, any evidence that Levin himself has advanced the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, or did Levin merely mentioned that Trump had advanced that idea?
 * "I never said that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped."


 * In other words, who is the source for the (obviously unsupportable) notion that Obama ordered the (alleged) wiretaps? Trump, quoted by Levin? Or Levin, on his own? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The way you pose your question, neither of them. This is somewhat complex question and I must skip some details. Some sources – most of them, it seems – say that Trump's claim was based on Breitbart story, which cited Levin's radio show and/or online TV show. Some sources say that Levin was the source, some say it was Levin and Breitbart. I've not read the Breitbart story, but I assume that it does not actually say that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. Mostly the sources are just playing guessing games, but here's an actual quote:
 * Many sources have made unsubstantiated claims that Levin claimed that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, but most sources don't say exactly that and instead quote Levin's words about "silent coup", "police state", or both. Another excerpt from Tapper:
 * Or as Anderson Cooper puts it:
 * Cooper does not explicitly mention Levin, but Levin is obviously included in "conservative outlets" as CNN had just few hours ago reported that other possible sources were Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Joel Pollak (and Tapper previously included Levin in "conservative outlets"):
 * To your question "Should we put this quote in the article?" – I don't think this has been widely covered, but if something is to be included, obviously the denial must be included. What other sources do you have?
 * Recently added snippet "without evidence" is not adhering to neutral point of view: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Multiple sources – including The Guardian piece that is cited in our article – have listed sources Levin used as evidence but then they add something along the line of "Levin connected the dots". So obviously we have some conflicting info. Either we should remove "without evidence" or move it somewhere else, expand the section and attribute all the conflicting opinions. Politrukki (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cooper does not explicitly mention Levin, but Levin is obviously included in "conservative outlets" as CNN had just few hours ago reported that other possible sources were Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Joel Pollak (and Tapper previously included Levin in "conservative outlets"):
 * To your question "Should we put this quote in the article?" – I don't think this has been widely covered, but if something is to be included, obviously the denial must be included. What other sources do you have?
 * Recently added snippet "without evidence" is not adhering to neutral point of view: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Multiple sources – including The Guardian piece that is cited in our article – have listed sources Levin used as evidence but then they add something along the line of "Levin connected the dots". So obviously we have some conflicting info. Either we should remove "without evidence" or move it somewhere else, expand the section and attribute all the conflicting opinions. Politrukki (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Recently added snippet "without evidence" is not adhering to neutral point of view: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Multiple sources – including The Guardian piece that is cited in our article – have listed sources Levin used as evidence but then they add something along the line of "Levin connected the dots". So obviously we have some conflicting info. Either we should remove "without evidence" or move it somewhere else, expand the section and attribute all the conflicting opinions. Politrukki (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The source of the president's claim should not be a topic here. Levin says that he never said the stuff that the president tweeted. Levin's claims all came from reliable sources such as the New York Times, so they are not lacking evidence. If you watch his video on the subject, it would be clear, as he shows a news article to back every claim. I do not think we should be saying what is currently in this article, because it contradicts the video evidence. Bollyjeff &#124;  talk  15:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to jump in here! I listen to Mark Levin everyday and I concur with Bollyjeff. Mark Levin never said that Obama Wiretapped Trump Tower, he did not claim any wiretapping occured at all. He simply read from news outlets such as the New York Times, which did use the words Wiretap in the headline of their article, The Guardian and other outlets that are usually leftwing.

With that being said, if you guys do not put that in there and refuse to remove the no evidence claims, I will personally edit it out and put in what was properly stated by Mark Levin himself!

I do not mean to be mean here, but you all are playing the same narrative the Media is playing now! Kirby (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like Wikipedia is slowly turning into a FakeNews outlet fueled by leftist writers hijacking wiki pages. Pgeremia (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It is in fact and I'm getting tired of it. I'm editing the article now! Kirby (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the article! Man oh man was it full of liberal bias down there, I tell you that much. I got the proper sources and cited them correctly. Hopefully this will not happen again. I will NOT tolerate such slanted bias and dishonesty on here. Kirby (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously WTF people? Take your liberal smear campaign elsewhere. This is exactly why Wikipedia is not a credible source because so many people want to rewrite history and attack conservatives. BravoLima0341 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WARNING

Unless consensus is reached,  this is going to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board immediately.

This is starting to become an edit war. We must reach a consensus on here now. I will not tolerate one-sided slant on here either. But so far, my edit was denounced as non-neutral, yet I reported the facts and cited from both CNN and the Hill.

So l, either we band together for consensus or things could get messy. I hope to keep things calm and civil around here, so please let's not be at each other's throats.Kirby (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice my edit summary, I strongly suggest that you avoid saying things like "I will not tolerate one-sided slant on here" per WP:OWN. If consensus favors adding what you've denounced as "one-sided slant," refusing to tolerate it wouldn't be allowed.


 * And you might want to slow up on dispute resolution since they'll see your demand that everyone calm down, compare that to one edit summary saying part of the article contained an "enormous amount of liberal slanted bias" and another edit summary saying to another editor that "You're showing your bias currently," and they might conclude that you're the main source of contentiousness here.  City O f  Silver  17:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 *  City O f  Silver  I'm trying to keep things clear and neutral here. That's all. Like I said, I don't mean to be mean. Nor do I mean to sound harsh, however I do wish a consensus on this article none of the less. Boneada's edit wasn't exactly neutral and to an extent, mine wasn't too much either. Hence why I reverted it back to User:Localemediamonitor's edit on the Wiretap section on the article.


 * We need to find common ground on both sides. I personally believe we need a consensus. And no, a consensus will not favor what added earlier when I vented out my frustration, which I apologize for btw. With this being said, let us all find a consensus on the matter and make sure that this article remains neutral. We can all agree to this can we not? In truth, I wish for this to be resolved via consensus, no need to go further than that. Kirby (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And in the midst of your nonpartisan effort to remove "liberal bias" and adhere to WP:OWN, you're issuing orders, declaring a blatantly partisan version of this page "status quo," and reverting while discussing instead of after discussing. God. This is going to be a real bloodbath, isn't it?  City O f  Silver  03:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 *  City O f  Silver  I'm not the one making it a bloodbath. I left you a message on your talkpage and have read WP:OWN and I am not out of line here nor am I trying to claim this article to be mine or take charge of the editing here. You however are accusing me of taking charge and issuing orders when I'm not. There have been others before me who have tried to do what I've done such as User:BravoLima0341 and more. I specifically and politely asked for a consensus on here. This will only turn into a bloodbath if we cannot find common ground on this topic. Initially I might've been a bit angry, but as of now I am trying to be as calm as I possibly can be so we can reach a consensus rather than engaging in an edit war and what not.


 * Let's not be at each other's throat's. Before you undid my revision, I reverted the article back to User:Localemediamonitor's edit. As we are both longstanding editors, let us reach a consensus with the rest of the editors on here so we can come to content that we can all agree on having in the article. That is my plea. Regards. Kirby (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally, I retract my previous statements stating "Liberal Bias" on this article, however I do believe that this section is short on content and has not fully covered all that had occurred. Kirby (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit, I Honestly think that almost all of this content should be removed. This is a biography article, and falls under WP:BLP. The news in this section is not really a major defining point of his life, but rather a case of WP:Recentism, and should be trimmed. This is not the place for it. Bollyjeff &#124;  talk  16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I once again concur with Bollyjeff  on this topic. I also believe that the content in this section of the article falls under WP:DISHONEST as many of the sources appear to be cherry-picked and push a narrative of those events that are as I've said before, slanted. We need to have WP:NPV on this article. I'm not saying that this section or the editors who created the section are producing liberal bias, but I do not believe that the full story of the events that occurred are being told on here either. User:Localemediamonitor's edit had the most content and was the closest to having the full story and had a neutral POV.

However, as I too have given it thought, this article is a biography article as was laid out. This section truly does not have much of an impact of Levin's life nor is it a prominent point in the slightest. Therefore I believe this section should either be eliminated entirely or trimmed as the section itself is as said before irrelevant to Mark Levin, his life and achievements. Kirby (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the point is not whether there is any evidence but whether the various sides in the conflict believe that evidence. If you're interested there's an analysis by Robert Knight in the Washington Times. Personally, I don't care one way or another. I just want the article to be neutral: not saying Trump & Levin are right, not saying they are wrong. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I'm saying. So far though I do not see the article being neutral. From what I can tell, it falls short of WP:HONEST and WP:NPV respectively. I tried editing the article so it would display more of the content and as I pointed out earlier, User:Localemediamonitor's edit had the most content and was the closest to having the full story and had a neutral POV. Sadly,  City O f  Silver  believed otherwise and when I reverted the article twice after he and User:Boneada did so in turn, CityofSilver said that I fell under the category of WP:OWN, which I didn't, but he insisted on saying that I was trying be the arbiter of the article anyway.

Uncle Ed, I noticed that you have rollback rights so perhaps you could fix this, revert the article back to User:Localemediamonitor's edit and then we all can build from there. Since I don't see the others such as CityofSilver coming on here to reach a consensus, I don't see why not. Regards. Kirby (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I initially put in my additions in order to balance out what was an obvious partisan effort in Levin boosterism, which has now been removed along with my additions. As usual, those seeking to fight "liberal bias" are in fact seeking to put in right wing agitprop since in this case, as the saying goes, the truth has a liberal bias. As time goes on we are seeing that this wiretap/surveillance allegation was indeed ridiculous and the record should reflect that. Anyway, my two cents are that it's okay as is, or if you all revert it to my edit, that would of course be fine too. tag: Kirby Bollyjeff  [User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]  Localemediamonitor (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Localemediamonitor, I respect you two cents on the matter. I retracted my statements accusing the editors of liberal bias btw. As Uncle Ed said, I simply want the article to be neutral. Therefore I will revert the article back to your edit in the meantime. Kirby (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Nevermind about reverting the edit. Uncle Ed already fixed the article. :) Kirby (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of Content
Recently, there have been conflicting viewpoints here on the accuracy of the content of the accuracy of the article, namely on the Wiretapping Allegations section. As seen above, there have been arguments over this on the talk page regarding the accuracy of the content within the article itself with the core part of the arguments being if the section has a neutral point of view or if it has a bias favoring one side. The edit conflicts seem to be related to political viewpoints. The initial edit not only leaves out content from the whole series of events that went down, but it also seems to have cherry-picked sources to back it up. I believe that this is a violation of WP:NPV and WP:HONEST.

It is because of this a consensus must be reached here. I'm not an overseer or an arbiter of any sort on this article, I only ask for a consensus and that is all. A consensus on what content should go into the Wiretapping Allegations section as well as what sources should be added and which of them should be removed.

We all want this article to be free of any content that does not fall under WP:HONEST and I wish to come to a conclusion on this matter.

If anyone has anything to add, please do so. A consensus will be the best way to move forward with this as always. Cheers. Kirby (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How can we make it less vague? Any guidance on how to word it properly? Another possibility here is removing most of the content in that section due to WP:RECENT. What is you opinion on that?


 * CommentLooks ok to me, except The right-wing website reported in … What "right-wing website"? I feel the wording is off, and it should be either the proper noun Breitbart, or a just "the website". RfCs FTW L3X1 (distant write)  13:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Summoned by bot. This RfC is vague. If there is a specific content dispute, please state what it is in a succinct manner. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Endorse That the is RfC is too vague. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse Also summoned by a box and think that this is too vague. It seems more like an attempt to continue the conversation that actually way in on some specific content dispute. What specific content is consider vague? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment L3X1 Allow me to be more specific and explain the exact reason for the RfC. IF you read the topic discussion above, there is currently an edit conflict regarding the section of the article involving the Obama Wiretapping Allegations. There have been quite a few editors, myself included who have accused this section of being one-sided. I initially accused some of the editos such as User:Boneada of Liberal Bias. I later retracted my accusations of liberal bias, but I do still believe that the full story is not being told and therefore the section of the article is still not neutral. Although I do not believe the editors to be projecting a liberal bias on the article, I do believe that they are favoring a certain point of view rather than a neutral point of view and as I said above, I don't believe they are putting the full series of events down on the article.

Thus I undid his edit on that section and put in more content that I saw to be more accurate, citing from The Washington Post, The Atlantic and The Hill.

My edit was undone by  City O f  Silver  who accused me of WP:OWN. I rebuked him multiple times on this. I countered this claim on the talk page and invited others on because I felt that a few of the editors were in clear violation of WP:NPV and WP:HONEST. I tried  to keep the section of the article neutral by reverting it to User:Localemediamonitor's edit, which his edit added more of the truth on top of what I had put in.

User:Localemediamonitor recently commented on the matter in the talkpage section above, asserting that he was trying to balance out the article, which I respect. Uncle Ed also commented on this topic stating that he wished the article to be neutral. He did not care if Levin or Trump were correct, but he's not ruling them out either.

The crocks of the matter is that this article is a biography article, therefore it falls under WP:BLP. Therefore there are some that believe that this Wiretapping section, per WP:Recentism and should be trimmed. User:Bollyjeff made this argument, to which I to an extent concur.

However, should this section not be trimmed, it needs to be accurate and has to tell the truth per WP:NPV and WP:HONEST. Hence why I requested for this RfC so we can figure out what goes where in this section of the article. We need to come up with a solution, a solid consensus from a neutral point of view.

Regards. Kirby (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry about responding so late, my notice preferences were messed up. L3X1 (distant write)  18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem L3X1. I've noticed that Uncle Ed had decided to edit the article to balance things out. Making the article neutral. Which is what this RfC was all about aside from the accuracy of the content within it. Kirby (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I made that edit way back on March 22nd, and no one has seen fit to revert it. I assume that means both sides agree it was a neutral edit. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Using biased book reviews
If this is a biography of the man, we should keep it at that. I'm tempted to remove the reviews of his books as those are stated opinions and not necessarily a factual reference to what he wrote. Knox1998 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Book reviews published in reliable sources are germane, and appear widely throughout Wikipedia. The reviews used here appear generally appropriate in tending to put the reception of Levin’s books into perspective. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Levin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924132902/http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/ to http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent IP edits
I am inviting to discuss their recent edits here. They recently made 3 edits, described as "Removed bias opinion that did not contribute to the subject matter at hand", "Removed bias reviews that offer no insight into the material at hand" and "Removed bias material". On a quick glance, I am not convinced the removed text was biased, or any violation of policy, mainly because it is sourced. I then reverted the three edits, inviting the IP here. I encourage the IP editor to describe what they think is wrong and what should be changed, as they removed a lot from the page (2,503 bytes).  Seagull123  Φ  20:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not that user, but I did work hard to improve this article with better quality, less-biased content. My edits were | removed as part of a massive reversal by user Snooganssnoogans. I have detailed each edit in a section on this Talk page. I think it's unfortunate some users are able to wipe out someone's entire set of contributions with one reversal. Doorzki (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Neurosurgeon caller on Obamacare death panels
I recently re-wrote the section on the caller who claimed to be a neurosurgeon and who made controversial claims about Obamacare. Unfortunately my edit was | removed as part of a massive reversal by user Snooganssnoogans to eliminate all my contributions, wholesale, from this article. I believe my re-write is better than the original and I'd like to explain why.

The original version:

In 2009, Levin described as "absolutely right" the statement by Sarah Palin that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) includes death panels to decide whether elderly people or sick children were worthy of medical care. In 2011, a caller to Levin's show, claiming to be a neurosurgeon, said that the Department of Health and Human Services had issued a document saying that people over age 70 would not be allowed to receive medical treatments. Levin said to the caller, "so Sarah Palin was right." The call was later revealed to be a hoax and the death panel claims were revealed to be false.

My version:

On November 22, 2011, shortly before the passage of Obamacare, a caller to The Mark Levin Show identified himself as "a brain surgeon" who had recently returned from Washington, D.C. The caller stated that patients over 70 years of age arriving at emergency rooms would be administered "comfort care," and that advanced neurological care would not be generally indicated due to advanced age. The caller further alleged "ethics panels" would decide how hospital funding is distributed for older patients.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons issued a statement that they are "unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided." Further, the AANS stated they are aware of the identity of the caller and that "the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon is not actually a neurosurgeon."

The left-wing think tank Media Matters for America called the call a "hoax."

The original version spends a lot of time talking about Sarah Palin and the notion of death panels, while my version more accurately represents the allegations of the caller in question related to patients 70 years of age. I also spend time detailing the source of the controversy which was the response from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Finally, I include an allegation that the call was a hoax.

In user Snooganssnoogans's purge of my content, the user commented my edit was "not an improvement. removes lots of RS, rewrites text to make it inconsistent with RS and adds bad sources".

The original article had sources relating to Sarah Palin's statements on "death panels" and the larger issue, which are tangentially relevant but not germane to this article on Levin and this section on the caller. I did remove those sources specific to Sarah Palin and the larger debate. The original also had sources with commentary on the call, some from heavily biased sources, that made claims that exceed the facts. For example, the original version outright states that the call was a "hoax" while my version carefully portrays that statement as an allegation from a think tank. (I have searched but have not been able to find proof Levin was in on the call being a hoax.) Instead of focusing on Palin and the larger allegations, I added more direct and relevant sources like the actual call to the Levin radio show and the actual response from the AANS. I think my sources are more direct, primary, and relevant to the caller and the controversy. While my version is not consistent with the original sources, the reason for that is the original sources were biased commentary on the matter rather than primary sources directly related to the situation in question.

I think it's unfortunate these edits were removed as part of Snooganssnoogans's purge of all my content in this article. I am asking for others to comment on the actions of Snooganssnoogans and on reinstating my version over the current.

Doorzki (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have invited Snooganssnoogans to comment on my edits. Doorzki (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The user replaces well-sourced text and the reliable sources with a mixture of rubbish sources and original research. Totally unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

FISA Court Order Edits and Reversal
I recently re-wrote the section on allegations of FISA Court spying of the Trump campaign. Unfortunately my edit was | removed as part of a massive reversal by user Snooganssnoogans to eliminate all my contributions, wholesale, from this article. I believe my re-write is better than the original and I'd like to explain why.

This is the original version:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
In March 2017, Levin alleged that the Obama administration had used "police state" surveillance tactics against the Donald Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. The Associated Press said that Levin "voiced without evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower". Levin protested the AP report vigorously, demanding a retraction and an apology on the grounds that his sources for the statement included The New York Times and other newspapers. His statement was reprinted by Breitbart News and were reportedly the basis of the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations by President Trump.

The Guardian writer Jason Wilson said used information about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrants from outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post. The Guardian confirmed that they previously reported that in the summer of 2016 the FBI had sought a warrant from the FISA court in order to investigate four members of Trump's team who were suspected of having irregular contacts with Russian officials, but the FISA court turned down the application. Heat Street reported in November 2016 that in October the FISA court had granted the FBI a warrant to investigate possible contacts between Russian banks and Trump's associates.

This is my version:

FISA Court Surveillance of the Trump Campaign
During his March 2, 2017 radio program, Levin questioned whether the Obama administration had surveilled the Trump Campaign during the 2016 presidential election. Levin based his questioning on a widely rumored FISA court request and subsequent order issued in summer of 2016. Levin's larger point seemed to imply the surveillance conducted on members of the Trump campaign was now being released to the media to hurt the Trump presidency, specifically the nomination of Jeff Sessions to become Attorney General. Levin wondered during this radio program, "how many phone calls by Donald Trump, if any, were intercepted by the Obama administration and recored by the Obama administration?"

Shortly thenafter, Associated Press White House reporter Jonathan Lemire published an article stating that Mark Levin had "voiced without evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower." Levin responded that among his sources was a New York Times article published in the final days of the Obama administration that stated "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump." Levin demanded an apology from the Associated press stating the Associated Press had "not only misstated what I said," but had also "ignored the entire purpose and context."

The original version stated that Levin had used the term "police state." I didn't see any source for this. I listened to the March 2, 2017 Levin radio program (a source in my version), which was the heart of this controversy and did not hear that term used by Levin. The original version then goes on to document disagreements among news sources. I chose instead to document the topic of Levin's monologue and the accusation Levin made of Obama, including a quote from the original radio program. I continued my version by quoting and citing the actual source of AP criticism, Levin's response, and Levin's source of justifying his statement. The original version goes on documenting bickering among news sources about the larger issue of FISA warrants while I document the disagreement between Levin and the AP writer which I think is more relevant.

In user Snooganssnoogans's purge of my content, the user commented my edit was "not an improvement. removes lots of RS, rewrites text to make it inconsistent with RS and adds bad sources".

The sources used in the original version are a Washington Times article which I used as a source in my version and two articles from The Guardian, the former an editoral by the left-leaning source and the latter an article about "the dossier," which is only tangentially related to this matter. I chose instead to use as sources the original Levin radio program, a right-wing source (Heat Street) rumoring the FISA warrants, a left-wing source (Washington Post) confirming them, the original article from the Associated Press criticizing Levin, the actual New York Times article Levin cited in his defense, and the previously used source related to Levin's response. I believe my sources are the most direct and relevant to this controversy with respect to Levin, while the original sources are thin, secondary, and tangental. I believe Snooganssnoogans's comment that I am removing RS in this case is wrong. However, I do agree that my version is inconsistent with the original sources because the original sources were poor and did a poor job documenting the disagreement between Levin and the AP writer.

I think it's unfortunate these edits were removed as part of Snooganssnoogans's purge of all my content in this article. I am asking for others to comment on the actions of Snooganssnoogans and on reinstating my version over the current.

Doorzki (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have invited Snooganssnoogans to comment on my edits. Doorzki (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, the user replaces reliably sourced text AND the reliable sources with a mixture of rubbish sources and original research. Totally unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Levin known mainly for criticizing liberalism
I recently made a small but significant edit to the statement

Though known mainly for harshly criticizing liberalism and Democrats, Levin sometimes criticizes Republicans – including Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell – with whom he disagrees on constitutional conservatism. replacing it with Levin often criticizes Republicans – including Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell – with whom he disagrees on constitutional conservatism. My comment for the edit was The existing source calls these Republicans "regular punching bags." I also added extra sources to show frequent criticism of GOP leaders.

I did not see in the original source anything to support the idea that Levin is known "mainly for harshly criticizing liberalism and Democrats." My impression has been he spends just as much time criticizing Republicans with whom he does not agree. I believe the original source supports my view referring to the few GOP members mentioned as "regular punching bags."

Unfortunately my edit was | removed as part of a massive reversal by user Snooganssnoogans to eliminate all my contributions, wholesale, from this article. I believe my version is more accurate than the original. In user Snooganssnoogans's purge of my content, the user commented my edit was "not an improvement. removes lots of RS, rewrites text to make it inconsistent with RS and adds bad sources".

In this case, I kept the original source and added two more to support that Republicans are often criticized by Levin.

I think it's unfortunate these edits were removed as part of Snooganssnoogans's purge of all my content in this article. I am asking for others to comment on the actions of Snooganssnoogans and on reinstating my version over the current.

Doorzki (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have invited Snooganssnoogans to comment on my edits. Doorzki (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this change is mostly minor and since I have not seen any objections on this, I have updated the page with my changes. Doorzki (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans almost immediately replaced my text with:

"According to the Guardian, 'constant attacks on Democrats and the left are important components' of Levin's modus operandi. He has criticized Republicans – including Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell – with whom he disagrees on 'constitutional conservatism'."
 * I find his style un-encyclopedic. I also think using a term like "modus operandi" hampers clarity. Finally this form focuses more on The Guardian's opinion (which is well known as a left-wing source) rather than accurately representing the subject of this article, Levin. Even though I have made this Talk entry and invited Snooganssnoogans to participate in discussion here, he refuses to comment and instead is playing dictatorial gatekeeper to all my proposed changes. Doorzki (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans continues to revert my change. In making the recent reversion, he commented "there is nothing in these sources that says that he 'often criticizes' Republicans (2) the Blaze is not RS and RCP source adds nothing." To the contrary, the original source refers to Republicans as Levin's "regular punching bags." Please do not discuss changes in reversion comments. They should be discussed here on the Talk page. Doorzki (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposed edit not only misrepresents the sources, but the sources that are added are either garbage (the blaze) or adds nothing (RCP video). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finally using the Talk page. It is much more constructive than engaging in endless edit wars or acting as a bully to anyone who tries to improve poor article content. In my edit, I maintain the original source (The Guardian, a paper well known to have a strong left-of center bias, of which you seem quite fond), and add two others that demonstrate Levin's attacks on Republicans. In no way do I misrepresent The Guardian; I maintain it as the first source cited and believe its content is reflected in my edit. The point of this section is to demonstrate that Levin attacks Republicans (in addition to Democrats) and my sources support and demonstrate that fact. The RealClearPolitics link is not only to a video (though it contains one), but to the quote of Levin attacking Republicans. TheBlaze is the same. While I understand you disagree with the viewpoints of these publications (as some might disagree with the viewpoints of The Guardian), I did not link to them for their viewpoints, but rather for the content on those pages that support the content on this page. In fact, I think it's crucial to have right-of-center publicans support the idea that Levin attacks Republicans for sake of credibility (as any political side might want others to think the other side is in disarray). I'm glad you did not try to keep the original, unsubstantiated wording related to Levin being "known mainly for harshly criticizing liberalism and Democrats" because that was not supported by the original Guardian link (though you did originally revert my changes back to that text, so I'm glad you've changed your mind). As for calling the sources I added "garbage" or "rubbish," I suggest that it's best to maintain a wide variety of bias in sources offered. I would also suggest there are higher priorities (like accuracy and integrity) that are more important than preventing anything but left-wing sources to be cited on Wikipedia. Doorzki (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was all explained to you on my talk page. This demonstrates again what an utter waste of time it is to discuss this with you. You don't understand Wiki policy regarding sources and original research. There's no point to any of this is you won't or can't familiarize yourself with basic Wiki policy. Your willingness to revert me four times in less than 24 hours to get your atrocious changes to lang-standing text into the Wikipedia article demonstrates your disregard for Wiki policy regarding edit warring as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see your comments to my invitation for you to come here, to this Talk page, to find consensus before reverting my well-intentioned changes and for you to stop acting as a sole-gatekeeper of this page (a privilege you do not have). I read your comment about how you do not have the time to review any of the sources I offered, and how you disqualify sources by your personal declaration that anything under a certain Internet domain is "rubbish." I've also seen your Talk page which has more complaints of bad behavior on Wikipedia than I've ever seen before; there is near-endless scrolling on your Talk page of people complaining of your left-wing bias. There is also considerable moderation against your account. Frankly, I'm surprised you are still here. Even with all that, I'm still trying to be civil with you and am offering to work with you. Unfortunately it's very difficult because you seem to find the process of finding consensus not worth your time, and the goal of reaching correct, NPOV, and encyclopedic content less important than maintaining an article with limited sources of a consistent bias. I suspect you may have an ulterior motive to maintaining The Guardian as the sole source because of how aggressively you are promoting their content, even going so far as to introduce content that starts with "according to the Guardian" as if they are the subject of this page. Doorzki (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm being paid to advertise the Guardian on Wikipedia. Christ almighty... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your honestly. Please don't use the Guardian or any affiliated source in the future due to your conflict of interest. Doorzki (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reliable source and I'm pretty sure Snooganssnoogans was joking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As is RCP. – S. Rich (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have anything you do not understand about what's going politically be it fair or unfair, the place to learn is with Mark Levin. For those still unsure, you will learn what you need to do after reading any book and listening to Mark Levin. And you'll be glad you did. His books are superb and understanding is the gift you receive. Kelliepeacock (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

👍🏼 LaunaHart (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is not a reliable source on this topic. And unfortunately there seem to be few (if any) main stream media sources which are reliable when they deal with persons who occupy particular portions of the political spectrum. What we now have are propaganda opinions pushing agenda (Fake News) posing as news. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

BLP Delete Pejorative Slur Word "Conspiracy Theory"
Essentially the article smears Levin by attributing to him "Conspiracy Theories," instead of using the more objectively descriptive term "Politically Incorrect POV." The term conspiracy theory implies crackpot. I have thus deleted "conspiracy theory" as a Democrat talking point propaganda term and replaced it with a more NPOV expression. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC))
 * "Politically Incorrect POV" is not found in the reliable sources cited, and is a perfect example of a WP:WEASEL word. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter what, section headings are to be neutral. Now done. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC) WP:NPOVTITLE applies to section headings. As this is a BLP, the proper course of action is to leave the headings entirely neutral and sort out the controversial details in the text. 02:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will add that while "conspiracy theory" is mentioned in the lede, there is a single use of the term in the text. Adding "conspiracy" as a heading title to sections which don't discuss the material is not proper. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work. "Politically Incorrect POV" is not a weasel word, being rather clearly definitive.  But you might ask yourself if in fact "weasel word" is not a perfect example of a weasel word itself. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957)
OLD TEXT:

Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, and radio personality. He is the host of syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has authored seven books, and contributes commentary to various media outlets such as National Review Online. On September 1, 2015, Levin was named Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review.[1]

He has been described as "conservative"[2] and "right-wing"[3][4]. Levin has promoted a number of conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. Levin is known for criticizing Democrats, as well as for encouraging primary challenges to a number of incumbent congressional Republicans. He endorsed Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican presidential primary and harshly criticized Trump, but endorsed Trump after he won the Republican nomination for the presidency.

NEW TEXT: --Adam Smith Burke (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, and radio personality. He is the host of syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has authored seven books, and contributes commentary to various media outlets such as National Review Online. On September 1, 2015, Levin was named Editor-in-Chief of Conservative Review.[1]

Mark Levin is one of the hottest properties in Talk radio, his top-rated show on WABC New York is now syndicated nationally by Cumulus Media. He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena. Mark’s radio show on WABC in New York City skyrocketed to Number 1 on the AM dial in his first 18 months on the air in the competitive 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM time slot. Mark’s book Men in Black was released February 7, 2005 and quickly climbed to Number 3 in the nation on the New York Times Best-Seller list. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands. In a short period of time, Mark has become one of the most listened to local radio Talk show hosts in the nation.

Mark Levin took over the WABC 6:00 PM slot on September 2, 2003. Before that, he hosted a popular Sunday afternoon program. “He’s smart, witty, and fast on the draw,” according to WABC Program Director Phil Boyce. “He has this sharp sarcastic wit that can easily stun his opponents. I know I would not want to debate him.” Mark’s show follows the ever popular Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on WABC, but everyday he manages to come up with a new twist on the day’s top news events, as well as his own unique information. His passion and intellect have made him a favorite of tens of thousands of radio listeners in the New York City area.

Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He’s in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet – including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.

Mark Levin has also developed the CRTV Network. CRTV is your source for the most thought-provoking personalities and conservative ideas that are not available from traditional media outlets. CRTV has developed a new style in producing compelling content with stunning production quality and unique broadcast sets built to capture the individual personality and passion of each program. CRTV is developing the best programming – advocating freedom and liberty – that is delivered directly to viewers – when and where they want it.

edit war and vandalism
So this page has been the subject of an edit war and vandalism, quite obviously by people who are deleting and weasel-wording any info that in any way could be perceived as negative about the Levin. Major topic of current importance like the wiretapping section, and past allegations by Levin, have all been vandalized nearly out of existence. Can some responsible editors please get involved? Kirby Uncle Ed Coretheapple Localemediamonitor (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the IP who repeatedly adds "conspiracy theorist" to the lede paragraph. This addition is disruptive because the term is not supported by reliable sources. Moreover, because the term is derogatory, adding it violated WP:BLP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No I am referring to many edits over the last month Localemediamonitor (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not responsible for any edits before early this morning, but I did notice this page yesterday and saw what I thought was consistent bias. I worked hard to make many changes to better this article but was | reversed by user Snooganssnoogans. I think that before you allege "weasel-wording" and bias, you should review the actual content here which is itself quite biased. I detailed my issues and my edits in sections below. Doorzki (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Back after a couple of months and I have got to say, Doorzki and S. Rich are absolutely right about this. What's been occurring is a clear violation of WP:NPV as the article does indeed appear to have a slanted bias toward it! I've seen it multiple times and I've tried to clean this article up before and it too has gotten reversed. I will request for an Rfc if this keeps up. And no, I'm not WP:OWN here, I'm just siding with Doorzki and S. Rich on this one because Localemediamonitor is absolutely right that there is vandalism going on this entire article. This is a biographic article. Just today in fact, Levin himself on his radio show just protested Wikipedia on what's been written about him. This is about a living person and we need to give out the facts and remain neutral on them. Period! Hence why I encourage RfC on this basis. Kirby (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Views on political issues" section should just be "controversies" or "controversial statements", since it isn't a comprehensive section on political issues, and plenty of other wiki pages for individuals have "controversial statements" sections, so why not this page? Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I went looking, and Levin complained about Wikipedia being "run by a bunch of leftists" last night (Wednesday, 23 Aug., 2017) on his radio show and asked for all of his followers who knew how to come on here and change it to be more favorable to him. I don't know if this is already known, but there ya go. Dysmys (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with Localemediamonitor on this issue. The "Views on political issues" section should be scrapped and renamed "controversies" or "controversial statements" at the very least. I don't know why they label it "Views on political issues to begin with. Also, Dysmys you are correct. Levin was complaining about how the section on his book Liberty and Tyranny was being edited in a bias manner. Kirby (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe some good editors like Kirby & Snooganssnoogans and others could turn your attention to the Dennis Prager page, which tends to have anything that could possibly be negative about Prager deleted immediately. I gave up on the edit war. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Prager&type=revision&diff=785441325&oldid=785440515   Localemediamonitor (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)