Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 10

Some more arbitrary statistics
Did some quick searches:

Google:
 * "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 525K
 * "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 453K
 * "media matters for america" liberal progressive 271K
 * "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 1640K

Google Books:
 * "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 225
 * "media matters for america" progressive -liberal  98
 * "media matters for america" liberal progressive 59
 * "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 651

Google News Archives:
 * "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 1420
 * "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 327
 * "media matters for america" liberal progressive 131
 * "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 9300

Google Scholar:
 * "media matters for america" liberal -progressive 97
 * "media matters for america" progressive -liberal 35
 * "media matters for america" liberal progressive 117
 * "media matters for america" -progressive -liberal 112

Looks like according to Google, the overwhelming number of pages and sources use neither liberal nor progressive when discussing Media Matters. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We already know they identify themselves, so those statistics mean little. It does reinforce Drrll's statistics between liberal and progressive.  Arzel (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you accidentally a word there. Gamaliel (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Google searches are far more imprecise than LexisNexis. For example, changing your search terms slightly results in far different numbers (a Google web search for '"Media Matters for America"' results in 1.06 million hits, while '"Media Matters for America" liberal' results in 1.01 million hits; a Google Scholar search for '"Media Matters for America"' results in 363 hits, while '"Media Matters for America" liberal' results in 216 hits).  Also, a common source for Google web search, Google Scholar, & Google News Archive is Media Matters itself (5 of first 10 results on Google web search, 3 of first 10 results on Google Scholar, and 9 of 10 first results on Google News Archive)  In addition, unlike LN, Google does not show an overview of the types of sources and the specific sources, leaving no choice but to look at each source individually (not to mention paywalls) to determine usability as a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've been too subtle here. The point was to illustrate that you can whip up any sort of bullshit statistics to support whatever you want. The argument about how precise your bs is versus my bs is besides the point when these "precise" searches were not designed for measuring or intended to measure what you are trying to use them to measure, or measure anything at all.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When LexisNexis properly indexes all articles published in The NYT, WaPo, etc., can limit searches to just certain sources, and can provide results listing only those articles that have multiple search terms in the same sentence, its results are hardly "bullshit."  If you don't like the search parameters I'm using, provide better ones, along with the results.  If you feel that there are better tools for measurement, then let us know about them, along with the results. BTW, on the WP:RSN about whether MMfA is a reliable source, you gave LN results (quite effectively, I might add) for how often MMfA is cited in news sources compared to the Media Research Center. Drrll (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to cite L/N as one prong of a multi-pronged talk page argument to justify whether or not a particular source is a reliable one under Wikipedia policy. It's quite another to basically use L/N as a source and to use it as a source to "disqualify" another source and claim in the voice of Wikipedia that it is incorrect. Gamaliel (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is my providing numbers about how often "liberal" appears in the same sentence as "Media Matters" in specific sources using LexisNexis "as a source" (especially when I connect the numbers to specific MOS guidelines) while you providing numbers about how often MMfA appears in specific sources not using LN "as a source?" In addition to providing numbers for specific sources, I also provided source category numbers. I also examined each source for the NYT, WaPo, & NPR to make sure MMfA was actually described as "liberal" in the source. I don't "disqualify" MMfA "progressive" self-description; in the proposed texts I supported, "progressive" is quoted, just not used in Wikipedia's voice since that is not supported by reliable sources overall, as WP:LABEL and WP:MOSFOLLOW direct. Drrll (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia's voice is the issue, why is option 4 insufficient for you? Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 is my third choice (behind my modified version of option 4 and option 5)--if MMfA's ideological characterization in reliable sources is discussed later in the article body. That may be the compromise it takes to get clearer consensus, but I do believe that the modified version of option 4 is what is best supported by reliable sources, especially top-tier sources, and by MOS guidelines. Drrll (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I welcome the later discussion of ideological characterization in reliable sources. We can describe it in the body until the cows come home. But not in the lede. It doesn't belong there for reasons I and others have expressed, which is why we are in favor of #4. — Becksguy (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we have the makings of a compromise in the future--something with a clearer consensus. Drrll (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I just went back and had a look at that discussion where I provided LN results at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Here you say that I used LN "quite effectively" but there despite the LN results I presented you were one of the editors !voting on the opposite side of the position taken by me.  So here you essentially say that LN results trump everything else, even how MMFA describes its own political views, while there you completely ignore LN results that do not support your position.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe your "Rebuttal" section in that RSN discussion was effective and strong, and probably influenced others. It made me think about my position. But I felt that the fact that MMfA is comprised of very ideological individuals and that it is not a news organization outweighed its mentions in other sources (and it wasn't clear how many of those mentions in sources were actually citing facts from MMfA without qualification, as per WP:USEBYOTHERS: "For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it"). Drrll (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the wrong forum to reopen that discussion, so I won't respond to everywhere I disagree here, but I will note that you make a good point when you mention that it wasn't exactly clear what the content of those sources were. I have that same problem here with using numerical counts and I've long insisted that we need a source that discusses this matter instead of divining the answer ourselves with faux statistical data. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Using a LexisNexis search that locates sources with both "liberal" and "Media Matters" in the same sentence produces a fairly high level of correlation between raw results and actual results. For example, the raw numbers for NPR using that search shows 12 results; in actually examining each individual source, I found that 11 actually directly called MMfA "liberal." A correlation that strong can't be called "faux statistical data." It's completely unrealistic to have to rely upon the existence of reliable sources that actually discuss such a fine point as how other reliable sources describe something. Again, the two relevant MOS guidelines would be meaningless if we had to rely upon such nonexistent sources. Drrll (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All that tells us is what NPR's adjective of choice is. The differences between the usage of the two words in the arbitrarily selected source set from L/N is not something I would call statistically significant. Gamaliel (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a similar correlation between the raw search results and actual results in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, so? As Croc said, "Gamaliel's point is that the issue here is not that we lack "better search parameters."  The issue is that "more search hits for string X than string Y" is not considered a compelling argument here."  Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So? If the fact that specific articles from top-tier reliable sources regularly describe something a particular way is without value, then we might as well dismiss such policies as WP:V & WP:RS and guidelines like WP:MOS. Drrll (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel's point is that the issue here is not that we lack "better search parameters." The issue is that "more search hits for string X than string Y" is not considered a compelling argument here.  What these search results demonstrate is that there are plenty of sources that use "liberal", plenty that use "progressive", and plenty that don't use either.  Beyond that, it gets extremely dicey to try to find "the perfect parameters."  More importantly, even if I were to stipulate that "liberal" is used more often in sources, there are countervailing questions (if it's a matter of style, is there a reason that our style should be different from theirs) and a vitally important countervailing issue: that the "liberal" label is used as a derogatory epithet, which poses significant neutrality problems.  Do you really think that search results obviate that entire problem?  Croctotheface (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Google is not even in the same ballpark as high-quality precise source databases as LexisNexis. Why do you think that Gamaliel provided LN results instead of Google results when arguing that MMfA is a reliable source? Search results do obviate the neutrality problem when viewed in the context of the MOS guideline WP:LABEL. Drrll (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You think your search engine test is more important than WP:NPOV? Croctotheface (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they are not. But WP:LABEL clearly implies that using contentious labels does not violate WP:NPOV as long as there is proper support in sourcing. Drrll (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The question here isn't whether to use the label at all. It's in the article several times.  The question is whether to feature it as prominently as possible in the lead.  But I'll point out again: your entire argument comes down to "some sources use 'liberal'".  While I don't think that they all intend to use it in its derogatory sense, the fact that such a derogatory sense exists seriously calls into question your assertion that "liberal" MUST be featured in the article as prominently as possible.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "liberal" appears several time in the article, yes, but not in directly describing MMfA. No, my entire argument comes down to MANY sources FREQUENTLY directly calling MMfA "liberal," including but not limited to, top sources like The NYT, WaPo, and NPR. Drrll (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, to me, there isn't much difference between what you said and what I said. Even if I assume that your characterization is correct, I don't see the need to put "liberal" as close to the top as possible.  It seems born out of a desire to push a sometimes-derogatory label onto the group.  You refuse to engage with that argument at all.  Do you see no issues with the fact that conservatives have tried for decades to turn "liberal" into a dirty word?  Do you at least see why I and other editors here think that the baggage surrounding "liberal" means that the article is better off not featuring it so prominently?  Croctotheface (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I earlier preferred waiting until the 2nd sentence to mention "liberal." I came around to the notion that it should be right up front because of the very strong sourcing, the support of two MOS guidelines, and because it was cleaner writing (though option #5 is my second preference). I do see why you and others think it's not best to mention "liberal" so prominently, given that many conservatives have long worked to make "liberal" a dirty word. I just think that sourcing and MOS guidelines mitigate such concerns. I might be able to live with option #4, provided that we discuss the ideology of MMfA later in the article (such as in the 'Reception' section). Would you go for that? Drrll (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A pin's dancing angels
So, after much discussion we have no agreement but a lot of invective. I'll say it again: can't we all just kill each other? Or better yet, take a time out since time in has gone nowhere but in circles? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is in the news again (Whitehouse talking-points connections). FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead image
Media Matters recently updated their site design. Would replacing the (outdated) lead picture with one of the updated site be acceptable? (Had a really hard time wording that. will clarify upon request.) 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller exposé
The Daily Caller just put out a lengthy profile piece on Brock and MMfA based on some internal documents and other reporting. They also published what they claim is an "enemies list" from inside MMfA. The Daily Caller is run by Tucker Carlson so I'm sure it was all rather gleefully assembled but, regardless, it's going to be a story and seems to contain quite a few citable accusations. I'm sure there's a response coming from MMfA soon if you all want to keep an eye out. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, I predict much idiocy to be revealed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, besides being a "bat signal" to right wing attacks, "Among the more than half-dozen articles and blog posts the Daily Caller has written in its “Inside Media Matters” series, there is little in the way of actual substance. From Carlson and Coglianese’s original piece we learn that Brock regularly staffs himself with body guards, even at social events. A later piece focuses on the fact that Media Matters contributor Karl Frisch once suggested hiring personal investigators to “look into the personal lives of Fox News” staff. Yet most of the content of the articles is hardly surprising or shocking. On the contrary, it points to an important fact: Media Matters matters.
 * ...there is little in the way of actual substance.
 * It appears the jury may still be out on that particular question...
 * "Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller has published a series of reports on Media Matters for America and its leader, David Brock. It's an intriguing piece of work."
 * Carlson Digs Into the Journalistic Muck: The Ticker, Bloomberg
 * Assumedly more (cough) bias-free "journalism" to follow. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can say the jury's out on anything: The jury is still out on round earth. What's "intriguing"? Maybe along the lines of "Britney Spears is an intriguing singer." Biggest weasel word out there. Show me "bias-free" journalism, and I'll show you crap. Journalists who don't have biases are liars. And who the hell said they were "bias free", really, you should cool the baseless and crude suspicions. Next time let's add some substance, Jakers. 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's also intriguing is that bus coming down Brock's road and some rather skittish Demo establishment types standing right behind him. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have that in English please, and try not to be lazy. What bus, what road (talk about getting weird with metaphors), what "skittish Demo establishment types"? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tax status, financial malfeasance lawsuit
I restored then paired down the update to the article concerning Brock's settlement with his ex partner over MMfA. This was all undone with the nonfactual summary: "soruce makes no connection between Brock's personal affairs and professional conduct. Source reports an $850K settlement was paid though later the article says Brock sued to have the award reversed and an undiclosed settlement was reached". The article clearly establishes a connection with MMfA and a tie with Brock's personal finances and the status of MMfA. I can only assume that either the undoing editor didn't read the source or he didn't understand it. Either way I'm not going to debate it in edit summaries. The article made a connection between Brock, the lawsuit and MMfA's finical and legal status. As it stands now I can't decipher any reason to exclude it. Barring a sensical objection I'll restore the material. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sources should be read better, that is better than you have. Show me one clear statement that attributes Grey's accusations of "malfeasance" directly relates to Brock's association with MMfA? Also, these are charges made by Grey that he no longer makes, and for which Brock sued him $4 million for making, and got an undisclosed settlement, something Fox buried as low as it could in the article. We need a substantial source, not a Fox hatchet job that seeks to mislead and obfuscate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the source, and it's ambiguous on how this relates to MMfA. There is the statement:"accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions".  It's not clear that those possessions belonged to MMfA, but even if they did, it's only an accusation.  Given that the settlement was confidential, it's not clear that there are any details available which relate this directly to MMfA. aprock (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "War on FOX" clearly has consequence for both MMfA AND Brock. This is one of them. How is a FOX retaliatory strike at Brock and MMfA  not relevant here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do Brock's personal affairs affect MMfA? A source is needed, not an editor's crude intuitions. It's all similar to reporting that Brock's daughter  vows "I'll never speak to you again!" (This is a hypothetical, but Brock could have a daughter- I haven't checked.) Relevancy depends on substance, not someone getting all bitchy and whiny with his ex, then backs off his threats to blow the whole shit house down. Thereby making the accusations look phony.  And in any case, never detailed in the first place. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jake, a "retaliatory strike" by Fox could possibly be relevant here, but it would have to be notable and sourced to a reliable secondary source. Otherwise, this Fox article becomes a primary document and the whole notion of a retaliatory strike becomes original research.  But that doesn't really matter as there's nothing in the article in question that has anything to do with Media Matters, other than Brock's connection to the organization.  On its face, this seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT.  Fox is going to put out a lot of hatchet  pieces against MMfA this year but that doesn't mean we have to rush to this article and try to create a new section every time they do.  The story has to become otherwise notable first. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a conservative and no fan of MMfA, but at this point the connection between the two seems to be too weak for inclusion here. It is obviously appropriate to include in Brock's BLP, but not here. Lee Iacoca's personal life isn't appropriate for the Chrysler page, unless it expressly affected the company. Same thing applies here. SeanNovack (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Liberal v progressive
Could any of the editors watching over this page please explain what is this nonsense about "progressive" being the "correct" term to describe liberal politics? Is this an endemic term? Furthermore, considering the universality of WP, if the term "progressive" has evolved over in America to such an extent as to become the only accepted word, should its use not be clearly qualified so that non US-based readers can understand that it's use applies, in particular, to American political language? I think US-based editors should remember that English has become lingua franca, that there are millions of native English speakers outside America, and that WP is meant to be neutral.--Ianonne89 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are very wrong about non-US readers. In the UK at least, "liberal" has a long and honourable history in politics, and means something very different than it does in modern American political use. As a general rule, it is much better to avoid sticking labels on a subject, since that is an editorial judgement, and if a label is to be used at all, it should be one by which the organization self-describes. --NSH001 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the Talk archives where this issue has been discussed at great length, then discuss if you wish to attempt to reach a new consensus. Rostz (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning editors, precisely because in the UK "liberal" is a term widely accepted that does not have pejorative connotations, is that I don't understand why would America-centric editors claim that after reaching consensus, presumably among themselves, that term is not to be used, and is to be changed by "progressive." So what does this means, I wonder, that only Democrats are progressive? That Conservatives, or their American version, Republicans aren't? Liberal and Conservatives are not charged terms, in pretty much the same way of neutral Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, I'll ask again, why the need to differentiate along endemic political causes that are of no interest to the wider world? As a Brit, and native English speaker, I'd say non US-based editors should discuss this and try to maintain WP as a neutral source as much as possible. Until such discussion takes place, I'm reverting to plain English.--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Deficiencies in your understanding of the nuances of a different nations political system and terminology is not justification to change the used labels.  Even if you do not completely accept the long standing consensus to prefer the organization's self-description, it is a clear and open violation of WP:ENGVAR to rewrite an article about a US based organization in British English.  The simple fact is the UK meaning of "liberal" is not the same as the US meaning of the same term. --Allen3 talk 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) You appear to be providing original research; sources? If your argument that "progressive" has distinct meanings between the US and the UK/rest-of-world, that's also true of "liberal", which has strongly negative connotations in the US (e.g. Who Are They Calling Elitist?), so that gets us nowhere.  According to MOS:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." In any case, it's unclear what part of WP:NOT your undo comment refers to, but procedurally you must follow WP:BRD to achieve new WP:CONSENSUS for this change, employing WP:DR procedures as needed rather than edit-warring - note WP:EW/WP:3RR in the event you're unaware of it. Rostz (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings to all. Thanks for calling me deficient, that'll certainly add positively to the discussion, won't it? Folks, I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in a long and protracted debate about US-centric nuances of certain terms of the English language. That great invention called the dictionary suffices in my opinion. The term liberal does not have negative connotations anywhere but in America, it seems, and I am not the one saying that progressive has distinct meaning, rather whoever agreed to it is. Because in other parts the meaning is not the same, I think it would be appropriate to qualify the term, and I don't see the harm in doing so. In any case, none of you have given a clear explanation as to why "progressive" is the correct term to describe exclusively "liberal" organizations, politicians, etc. Perhaps some of you can point out where can one read literature on appropriation of terms for political reasons in America.--Ianonne89 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you might want to read through the archives of this talk page for further explanation. This has been discussed to death and consensus is clear. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Progressive is simply a rebranding of Liberal or maybe a return to the term from the early 20th century because of implied negative connetations regarding the word Liberal. It also allows Liberals(Democrats) to claim that they are moving forward with progress while conservatives(Republicans) are regressive and moving backwards.  It is quite clever.  Convervatives tried to rebrand themselves in the late 20th with neo-conservative(new conservative or compasionate conservative as it were), but the Liberals were able to quickly turn the word into Neocon, which has a nice bad sound to it, probably similar to the supposed bad sound of Liberal.  As a result you have Liberals strongly claiming that they are actually Progressives (a distinction without any difference) and Conservatives have completely dropped Neocon.  So if you want to piss off the left call them a Liberal.  If you want to piss off the right call them a Neocon.  Here is one quick recent read   Arzel (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a somewhat oversimplified, mostly incorrect assessment from a biased editor. Regulars here have come to expect nothing more from ax-grinders. El duderino (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just such a shame that simple things, like calling things according to dictionary definitions, are ever so difficult to achieve in WP, specially considering "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopaedia." WP:COMMONALITY. I have read some of the previous debates, and it seems that consensus was reached among the American-based participants, hence it is far from clear. As a matter of policy you guys are entitled to to be bold, though turning WP into a US-centric encyclopaedia, where only your local colloquialism and vernacular are to accepted does the overall purpose more harm than good. As per implied negative connotations of the word liberal, perhaps in America, certainly not in the UK, or anywhere else, as far I can tell. Though I'd appreciate if US-based editors can convince me otherwise.--Ianonne89 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an American organization, so just as we use American spellings and American English, we recognize the American implications of words and phrases. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is utter nonsense, this is not an American encyclopaedia.

Unless there is a change in consensus, and there is none yet, it's time to walk away from the dead horse. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I happen to disagree with the "American" consensus. So which will it be, an entry amenable to an international audience, or one where US liberals impose whatever current term of their preference, much as their government does in pretty much any other issue? Behold the community spirit! --Ianonne89 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion that the opposition to your desire to impose British English upon an article about an American organization is based upon political bias on the part of those who do not agree with you. One obvious problem with this theory is the same people arguing to use the organization's self description have made similar arguments with regards to other groups and individuals that have nothing to do with Media Matters or left-wing politics.  See Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 7 for one of my personal examples. --Allen3 talk 00:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may consider it "utter nonsense" but that's the way it works on Wikipedia. Please read MOS:ENGVAR for further explanation of this.  American and British English variations differ in vocabulary (soccer vs. football), spelling (center vs. centre), and occasionally grammar.  We use the one relevant to the subject (in this case, the United States).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Chaps, I'm afraid you're not getting it: this isn't about supremacy of versions of the English language WP:COMMONALITY, but about qualifying a political term alien to non US-based readers of WP. This has got nothing to do with political tendencies, as Allen3 has rightly argued, but rather to attempt to make, not only this entry but all, readable and understandable to people that are not aware of the evolution of terms in America's political jargon. Thus I ask, what is the problem of qualifying it? Why the stubborn and illogical imposition? What harm can "this organization describes itself as progressive (a term preferred by US liberals) and monitors media ..." do?--Ianonne89 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's not primarily about US versus non-US usage (though less the UK than Australia and the Continent) - it's because we tend to use the labels a group uses for themselves. So we don't call the American right "reactionary", we call them "conservative" even though that's nowhere near the common English meaning of the word. As for "progressive" versus "liberal", in a US context - in terms of usage, there's a lot of overlap, but there are distinctions which are a little more than semantic. It isn't our job to dissect people's ideological claims...especially when the distinction between the two terms tends only to be meaningful on to insiders. Unless we have a preponderance of reliable sources which argue the A is actually "x and not y", it's inappropriate for us to replace self-identification with our own judgement. Guettarda (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't our job to dissect people's ideological claims...especially when the distinction between the two terms tends only to be meaningful on to insiders. Bingo! That's my point, if it is only meaningful to insiders, why not qualify the term so that the rest of the world gets the nuance? BTW, nothing to do with our own judgement, but rather with using commonly accepted definitions.


 * This seems similar to the dispute about "pro choice" or "pro life." The use of terms such as these is a way of subtly sidelining your opposition. If you're pro-life, what, does that mean that your opponent is anti-life? Or pro-death? These terms are adopted as part of a political struggle. It is similar to "progressive," is it not? It indicates that the opponents are regressive, or opposed to "progress." I suggest that in Wikipedia's language, when the organization is first characterized, we use "liberal" and link it out. Then in a later sentence bring in the self-description which uses this politicized term. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to the politicking associated with the promotion of various viewpoints; I thought there was a big brouhaha about the pro-life and pro-choice issue I mentioned above, and the pages were renamed so as to not have such propagandistic connotations. Am I wrong?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're wrong. Please see progressive, since you seem unfamiliar with the concept. Guettarda (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say lets qualify the term, by saying "an organization that describes itself as progressive (a term preferred by US liberals) that monitors media..." --Ianonne89 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Guettarda answered with a non-answer. I suggest the "describes itself as..." qualification. But I wouldn't inflict what may be potentially perceived as a tendentious parenthetical on the reader in the first sentence of the page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An IP editor has just decided to make that change, against the consensus in this section. See new discussion section below: Talk:Media_Matters_for_America. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin photo mistake
Just wanted to bring an incident up that I feel belongs in the "controversies" section, story at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/media-matters-honcho-sorry-after-blasting-drudge-for-trayvon-photo/?intcmp=related SeanNovack (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would probably fall under WP:NOTNEWS. And anyway, it doesn't even have anything to do with MMoA (other than the fact that this person is associated with MMoA).  You can count on Fox News writing a similar hatchet piece at least once a week but those articles don't automatically become "controversies" and get included here. It would have to be a bigger issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes the Fox news article a "hatchet piece"? Or, put another way, what are the characteristics of a hatchet piece and where are they displayed in this article? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes it newsworthy at all? Fox and MM0A are at war with each other, after all.  An attack article from Fox is not the basis of any sort of "controversy" in this article just as an attack piece by MMoA isn't the basis for a new section in the Fox News article.  It would have to be a larger issue, reported on by reliable third-party sources.  Or in journalistic terms, the story would need to have legs.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked. You've asserted the Fox article is a "hatchet piece". I've asked you to identify what makes it makes it such. I'll follow up with asking what makes it an "attack article", as you've now identified it.TomPointTwo (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're getting off the subject. The point isn't the definition of "hatchet piece" but that it has no relevance whatsoever to this article. But if you want to learn more about hatchet pieces or attack journalism in general (particularly the practices of the Murdoch press, which includes Fox), there's a wealth of info out there.  This one is an interesting place to start.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, didn't we already have this exact same conversation above about an almost identical Fox News article? I hope we're not going to have to go through this every time Fox launches another volley.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a part of the subject at hand, it has to do with the reliability of a source. You've casually maligned the source but now you're refusing to back your pejorative characterizations. Should we just ignore your assertions in the future as off-the-cuff and unsubstantiatable or are you ready and willing to back them when asked? So again, please explain your dismissal of the article as a "hatchet piece" and "attack article". Unless, of course, you'd like to retract your outbursts. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Outburst? Alright, calm down. As I said, the issue in question isn't reliability of the source, it's the relevancy to this article (which is none). I'm not going to argue semantics about whether specific quotations or wording constitutes an "attack," that would take us way off-topic and lead nowhere.  But you really have to place the article within its proper context. It's just the latest in a series of disparaging articles by one or the other side of a self-described "war" on each other.  Fox puts out one of these articles every week or so.  MMoA, publishes a hatchet piece against Fox with even more frequency.  It's going to continue for some time, so get used to it.
 * The fact that other news outlets don't find it newsworthy should tell you something. We've noted the beef between the two organizations in the article, but we don't need to lard it out with an ever-growing list of attacks from one side or the other. If something in the future rises to a higher level of notability (ie., if the non-involved media picks it up and it becomes an issue that MMoA is forced to deal with) then we can discuss including that. But this (and similar future articles by Fox, of which there will be many) do not rise to that level. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sean, as usual, is showing the good sense to gain consensus on the article, and I appreciate that. So here's my 2 cents. This one is goofy: a MMfA editor in a personal tweet-which MMfA will not claim as their view-confused a fake photo foisted by Michelle Malkin-who apologized for her mistake. The Drudge photo the MMfA editor meant to fault still may or may not be one of Trayvon. (Did Trayon have a gold grill?) In short, a MMfA dude kibitzed on his own and did not fly it by MMfA first.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be interesting if it was in fact the case that the second photo in the two Fox showed was rarely if ever used in media coverage, and only the first was, and Fox was drawing attention to that fact. That, and Fox's complaining about it, would warrant a line, in my view, in the relevant article. It would seem helpful to our readership to very briefly note such factoids. If we're only talking about this fellow cussing out Drudge.. obviously that is not worth mentioning. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-story of tweets. Agree with Looney that it's a nothing more than a petty attack piece on a Drudge critic. Bringing up charge of anti-semitism has nothing to do with the mistaken photo. El duderino (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaked Internal Memo Whitewash
The section "War on Fox" under controversy is a bit misleading. It starts talking about stuff from 2010, but the leaked memo clearly shows it all started in September 2009. The stated reason in the memo has nothing to do with Fox. According to the writer of the memo, "Simply put, the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more." This is important information to include in the writeup yet the Wikipedia article is totally missing this and more. Instead, the section seems to focus on attacking Fox News. Kinda missing the point of this whole leaked memo thing. JettaMann (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP is about reliable sources, and though the Daily Caller has an axe to grind, I'm inclined to accept the memo as valid. But so what. What happened due to the memo besides beefing up security? Is the memo notable? Did its suggestions become official policy, or were they just somebody from MMfA name Frisch blowing smoke. Who is Frisch? The Daily Caller is mum. The memo is hardly a smoking gun, and including it in the article will be tricky. It's all looking like water cooler talk to me. Good luck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think the leaked memo revelations about Media Matters should have its own section before the War on Fox section? It clearly seems to be the whole reason for MM's "War on Fox". Or should the leaked memo information be at the start of the War on Fox section? JettaMann (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons I gave, and I would acknowledge and account for those objections. As it is, you got a lot of nothing that may feed conspiracy theories, but is not up to WP standards. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not even worth discussing until there is a reliable source (which Daily Caller is not). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the Daily Caller a reliable source? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I would call it a RS, but I just don't see much in the story. Again, look at what I said about it. Those questions should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs)
 * It's not a reliable source because it doesn't meet any of the criteria of a reliable source. It's Tucker Carlson's attack blog, not a news organization and has no reputation for fact-checking or journalistic standards. Its articles are primarily opinion or analysis and as such are reliable only to the opinions of their authors, not factual material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you have a negative personal impression of the Daily Caller but I want to know what specific material it has published or actions it has taken that are in broad enough violation of the criteria of WP:RS to render it totally inappropriate for sourcing. So far you've simply made declarations of personal displeasure, unbacked accusations of unsuitability and a few observations that have nothing to do with the policy on reliable sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that Tucker Carlson's blog does not have a clear and specific partisan agenda, is neutral, is reliably vetted for accuracy and impartiality, is completely verifiable, and "has a reputation for thorough fact-checking," then you might be living on a river in Egypt. Yes, I have a negative impression of the website, but for reasons of journalism, not ideology. I have the same impression of similar websites on the left. The Daily Caller is no more reliable than The Daily Kos, which is to say, not very.  Often these websites aggregate information from legitimate news sources (in which case we can verify it and go from there) but that's not the case here. Are we to simply take their word for the veracity of this information?  You're attributing infallibility to a highly fallible source.  But to turn your question around, just because you have a positive personal impression of the website doesn't mean that it's automatically a RS until somebody "proves the negative" to your satisfaction.  The burden of proof falls on the person wishing to add questionable material, not than those doing the questioning.  That's how Wikipedia works, and with good reason.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'll defend the source, but what are you going to do with it? I don't think you can make anything of it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that you can look at past discussions on WP:RSN where there is some debate about TDC's partisan angle. The link above [] goes to a page summarizing the memo and giving TDC's spin on it. Where is the memo? Are we to take their word for it? I'm surprised that User:AKA is "inclined to accept the memo as valid." I'm not. El duderino (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a forgery, but a non-entity is more like it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand those reasons. This is given: The "War on Fox" was notable enough to warrant a section in this article. The memo is unarguably FACT, no matter what source. Yahoo News and other news sources picked up the story, and they are reliable. It was written by the Media Matters founder. The memo itself slightly predates the "War on Fox", and quite obviously is what kicked off the War on Fox. So I really don't understand you trying to say that it is "a lot of nothing" and "conspiracy theories". No conspiracy. The memo is plain fact. It is the sole reason for the "War on Fox" which has been deemed relevant enough to put in this article. JettaMann (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, it's not "unarguably fact." I have yet to see a reliable source that confirms it is even true.  (Yahoo News is not a news organization, by the way. It's simply an automated aggregation of content and sources.)  But, as The Artist AKA explained above, the bigger issue isn't sourcing, it's that there really isn't anything relevant there anyway.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to repeat Tucker Carlson's conspiracy theories.  There are plenty of blogs in the echo-chamber that are doing a fine job of that already.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my questions so we're going to have to do some hand holding by knocking them off one by one. This memo kicks off the War on Fox, correct? JettaMann (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What questions are you referring to? I just read your last post again and there aren't any questions in there, just declarations of your own opinion. As for whether this "kicks off the War on Fox," no, that cannot be said to be correct. It may be your opinion (again) but no reliable source has indicated as much. Also, you're ignoring the central points made by myself and several other editors as to why this isn't appropriate material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not correct? If you found a memo by Hitler saying "I'm going to invade Russia in September" and then in September they invaded, wouldn't you say the memo had something to do with the decision to invade Russia? I mean, I suppose if you ignore reality then it might be possible not to see this, but reality is kind of smacking you in the face with a brick on this one. And no, this is not my opinion, this is the research and conclusions by the Daily Caller. The referenced article clearly talks about how Media Matters went after Fox in numerous ways following this memo. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spare the hypothetical. Tell us precisely what would you add to the article based on this source. We have no idea so far. Only this could change my view. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is going in circles. Daily Caller is not a reliable source.  And per Godwin's Law, this discussion seems to have reached its conclusion.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep asserting, without providing any evidence, that the DC is not a reliable source. I have to disagree.William Jockusch (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may personally like it (and obvious you agree with its opinions), but that's irrelevant. It doesn't meet any of the criteria of a verifiable reliable source.  Simply saying "yes it does" isn't much of an argument.  Maybe you can explain why you feel it does meet the criteria using specific reliable evidence. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority of editors here appear to feel that it is partisan, but reliable. In light of that, if you wish to change minds to the assertion that it is not, you have the burden to do that.William Jockusch (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as always, you can't start with an assumption of acceptability until someone proves the negative. It's up to you to prove the positive.  And, as the editor seeking to add material, the burden rests entirely with you.  That's how Wikipedia (and basic logic) works.  But it's a moot point as there isn't consensus to add it anyway, regardless of whether you like the source or not.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lively noticeboard discussion supporting reliability . So, now that this objection has been shot down, do you have any other Wikipedia policies you want to try? William Jockusch (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You posted a dead link, but I know of no RS/N discussion in which there was a clear consensus that Tucker Carlson's blog meets all the criteria of a reliable source for factual material. Anyway, this argument has come full circle several times, Godwin's law has already been broken and no consensus exists for adding this material.  At this point, it's just gotten tedious.  I see no point in responding further. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny, the link works fine for me in both Firefox and Chrome. Anyway, now that Loony has bowed out, is there still debate about whether or not the DC is an RS?William Jockusch (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See. The somewhat old discussion on this topic seems to have ended. The laste poster stated the opinion that the Daily Caller is a WP:RS, with no further commentary. Am I misconstruing this? I add this note in response to the recent addition and then revert to the article. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're misreading that discussion entirely, and you seem to be basing your conclusion on a single comment by one editor, which you're misunderstanding. In that discussion, it is never agreed that Daily Caller should get a blanket RS designation.  And quite a bit of evidence is offered as to why they shouldn't be considered RS. The discussion ends because the source itself was no longer used exclusively in a specific article and was no longer an issue for the noticeboard.
 * In this case, RS was not the only issue with this material, as you can see from the discussion above. For William Jockusch to suddenly claim consensus simply because other editors have grown weary of responding to the same arguments is tendentious.  We don't reward the WP:FILIBUSTER in content discussions.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Loonymonkey, see my post above, asking you if you had any other objections you wanted to raise, now that RS had been knocked down. I'm sure you reverted in good faith and simply forgot about my post above.  However, as you are surely editing in good faith, I'm sure you will realize that you now need to self revert your reversion, as you had 5 days to raise an new objection and did not do so.  I'll cross post this to your talk page.William Jockusch (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's simply no way in a million years that The Daily Caller could be considered a reliable source for anything other than quoting The Daily Caller itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all RS has not been "knocked down," it's unclear why you believe that, but read my comments above for further explanation. You seem to mistakenly believe that there was community consensus to give the blog in question a sort of blanket RS certification (when in fact, the opposite is true). And your belief that editors need to continually raise "new" objections (or by default you get to claim consensus) is just bizarre. Just because you wear out other editors with the same arguments, doesn't mean you "win."  That's called filibustering. Talk page discussions often trail off, particularly when the arguments aren't going anywhere (as in this case).  That doesn't mean that the other editors have changed their minds.  They just have more important things to do than repeat themselves.
 * A couple of important notes on how wikipedia works (which, frankly, have been explained to you previously): 1) There is no time limit, Wikipedia is not a job.  2) As the editor seeking to add material, the WP:BURDEN is on you to first find reliable source and then achieve consensus before adding that material.  This is particularly true if other editors have already raised objections.  And in this case the material in question also raises WP:BLP concerns, so the rules are even stricter.   In the absence of anything new, it's unlikely that there will be consensus to add this material so please don't just unilaterally add it back in once again.  Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Could you clear something up for me, as apparently I am a little thick.  Are you still contesting RS or not?  And if so, are you saying that you can simply contest RS indefinitely, without giving any reason?  And since there is no consensus, nothing can happen, as you are contesting RS?  Is that your position in the matter?William Jockusch (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Without giving a reason"? What? Okay, why don't you start by going back and reading this entire thread again if you can't remember why I and other editors object to your edit. As I said, at this point there's very little patience for repeatedly explaining things. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Self described" as Progressive
It seems the issue discussed here Talk:Media_Matters_for_America has raised itself in a new way with this edit. While I understand the policy-based argument for the change, a simple Google News search quickly finds reliable sources that describe Media Matters as a "Progessive" organization, e.g.,.
 * I clearly must be missing why this seems to be a hot button item (I try to avoid political articles for just this reason).
 * Rather than revert, at some later time today I'd like to update the lede to include the reference I noted and remove the text "describes itself as", consensus willing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. It's was weird language anyway and not correct as the self-description follows immediately after that. I don't see any compelling reason to rehash this argument yet again.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thanks again for the reply and note on my talk page. The link you have suggested is an opinion article and therefore not sufficient per WP:RS. Do you have any other links that would qualify? If there is no link, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to label an organization as progressive because that is WP:OR. As for Loony's claim that it is redundant, I must disagree. The self-description does follow, but based on the current wording, Wikipedia is calling the organization progressive in Wikipedia's voice, without any sources backing it up. If you can find a source I would gladly concede. 74.198.87.108 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Joe has now reverted my ((fact)) tag and put in a source which I explained above is invalid as it is an opinion article. He included in his edit summary "please see talk page". However, he has not provided any explanation on the talk page and very obviously has not read my post on this talk page where I explained why the opinion article is invalid. He even went so far as to post an edit warring warning on my talk page, even though I have not made even 1 revert so far on this article and do not plan on making any whatsoever. If he does not self revert on the other hand, I will be forced to seek administrative intervention because his uncollaborative and deceitful actions are against Wiki policies. Cheers 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Before making good on your threat, I would suggest you read the sentence you where inserted the fact template in its entirety and examine the preexisting citation located at the end said sentence. If you take the time to perform this simple task you will see that it is Media Matters itself that makes the claim the group is progressive. --Allen3 talk 20:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Allen, thanks for that. If you look above, you will see I made that exact point. It is Media Matters who calls themselves progressive. That is why the sentence I originally inserted clarified that they are self-defined as progressive. The current wording has Wikipedia calling them progressive in the encyclopedia's voice with no {{WP:RS]], which is why this whole dispute started. We cannot objectively call them progressive just because they call themselves progressive. That's WP:OR. 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with your emphasis on the term being self-defined is that it is an expression of doubt (i.e. they claim to be X but other unnamed sources are in disagreement). There has never been any doubt that MMfA is aligned with the Political left of American politics.  The only debate has been whether we should use the term they chose to describe themselves or a political label preferred by those opposed to the group. --Allen3 talk 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems entirely unnecessary to emphasize that they self-define as progressive. How else are they defined in reliable sources? The "progressive" appellation is by now widely accepted and I don't believe is construed as a biased term in itself. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}}I provided a reference inline, as well as two more below. Before I add the one's below, do any of these satisfy your concern? I also note again the consensus here Talk:Media_Matters_for_America on the acceptability of the appellation "Progressive" being acceptable in the article. Of course, consensus can change, but I've not seen that happen yet. If you are still dissatisfied, may I suggest: Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ceasing the personal attacks you've made here, on my talk page, and on Talk:Max Blumenthal‎ (diffs available, but they're all right on those pages). Note: I'm not concerned - you're unhappy, and I'm sorry about that, but it diminishes your position.
 * Discuss here with other editors to see if WP:CONSENSUS can be reached, and not spread the discussion to other pages.
 * If still dissatisfied, we can open an RFC on the topic here.
 * Using WP:RSN on the various references I've provided is another reasonable approach.
 * Finally, there's the WP:DR process.
 * Also, consensus on this talk page (referenced above) also supports the description of the organization as being Progressive. Also see a discussion here with the same editor Talk:Max_Blumenthal, where I provide two more potential sources:
 * 
 * 
 * P.S. To the IP, as I noted in my response on my talk page, please no personal attacks. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I find it pointless to continue discussing this with Joe since he keeps ignoring my points and bringing up irrelevant things like WP:NPA (beats me how pointing out that I will seek admin intervention to his edit warring is a personal attack...), I must point out the irony here that Joe keeps bringing up previous consensus in earlier discussions on this talk page. It is clear that he has not really read those previous discussions, for one, because he keeps linking to sources that do not qualify as WP:RS, and that has already been pointed out in the previous discussions by other editors. While I am trying very hard to WP:AGF here, it is becoming increasingly difficult based on this pattern to avoid reaching the conclusion that this qualifies as WP:TEND. 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to summarize where things stand at this point, Joe has reinserted the previous wording of the article ("is a politically progressive") and when I put in a ((fact)) tag, he put in an opinion article as the source. This is not a WP:RS. Joe then brought 2 additional sources to this talk page, both of which fail to be WP:RS (as has been noted in previous discussions on this talk page). So as of now, the sentence is still not properly sourced and as a result the article suffers from WP:OR. I do not plan on joining Joe's edit war by reverting him, but will wait to see what other editors say about this. Allen seems to agree with me above. Cheers 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not edit warring.
 * Could you point to where the 3 citations I've provided (one inline, two above) were agreed by WP:CONSENSUS to be not WP:RS? Apologies if I missed that.
 * I also don't read Allen3's comments as being in agreement with you, but perhaps he could comment.
 * See also my thoughts above. If sufficient comment to establish WP:CONSENSUS is not reached in a reasonable time, going forward with those other approaches would be my suggestion (starting with an RFC here). JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For whatever it is worth from a drive-by article watcher, I do not think there are any POV or other issues with the current lead, which describes MMA as a "political progressive" organization. I also don't think it would be difficult to find links to substantiate that. The "political" is a bit redundant though, because the term progressive, when used to describe organizations such as this, only refers to the political context. In fact, are there any other modern widespread uses of this term? Prog-rock. That's all I can think of. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing insert on right side of page as seen on MRC's article.
On the Media Research Center article, we see an insert on the right side of the page indicating quick facts like the organization's founder, its headquarters, key people, etc. A similar insert should be included on this article for MMfA. Krjcheck (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be included, and you have reliable sources that contain the necessary information, by all means add it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No criticism section?
There is no section dedicated to criticism of MMfA in the article, yet the Media Research Center article has one. Why the discrepancy? Krjcheck (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are examples of poor writing. Legitimate criticism should be woven into the prose as needed. As far as the Media Research Center article is concerned, that is a matter for the editors who maintain that article. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There can be instances where criticisms, or more broadly, receptions to an organization from all perspectives, can warrant their own section.  I also disagree with your suggestion that the two articles are completely independent with one another, they both belong to the same Wikipedia community.  Krjcheck (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree, but there it is. Criticism sections are shit magnets, hence unwanted. And the two organizations are independent of one another, which means the articles are independent as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Jimmy Wales, and therefore Scjessey too, on this one. Jinkinson (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There can be a criticism section, they take writings and videos out of context as the O'rielley won showed64.134.64.118 (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a criticism section. It's called 'Reception and controversies'. What is not needed is a section called 'criticism' which is a random list of unrelated complaints, ranging from objections to someone's hairstyle to claims of inaccuracy. That;'s why such sections are generally avoided. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Soros funding
There has been some back and forth about a ref for Soros' funding (and whether it is RS). I would point out that there already is RS (Politico) ref for that in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but the the content added by various IPs was misleading in its context and poorly sourced.- MrX 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that sourced content is already well covered in the article. The text was making a different claim, one even the Newsmax 'article' didn't support. In any case, the fact that Soros has given funds to MMfA is already included in the article, with the source you've linked to. Dave Dial (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, uneeded addition to lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Daily Caller Investigations
I have read through the article and the discussions and the Daily Caller investigations are not in the article nor has anyone really talked about them here. I plan on constructing a piece in the "controversies" section that at least addresses the fact that the Daily Caller has led investigations against MMfA and unearthed several important controversies (here is a link to the initial investigation: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/?print=1). I realize that because MMoA is an ardent progressive group that we have to be careful of neutrality; however, I think it would be a blow to neutrality if we did not include this. I might be mistaken, but I believe someone already brought up that the current "controversies" are really just MMfA's efforts to bust high profile conservatives whereas if you look at "controversies" on the Drudge Report page--aguably MMoA's conservative equivalent in some ways--there are "notable stories" and then a list of real "controversies."

So (1) I suggest that we change this so that MMoA's "notable stories" are not under the heading of "controversies" (it confuses the reader, certainly this one) and (2) we make sure we cover the real controversies surrounding MMoA, especially the Daily Caller investigations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.152 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because Tucker Carlson goes after MMfA on a regular basis doesn't mean that it's a "controversy." For starters, you would need references from a reliable third-party source discussing this as a controversy, not simply the original editorials that he ran on his blog. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen your replies on this discussion so far Loonymonkey and it is hard to deny that you have a favor towards Media Matters. In any case, it would be foolish and misleading not to at least mention that the Daily Caller has investigated MMfA and if there is a consensus that these investigations have not exactly come to fruitation, then we will also mention that. Also, to counterargue you notion that because the Daily Caller "goes after MMfA on a regular basis doesn't mean that it's a 'controversey,'" I am quite confident that every media outlet with a liberal-slant goes after Fox News every day so with that logic, why mention that MMfA started a "War on Fox"? All I am suggesting is that we separate the "controversies" and "notable stories" and then discuss the legitimacy of the Daily Caller investigations in the "controversies." The fact that this media outlet has colluded with the Obama Administration and the Daily Caller has some evidence to back this claim is certainly enough to mention it in this article.
 * Whether you agree with their opinion or not, it still isn't notable enough to include here. What's the controversy, exactly? Is it that they were written about by The Daily Caller, or is it the substance of the DC's articles? In either case, you would need to go to a reliable third-party source to establish that this is in any way noteworthy. Also, DC is not considered a reliable source for factual information, so you would also have to have better sourcing that supports the factual claims. What you are proposing is turning a section of this article into a coat rack of criticism.  That's exactly why "controversy" sections are discouraged and are gradually being dismantled across the project. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the statement that "DC is not considered a reliable source for factual information" based on? Was this decided by the community at the reliable source noticeboard on several occasions, and that is the working consensus until a new one forms (say the editorial management changes and they have reinvigorated policies)? Where there documented cases of falsifying factual information such that they are no longer trustworthy? Please illuminate this. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is no. The Daily Caller has not been judged at RSN as a not a reliable source. That is an assertion without foundation, as quick search reveals. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have zero involvement with this but Loonymonkey or anyone else around here should not say such unfounded things. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfounded? It has been discussed several times and there has never been a consensus that they should be considered a reliable source for factual material. They're a political attack blog, not a journalistic outfit. They meet none of the criteria for a reliable source (particularly when dealing with WP:BLP issues which are much more strict). They're no different than Daily Kos on the left; that is, they're reliable for their opinion, and as an aggregate of other sources, but cannot automatically be considered reliable for factual material not otherwise corroborated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You changed the claim from saying that DC is not considered an RS for facts to saying that there has never been a consensus that they should be considered an RS for facts. Either way, if there's no consensus that they're unreliable then the people in the dispute should take this to RSN. The fact is that source reliability differs for different claims. My view is that when we argue we should be specific and precise. For example, provide some links that prove your point. Saying that a source that has what appear to be normal editorial processes is not reliable for facts, as a blanket statement, is problematic for a number of reasons. For example, do they not sometimes provide interview audio for the interviews they do? Or they provide detailed descriptions of the calls they do? Then it would be to suggest they simply fabricated this material, which seems on its face not a credible claim. They are a conservative news website - that makes them politically on the right but it doesn't show that they're unreliable for any facts. Anyway, that's all from me. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, WP:RS was the lesser issue, the bigger problem was WP:WEIGHT. But addressing RS, no, they're not a regular news organization.  At best, they're a tabloid (and a fairly over the top one at times).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are in the White House press pool. There is no doubt that they are partisan, but then so is Media Matters, and it is treated as an RS.  The DC should therefore also be treated as one.William Jockusch (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between the two is huge. Media Matters for America archives and reports on batshit insane stuff done by the right wing, whereas Daily Caller actually produces some of the batshit insane stuff MMfA reports on. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Political partisanship is different to whether a source can be used as an RS, the inclinations of Wikipedia editors aside. It seems that this conversation is not having much of a concrete impact on what's going on this page, though, so I suggest specific cases of use of DC be brought to RSN by concerned parties. I'm done. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if my IP address is showing up as I comment, but just in case I am the person who created this discussion. Sorry that I have not re-revisited this discussion in some time, but I really wanted to avoid this disgraceful partisan poo flinging. Loonymonkey mentioned that we should not have "controversies" sections, meanwhile the page about the Drudge Report is riddled with criticism while the MMfA page looks spotless except for one short quip. It is my philosophy that when you come to Wikipedia, a lack of information is just as powerful as the presence of information. If some third party user were to research MMfA on Wikipedia, it would appear that there are no controversies and MMfA is just "progressive" organization trying to dig up dirt on the right. This is clearly wrong and the Daily Caller has spearheaded the investigations and other sites have reported these investigations also. Just because Loonymonkey has decided that he does not like these organizations is no reason to keep this information from the users of Wikipedia. Now, I really have no idea how you guys generally go about editing pages--ie if we need to form some sort of "consensus"--but I think it is time to put it to a vote or time to start drafting a section for criticism/the Daily Caller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.47.152 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections suck, because they become magnets for crap. Notable, significant critique (which this is not) can be woven into the article appropriately, but it should not be given its own section. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources:

Obviously not just the Daily Caller reporting on Media Matters. MMfA has been highly controversial and this article makes no mention of it, thus violating NPOV. The sources are reliable and bipartisan, the topic is hot and controversial, yet there is no mention of it. It's about time we put this to a vote and write it up when it passes.--173.76.46.132 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.politico.com//blogs/media/2012/03/media-matters-and-the-other-fox-effect-119177.html
 * http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222389/real-media-matters/byron-york
 * The first article you link to merely mentions that the "investigation" but the nutjobs at Daily Caller has increased MMfA's audience. The second article is a 2007 piece from the conservative National Review, arguing that MMfA is somewhat political. Well, duh! This is still absolutely nothing "critical" to write about, let alone noteworthy. Your claim that MMfA is a "highly controversial" organization is based purely on your opinion, informed by the bloviating right wing echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting the pure, unadulterated irony of your echo chamber comment in defense of Media Matters. Thanks for the laughs. †TE†   Talk  18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not ironic at all. The right wing echo chamber is a real thing. People on the left are more open minded, so there's less of an echo problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Scjessey's claims that the left is more open-minded are indeed amusing. The left is certainly not more objective when it comes to discussing political matters.TL36 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
Today, Rush Limbaugh mentioned Media Matters (in connection to monitors in news rooms.) —  FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just so you know: Headline from RushLimbaugh.com archive is, Anyone Remember the Fairness Doctrine?

. . .  etc. . ..
 * BEGIN TRANSCRIPT, RUSH:  You still don't believe me about this newsrooms monitor business?  Let me give you two words: Fairness Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine?  Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists.  If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, you think they'll support it?  Remember, the monitors are gonna be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.
 * End of article: "The headline of this piece: Is Obama Trying to Kill a Free Press?  Is he, or has he been?  Anyway, I've spent enough time on this.  The only point that I want to make is that if you are expecting massive outrage from current journalists, you are not going to see it, and that's what Snerdley still can't believe.  I'll take it a step further.  Who are the monitors going to be?  Have you ever thought about that? Who is the government going to put in there to monitors all of this?

"How about Media Matters? 

"They already are the monitors, folks.

"What do you think they're doing? Media Matters sits out there, and they "monitor" every bit of so-called opposition media to the Democrat Party. They report it, they shape it, they take it out of context, and that's how the Drive-By Media learns what happens on this show and others.  Media Matters is already the monitors.  I would contend to you this is already happening.  They just haven't officially installed the monitors actually in the newsrooms.

"But that would just be a minor formality, because this is actually already happening."

END TRANSCRIPT      — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)    Just so you know.


 * Limbaugh is not a reliable source. Nor is Fox News. Any questions, class? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * However, what he says is true and Media Matters distorts. Questions? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

While I would believe Limbaugh and FNC because they speak truth, I find it hard to believe anyone still sees MM as anything but the far left hate group they are. They have engaged in fraud, by changing a recording of statements O'Reilly said about Sylvia's restaurant. They took two statements that ere 40 minutes apart and put the together to make it sound racist. MM is there forentertainment puposes only. Steve (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Information about MMfA that isn't allowed on this page?
What information is considered to be correct when talking about MMfA? Is it incorrect to quote the Executive Vice President of MMfA when he speaks of victory against Fox News? Is it considered wrong to point out that his victory speech did not coincide with any kind of drop in viewership for the FNC? Furthermore, is there a consensus that the Daily Caller is an unreliable source? And what reason is given for considering the Daily Caller an unreliable source? If the reason for disregarding information from them is that they are a conservative group, why then is MMfA considered a reliable source when they are a liberal group, as evidenced by excerpts from this article containing parts of an interview with David Brock: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/david-brock-says-he-doesnt-know-if-media-matters-worked-with-sharyl-attkisson-before-group-attacked/ Please, educate me on the finer points of policing Wikipedia to ensure that it is unbiased.Execrated (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that the Daily Caller is a reliable source, especially when dealing with BLP issues. Also, you have to take weight into consideration. As for the other edit, you have taken one Huffington Post article that talks about Angelo Carusone has declared "victory" over Fox News because it is now seen as a partisan source, and they have changed from a more vitriolic prime-time to a less vitriolic prime-time, and then you took it upon yourself to research television ratings and synthesize the corresponding relationship. That is against policy. That is why your edits were removed. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right, I'll reword it to use only what they have stated, as I cannot find a reliable source to back up claims that they were attempting to reduce viewership. As for the Daily Caller report, not even Media Matters refuted those claims. Perhaps you'd be so kind, since you're obviously quite concerned with providing as much information as possible on Wiki pages in such an unbiased way, and you could do some research and aid me in finding out all pertinent information regarding this group. I thank you in advance for your assistance.Execrated (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller is not a reliable source because there is no reason to believe that stories appearing in it are accurate. One way of telling if a source is reliable is that mainstream media (BBC, CNN, etc.) will carry its print stories and news clips.  Another way is to read reports in media watchdogs, such as MMfA.  And note that reliability has nothing to do with the political orientation of a source, merely whether they can be expected to get their facts right.  Mainstream media do this by researching the facts they report, using fact-checking and publishing retractions when they are wrong.  TFD (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

that was a joke, right?Steve (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Union and management issues
MMFA has had more than a year of union/employee/management issues that are not yet covered in the article, although widely covered in the national press. This would be a good new section. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think it has been widely covered in the national press, the only rs publication I could find that carried it is the Huffington Post. The story is that management demanded a secret ballot vote for unionizing, that was done and the local is awaiting certification.  TFD (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Analysis Section
The entire Analysis section is sourced to MMfA. Without some reliable sources to say that those are notable aspect, it is undue weight. This article is not a self-promotion. Arzel (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Using Media Matters as the sole/primary source in determining the notability/importance of Media Matter's actions, particularly when said actions involve third-parties either directly of indirectly, is a clear violation of Verifiability.  I have tagged the section with Self-published to allow the sections supporters time to locate independent sourcing. --Allen3 talk 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous, nonsense assessment. The section contains statements made by Media Matters, which are utterly uncontroversial. There's no need for secondary sources because primary sourcing is fine in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arzel - There's no space on Wikipedia for agenda-driven editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pot meet kettle, and you have in a non civil way addressed the concern. Who ever said they were controversial, they are self-promotion, and you approve of the agenda-driven editing.  Arzel (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

change description
The headline describes Media Matter as a watchdog, replace Watchdog with Advocacy it is more accurate in what they do.Eclpise the left (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article already describes Media Matters as both a media watchdog and advocacy group. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead description
This is well-sourced material (New York Times and Washington Post) describing the group as an advocacy group, and it should be included in the article per WP:VERIFY. In the current version of the article, we're only describing it as a watchdog group, and without any sourcing describing it as such. The list of WP:RS that describes Media Matters as an advocacy group is long, and in addition to the NYT and WaPo includes Politico. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is classic cherry-picking. You used the keywords "Media Matters for America" and "advocacy group" to find sources that referred to them that way.  Note that one of your articles is about 60 Minutes while the other is about Fox News.  A neutral editor would seek articles about MMfA and report what they say rather than decide what to say and search for sources.  It is also incorrect to assign the descriptions to the two newspapers.  They are signed articles and reflect the views of their writers.  TFD (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, how do you suggest we describe Media Matters in the lead? And why is it okay to describe it as a watchdog group with no source, and not okay to describe it as an advocacy group with sources? For a long time, it has been described as both in the lead, which I think is appropriate. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I took your advice and looked for articles specifically about Media Matters, and not articles that mention it only in passing. Here's one from the NYT that we're already using as a reference in the article. It's a reporting piece, not an op-ed. It describes Media Matters as a "nonprofit, highly partisan research organization." Can't wait to see why other editors think we should continue only describing the group in its own preferred language rather than in the way secondary WP:RS do. "Advocacy group" doesn't seem so bad now, huh? Safehaven86 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article to which you are referring makes no mention of the word "advocacy". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I know. It just calls the group "highly partisan." I was noting this article to indicate to editors getting their undies in a bundle about referring to the group as an advocacy group is really not that big of a deal, when the NYT called it "highly partisan," which, although it's well-sourced, I'm not advising that we include in this article. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources describing the organization as a "watchdog" (including NYT, Politico and WaPo). Media Matters for America is most definitely not an "advocacy" group. You are thinking of the separate organization called Media Matters Action Network which does not coordinate with MMfA, but is nevertheless given coverage in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a useful distinction, thanks. I would recommend that our lead says that MM is a media watchdog group with a related advocacy arm called Media Matters Action Network. What do you think? Safehaven86 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, all of the sources you found calling MM a watchdog group are extremely similar to the ones I found calling it an advocacy group (i.e. article not about MM, but mentioning and describing it in passing). Since it's often described as both (including interchangeably in the same outlets), it seems fair to include both characterizations in the lead. I'm just confused because when I found sources exactly like yours (same quality sources, same passing mentions of MM), I was told my multiple editors these sources weren't good enough. So are they good enough, but only when they're describing MM as a watchdog group, and not an advocacy group...? Safehaven86 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you might have better results in getting your preferred edit of advocacy into the lead, if you were to first expand the body to include reasonable paraphrases of multiple reliable sources identify what the subject of this article advocates for and some noteworthy advocacy activities. It seems to me an article on an advocacy group should identify the cause and include one or more activities in support of that cause. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Right now, it seems like no one is adding a source for "watchdog" because then it would become patently clear that the quality of sourcing for "watchdog" and "advocacy" is exactly the same, and that there's actually no policy reason not to describe the group as both other than certain editors don't like it. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TFD and Scjessey. The NYT source does not state advocacy group, therefore it's WP:OR. Many RSs call it a media watchdog and MM calls itself a media watchdog (like it calls itself progressive, and we've sourced):,. Some RSs: The Huffington Post, Huffington Post, National Review, ABC, ABC, Politico, Mediaite, Mediaite. Advocacy groups are "pressure groups, lobby groups, campaign groups, interest groups, or special interest groups". To call them that is controversial and it would need to be discussed in a balanced way in the body of the article, including, as Hugh said, notable "advocacy" activities per RSs (calling it advocacy). MM describe itself as a watchdog group and so do many RSs, so lets not edit the lead with POV. Lapadite (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This NYT source, which is not an oped, refers to MM as a "liberal advocacy group." It is surely as reliable (if not more so) than the Huffington Post source you've added to source "watchdog." There is no policy-based reason why we can't refer to the group as a media watchdog and advocacy group. Both descriptions are abundantly well-sourced. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That particular NYT article has called Media Matters for America an "advocacy group" in error. There is a legal distinction between MMfA and MMAN. MMfA is a 501(c)3 group, which explicitly prohibits advocacy and lobbying. In contrast, MMAN is a 501(c)4 which allows both. In cases like this, where the preponderance of reliable sources say MMfA is a watchdog organization (not an advocacy organization), we can ignore that erroneous NYT article as being an outlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you agree that it's odd, for a Wikipedia article to say in the lead sentence "advocacy group," but the body makes no mention of what they advocate for, or how they advocate for it? The lede summarizes the body WP:LEAD. Your preferred lede sentence sets up an expectation for an "advocacy activities" section or similar and when I don't see one I am surprised WP:RF. Hugh (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the article currently says "politically progressive." TFD (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the NYT article labeled MM an "advocacy group" "in error". There has been no correction that I can see. It stands as written. 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, is there an issue with that? Lapadite (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just saying that we currently say it is partisan, so Safehaven86 has part of what s/he wants. The dispute is over whether it can be called an advocacy group.  What are they advocating?  Are they a "group?"  TFD (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. MM calls itself progressive, so it's fine with me. Lapadite (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused why we can use a Huffington Post source to describe the org. as a "watchdog" but can't use a New York Times source to describe the org. as an "advocacy group." It seems to be a fair representation of available sourcing to say "Media Matters for America is a watchdog and advocacy group." Both descriptions are well-sourced. I'm not clear on the policy basis for excluding one of these well-sourced terms. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's advocacy is notable enough for you to add it to the very lede sentence, it should be easy for you to add "advocacy" to the body supported by multiple reliable source references, including reasonable paraphrases of multiple reliable sources describing the causes for which it advocates and some representative advocacy activities. Hope this helps. Hugh (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much the whole article is about how the group advocates against conservative disinformation and specifically Fox News. But more importantly, by your own logic, we shouldn't be describing the group as "watchdog" either, because the word "watchdog" literally doesn't appear in the article besides in the lead. Where's the content in the article describing the group's "watchdog activities?" Safehaven86 (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, it is helpful that you made explicit your personal understanding of what constitutes an "advocacy group." Respectfully, your definition of advocacy group is so personal as to be unconventional. For example, under your definition of "advocacy group," all newspapers that engage in investigative journalism of government claims would be advocacy groups, with a cause of "advocating against government disinformation." When a news organization fact checks and publishes, they are not advocating, that's what they do. Yes, this news agency occupies a particular position on the political spectrum, but that does not make them an advocacy group. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the principal editor of a very large number of articles on conservative organizations State Policy Network. May I ask, is your preferred edit here part of that work? As you know, the subject of this article has been brought up for discussion many, many times on article talk pages and at WP:RSN. As you know, our sourcing policy and guidelines treat advocacy organizations differentially. "Advocacy group" in the lede sentence of this article would be a huge boon to those attempting to exclude, limit or qualify the inclusion of findings of this source in our project. May I respectfully suggest that we not attempt to settle sourcing disputes with pointy lead sentence article space edits. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion has strayed significantly from my original question, which remains unanswered: why is it okay to use a Huffington Post source to describe the org. as a "watchdog" but not apparently okay to use a New York Times source to describe the org. as an "advocacy group"? This isn't about personal opinions about the definition of an advocacy group. Like all things on Wikipedia, it's about what the reliable sources say. In this case, several sources have been identified that describe MM as an advocacy group. Why shouldn't this article reflect what the available reliable sources say? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I already explained this above. The NYT article is in error. The preponderance of reliable sources describe MMfA as a watchdog, so it makes sense to use this terminology. Advocacy is carried out by the completely separate Media Matters Action Network. In the case of disputed material like this, the onus is on you to seek a consensus for inclusion, but given the lack of sources to verify the NYT's obvious inaccuracy, I feel your pleas will likely fall on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the NYT was in error? Have they issued a correction? Are these Washington Post and Politico articles that call MM an "advocacy group" also in error? These outlets don't look to have issued a correction, either, making the idea that their reporting was in error highly suspect. I agree that many RS refer to the group as a watchdog group--that's why I think the lead should say that MM is a watchdog and advocacy group. The two descriptions, both well-sourced, needn't be mutually exclusive. Safehaven86 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you just please stop trying to push POV into the Lede? There is a difference between MMfA and MMAN, and MMfA is specifically not an advocacy group. See SELFSOURCE as to why we can use MMfA to describe themselves in the Lede. Dave Dial (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources I've listed above are about Media Matters, not Media Matters Action. Adding well-sourced material to articles isn't POV, it is the entire basis of the encyclopedia. You may not like the sources or what they say, but that's not a reason to exclude material. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear: the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico, in uncorrected, straight news stories describe the organization. One editor wishes to keep this material out because it is or must be (in his opinion) an error. No other editor sees it as such. Wikipedia relies on RS not on the personal opinion or desires of individuals. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not clear at all. That is a complete mischaracterization of this discussion. No consensus exists for the inclusion of "advocacy group". Safehaven86 claims an opinion piece in the Washington Post, written by the conservative Howard Kurtz, corroborates the NYT's error. It does not. Likewise, the Politico article does not specify MMfA or MMAN (it just says "Media Matters"), so that doesn't corroborate it either. It's clear to any thinking being a 501(c)3 organization cannot "advocate" anything, or it would lose its tax-exempt status. What is clear is that this is blatant POV pushing, which violates one of Wikipedia's most sacred policies. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea that you believe that these RS articles must somehow be wrong does not trump actual reliable source or policy. Your assertion that including material from Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post is "POV" pushing is absurd. You have put forward not an ounce of policy based reasoning for excluding this simple descriptor. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if you have read the NPOV policy.:"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." given your efforts to exclude published RS material,  some material that does not apparently conform to your viewpoint. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You evidently don't understand what "representing fairly" and "proportionately" mean. The preponderance of reliable sources (you can look up "preponderance" in the dictionary if you don't know the word) describe Media Matters for America as a "media watchdog". Very few sources use the term "advocacy group", and as I have shown previously they do so in error anyway. So if we are going to be FAIR and PROPORTIONATE, "advocacy group" doesn't meet the criteria you quote. Besides, there's clearly no consensus (which pretty much trumps anything) for such an inaccurate addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see there is a consensus against using reliable, secondary sources, adhering to our verifiability policy, and following our civility guidelines. That's too bad. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is like climate change. 97% say it exists, but conservative science deniers believe the 3%. 97% of reliable sources say "media watchdog", but you want to go with the 3% who don't. It's illogical, and it goes against the policies and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, actually, Scjessey (and everyone else here) is correct - the majority of sources call this organization a watchdog (meaning "advocacy group" is a minority view, a subjective one held largely, or probably exclusively, by conservatives), they call themselves a watchdog, and there is no consensus for this inclusion. The policy you noted - WP:NPOV - exactly supports this. It is undue weight. Especially for the lead. It's fine if Safehaven86 wants to write in the body of the article that certain sources call the organization an advocacy group, but it's certainly not fine to add advocacy group to the lead. However, also note that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially for minority views. Lapadite (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)