Talk:The National Memo

29 January 2017 post
The statement "Despite their claims of not having a biased liberal agenda their articles often show otherwise" has no citation and is really just opinion.

Actually, the entire article reads like an opinion. I came here to find out what The National Memo was, and it looks like a blurb from ad copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.25.59 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I red them a few times, and most of their posts appear progressive, or liberal, but at least one is a simple scam, the kind of "doctors do not want you to know this", or "language profesors do not want you to learn foreign language in 15 min". In my opinion, The National Memo is a garbage. Nick Tarkalanov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.221.185 (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability
I was surprised to see another entry criticized for lack of notability. Having seen this far too often regarding various entries, I am inclined to see this less of criticism of the entry and more of a confession of ignorance on the part of the commentator. The list of contributors includes many of those journalists who are at the apex of their profession and almost daily one or another of those who report for "National Memo" will be found on network news relating their current reportage. Probably is liberally inclined but "so what" as long as a slant is identified as such there is no problem with it. Really, guys and gals, not everything must share the imprimatur of the knee-jerk Right.LAWinans (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * would you like to join the discussion on "left-wing" / "liberal" below or raise the request to remove "Notability" template? I've made edits to this article as paid editor, but I firmly support your point of view. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 13-JAN-2018
(Recovering the article's content) Please review the content of The National Memo draft. Since the article undergone a massive (22 000 symbols) content deletion made by User:Justlettersandnumbers for violating COI guidelines, I've assembled the edits that include all non-COI contributions from User:Melcous, User:Theroadislong, User:DrFleischman into the draft and added updated (as requested by User:Theroadislong) "Contributors" part. I kindly ask you to put on your in-biased editor hat, turn on your good faith, review this content and copy-paste it to the abridged article for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Replies

 * I assume this is the right process of recovering content. If not, please advise. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * creating a new draft article is not the way to suggest changes...and the only benefit seems to be for you as a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please explain how having well-referenced factual article about one of the important political websites is not in the interests of Wikipedia readers? You really think that the previous version was better? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional request
Following the comments from User:Theroadislong I kindly ask to review and add the following content to the article.

The National Memo is an American online news site and newsletter founded in 2011 by Joe Conason. It features daily breaking news and commentary as well as analysis, predominantly from a liberal perspective.

History The National Memo was launched in July 2011 by journalist and editor Joe Conason. Shortly after, the new publication scored an exclusive interview with former president Bill Clinton. With a looming stalemate between the White House and Congress over reauthorization of the federal debt ceiling, Clinton told Conason that if we were still President, he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default. Criticizing Congressional Republicans sharply for holding the national economy hostage, Clinton said: “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.” The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post to CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News, reported Clinton’s advice to President Obama and credited The National Memo.

In June 2012, The National Memo reported exclusively on Mitt Romney’s penchant for disguising himself as a state police officer to pull pranks during his college and high school years. Based on interviews with Romney’s former Stanford classmates, the story was picked up by The Boston Globe, the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Daily Caller, and Mediaite.

In December 2013 The National Memo author Jason Sattler started a discussion on growing income inequality in the United States and ways of rebuilding the middle class that was continued by The Washington Post columnists Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite and E. J. Dionne.

In September 2015, when Donald Trump began to call for the United States to build a wall along the Mexican border, The National Memo was among the first to publish a detailed critique, including architectural elevations by a structural engineer. Picked up by many news outlets, including the BBC, the Washington Post, and Washington Monthly. Rhuzkan’s article argued Trump’s proposal was highly implausible for both logistical and budgetary reasons.

Among the most widely cited stories in The National Memo during and after the 2016 presidential campaign was David Cay Johnston’s “21 Questions For Donald Trump,” published on July 10, 2015, in which the journalist examined a range of issues that would continue to be asked about the candidate, including the questionable record of the Trump Foundation, the developer’s Mafia connections and his refusal to release his tax returns. Johnston’s essay was covered on Democracy Now!, CNN, MSNBC, NPR’s Le Show with Harry Shearer, the Huffington Post, and The New Yorker magazine.

Contributors Website's contributors have included Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason, James Carville, Stan Greenberg, David Cay Johnston, Gene Lyons, Jason Sattler,  cartoonist Jeff Danziger,  Jonathan Alter,  Cynthia Tucker Haynes,  Connie Schultz,  Jamie Stiehm, Steve Chapman, Froma Harrop, among many others.

E-books In October 2012, The National Memo editorial team published their first e-book Big Lies 2012 written by Sattler and edited by Conason.

In May 2015, The National Memo published an e-book The Hunting of Hillary based on Conason and Gene Lyons’s 2000 bestseller  The Hunting of the President: The 10-Year Campaign To Destroy Bill And Hillary Clinton.

Trump's presidential candidacy inspired a series by associate editor Eric Kleefeld and managing editor Sam Reisman, titled Pop Culture Warned Us About Donald Trump (published between December 2015 and July 2016 ), exploring similarities between Trump and a range of villains in comic books, popular literature, movies and television. It received attention from the Dallas News. The editors collected the seven-part Trump “pop culture” series into an eponymously titled e-book with a new introduction that was distributed free to newsletter subscribers in August 2016.

References

External links
 * The National Memo website

Category:Alternative magazines Category:American online magazines Category:American political websites Category:American political blogs Category:Magazines established in 2011 Category:2011 establishments in the United States Category:Alternative media Category:American news websites Category:Internet companies Category:Internet properties established in 2011 Category:Liberalism in the United States Category:News aggregators Category:News blogs Category:Progressivism in the United States Category: 2011 establishments in New York (state) Category:Media companies based in New York City

Additional reply
Your request is not specific enough. Please delineate each specific instance where information is to be either added or removed from the article. Please see below for an example. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   16:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting infobox improvement
Following the comment from Spintendo I am making more specific request for the edits to the National Memo page. Thank you for the clarification. As asked, I am making my request for changes more specific. Starting with the infobox change request.

These edits are purely technical, they add up information to the template. I've followed the examples of the existing articles for similar websites where this template is used specifically HuffPost and Salon (website). -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Replies
This was removed by a previous editor. Please consult with them regarding the re-addition of this material to the article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   18:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * these edits were deleted by a previous editor in one wave along with all the other edits (he removed altogether 22 000 symbols reverting it to the non-paid-edits version. Please explain how is filling in the official websites template is promotional. also for his expert opinion on this. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the editor I meant for you to consult with was not the editor who removed it just recently for being added by a COI editor, but rather, it is the editor who first determined that it was not appropriate and removed it (Melcous).  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   18:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please share your point of view. My assumption is that if the specific infobox exist it should be as full as possible. I also followed the examples of similar media websites like Huffpost.-- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , in case it matters, I have no objection in principle to the re-addition of the logo to the infobox, with any properly-reference information that seems appropriate. However, I'm also happy to defer the opinion of and  on this and other aspects of the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * for your input, it's much appreciated. We'll wait to hear from and  for their input as well.    Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the info box. Theroadislong (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * both and  for being objective and showing goodwill. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to, but none of my edits have ever been to the infobox at all? I have no problem with the infobox as it was, including with the logo. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You and two other editor's edits were extensive, so I informed that it would be best to consult the editor who made them. You are correct that you did not make the actual edit to the infobox. However, with this diff you added an advert tag which placed certain contents of the page under the label of 'advertisement'. Since the infobox contains "at-a-glance" material which is ultimately linked back to and verified by contents in the main section — in my opinion, this labeling hypothetically extended to elements located in the infobox. To me, this meant that you should be consulted on any changes even remotely linked to edits previously made under your purview. I apologize if my abundance of caution was unnecessary, but ultimately making you and the other editors aware of possible alterations to an article which you and they had made important changes to, was my priority. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah no worries, I understand now, and appreciate your concern. The advert tag was linked to the particular section which was at the time called "History" but was essentially a list of times the website's articles had been picked up by other media. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting categories improvement
Thank you for the clarification. As asked, I am making my request more specific

Following the comment from Spintendo I am adding more specific request for the edits to the National Memo page. Please make the following changes

These categories are non-promotional in essence and will benefit the article. Please remove ":" when publishing to "activate" categories. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

 * ✅    Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the "External links" part
Following the comment from Spintendo I am making more specific request for the edits to the National Memo page. Please make the following changes Another technical edit. Similar design can be seen at Salon (website). --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply
✅ Needless to say, the portal bar does not act as substitute for the addition of reliable, secondary sources necessary for the article's survival.
 * Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Contributors part
Following the comment from Spintendo I am making more specific request for the edits to the National Memo page. Please create the “Contributors” section that existed in the pre-paid version of the article (apparently the whole point of massive 22 000 symbols text reversal was to get back to this version) in the following form:

Its featured writers include Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason, E. J. Dionne, Gene Lyons, David Cay Johnston, Cynthia Tucker, Leonard Pitts, David Sirota, James Carville and Stan Greenberg. It also has other contributors, such as Jason Sattler.

I would suggest to place this section after the “History” section, following the examples of Huffpost and Salon (website). Proposed version is updated and much better referenced. I also think that the initial deletion of this part by User:Theroadislong as totally unreferenced (it was so in my previous version) was an overstatement. I always try to follow citation overkill concept and thus don’t think that every journalist should have a reference attached to it. But I followed User:Theroadislong advice and reworked this part. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply
✅ I verified all of the contributors which my edit just added to the article. Names which were not added require further documentation. The editor's name was not added as a contributor, as his contributions are res ipsa loquitur.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   19:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for implementing the edits. I will try to find better references for the other contributors. Obviously, links to their contributions could be easily found at the website itself, but that would be first-party link, I suppose. I suggest, however, to make "Contributors" a separate section of the article following the logic seen at Huffpost, Salon (website), The Hill (newspaper) and some other similar websites. Also "History" and "Contributors" are not exactly identical. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating “In media” / "Select coverage" part
Following the comment from Spintendo I am making more specific request for the edits to the National Memo page. I suggest to make a separate part on selected article’s coverage on other media. Such parts exist in the following political websites articles:
 * Select coverage (True/Slant)
 * Reporting (ThinkProgress)
 * In the Media (Political Wire)

I suggest to have in these section only the content that has been verified by edits made by and.

Also, as explained by history of the company/website is different from the coverage in national media. I agree with this point of view and will try to find more company/staff/notable events related facts for the “History” part and suggest to move this information to the newly created “In the Media” (or “Select coverage”) part

Checking this part you will see that the website has been part of many political stories in the national media. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking your time to give a detailed feedback. However your feedback in not 100% clear. As an example, removing all the mentions of Clinton's interview would leave us only with the link to The National Memo article (first-party) info. This is kind of against Wikipedia guidelines! Same for your other comments. I agree that the tone could be changed in some places, but the overall concept is not clear. Please suggest what needs to be done to these parts to make them fit Wikipedia editing guildelines. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As said here, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization". -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about removing the references. Reporting that the interview occurred, and who conducted the interview, is an important claim that the sentence makes, and the references confirm that. Stating in the sentence that the New York Times also reported it, is superfluous. The other media's references speak for themselves. Mentioning them again can appear to be name-dropping, which is something we want the article to avoid.   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added much from your request, leaving out the items underlined above. The last row's information was not added. It may be notable, but after text which was WP:WEASEL in tone was removed, the sentence was incomplete. Please consider re-wording it. The infobox was also largely restored with its Alexa standing updated.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I agree that the has been an issue here of 'name-dropping' and looking like the kind of list the website would write about itself to show how well it has done, rather than neutral encyclopedic content. I think putting it as  "milestones" is better, although I note they are all still positive. Have there been significant criticisms of the site or errors made? Would this also be a place to include them if there were? (I'm not suggesting we go looking for 'dirt', just wondering aloud whether this list is still skewed towards the 'promotional' face?) Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you and will try to find some information for the "Criticism" or "Controversies" sections that seem almost a norm for the political media. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Several minor changes/corrections
Following the comment from Spintendo I am making more specific request for the edits to the National Memo page. Please make the following changes

I will give my rationale for the edits
 * Alexa Rank shows the position of the website among all the websites of the World by the number of visits with Google or Facebook being 1-2 and Nevada schoolboy blog 1000000 plus or so. So the more traffic the site gets, the less is the numerical rank. This is exactly what happed to “The National Memo” website. It’s rank in December was 367,087 and in January 333,334, hence the increase, not the decrease of the rating.
 * In the current version the website’s name reads as the National Memos which is a clear mistake. It could probably be solved by adding another “'” after the name of the website but I think it will affect the formatting. Anyway the correct name of the site is The National Memo.
 * I suggest to add information about David Cay Johnston’s as an important fact. He also wrote The Making of Donald Trump book that was probably related to his questions. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for your edits. Please explain why did you decline the part about David Cay Johnston? It is a different version from the previously proposed, a purely factual one. How should I change the text to have this info? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * what has been changed:


 * "Among the most widely cited stories in The National Memo during and after the 2016 presidential campaign" - deleted as WP:WEASEL
 * "Johnston’s essay was covered on Democracy Now!,[24] CNN,[25] MSNBC, NPR’s Le Show with Harry Shearer,[26] the Huffington Post,[27] and The New Yorker magazine.[28]" - deleted as possible name-dropping (following the comment from )

Your edits to the article
Dear thank you for your contribution to the article. I am more than sure that you know the subject in all the details and checked the history of edits (as well as the Talk page) before making your edits. I also believe that you wanted to improve the article rather than delete the valuable content. However, please note that the content deleted by you has already been reviewed by an independent editor and some other editors (notably  and ). I would thus ask you to reconsider your recent edits. Thank you for understanding. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I haven't deleted anything valuable. Most of that content was (a) poorly-sourced at best, (b) off-topic or (c) promotional in tone and/or intent, or some combination of those three. And no, actually in this case I did not check the history of the page – unencyclopaedic content should be re-written or removed regardless of how it got into the article. I welcome comment from those three respected editors, or indeed any other good-faith volunteer editor, on the changes I've made, and in particular on the remaining sources, many of which seem to be self-referential, particularly in the sentence about contributors (Sattler is a reference for Sattler, Johnston is a reference for Johnston and so on). The more important question now seems to be whether this thing is actually WP:notable by Wikipedia's standards – perhaps I've missed something, but I see no in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources at all. None whatsoever. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence that User:Justlettersandnumbers has made the correct decisions, looking back I see that I removed poorly sourced and promotional material and totally unsourced puffery. Please limit your editing to requests on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the lead section
I suggest to change lead section back to “liberal perspective”. See my arguments below

Of course, I understand that the discussion on liberal vs. left-wing in subjective. This is what I’ve found.

Left wing mentions Liberal mentions
 * «editor-in-chief at The National Memo, a leftwing political newsletter and website» (Nationalchange.org right-wing and of dubious reputation)
 * «One site missing….MediaMatters, The National Memo, both Left Wing rags» (Stand Up for America right wing Wordpress blog, dubious reputation)
 * «For those who dont know the "National Memo" a left wing forum on the internet is a hot bed of anti-gun advocates. They often have articles on Gun Control issues» (Usconcealedcarry.com right-wing pro-gun activists, dubious reputation, the quote from comments)
 * «The National Memo is a left-wing fringe Democrat front site, if you’ve ever heard of it» (RushLimbaugh.com right-wing, non-neutral)
 * «The left-wing National Memo published “5 Things To Tell Your Republican relatives at Thanksgiving.”» (Charleston Gazette-Mail reputable media, this mention is currently at the article)
 * «I on the other hand have been blocked from posting on The National Memo (a rabidly left wing site) as well as Facebook (I deactivated my page after telling them to go f themselves)» (Truthrevolt.org non-neuntral, the quote from comments)
 * «Joe Conason, editor of the National Memo and a frequent liberal presence on cable TV, said» (Vanity Fair, from a notable journalist)
 * «Now, The National Memo is a very liberal site» (The Week from the senior editor)
 * «The fallacious handwringing liberal position was typified in the recent 10th-anniversary account of the war by Micah Sifry, published by the National Memo» (Answerscoalition.org hard to define the notability of this source)

Controversial points of view (right wing)
 * «The National Memo, which is a cover-your-ass pseudo-liberal but really right wing channel, excerpted Trump's interaction with a reporter, Jim Acosta, from CNN» (HelenaWorthen.net blog mention)
 * Lvrnews.com places The National Memo in the list of right-wing sites.

My view is that calling The National Memo a left-wing website is an overstatement and wrong attribution. Also the journalists who contribute to the media are being described as liberal at their Wikipedia articles. They also contribute to other media that are not left-wing.

This is my personal opinion based on facts. I welcome User:Justlettersandnumbers who made this edit to share his point of view and provide arguments.

My other suggested edit just covers the referencing gap. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply
As far as the reference gap, the citation you have was placed after the year 2011, indicating that the reference confirms the year 2011. However, in the article, the interview subject never mentions the date that the publication "began" and throughout the interview the subject uses the verb will in its future tense (e.g., " Smart, conservative commentary is definitely something we’ll do." and " I think we can get big brand advertisers and we will, but there will be specialized advertising and cause-related advertising as well." and "We have tens and tens of thousands, and we think we’ll be up to a million in the next couple of months. I thought, what about a newsletter model for the center-left?) The interview took place at the end of August 2011, but it's never very clear whether the publication was already in motion at this point, or if it was still in the process of being launched, hence the subject's forward-looking language. So long story short, I don't see that reference as confirming with any certainty the launch date of 2011, anymore than it says a launch date of 2012.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   14:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * well, the sub-heading says "The columnist on his new progressive email newsletter National Memo". And it is August (mid-year). So, probably "new" is "recent" and "recent" is probably not 2010, but 2011. One other reference to 2011 specifically is at Joe Conason's website (first-party info). First mentions of The National Memo in media are related to Bill Clinton's interview (July 2011) that were deleted as non-notable facts (ex-US president must be non-notable). What about the other edits? Do you think the website is "liberal" or "left-wing"? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And "probably" all that is WP:OR. Either a fact is stated in a solid independent reliable source, or we don't publish it in Wikipedia. On the "left-wing" question: I'm happy for that to be removed, given the diversity of opinions in the various sources. Neither of the two sources that were given for "liberal" support that; one says "left-wing", the other "center-left" (but it's anyway an interview with Conason, so not reliable for content here). Certainly it's a little surprising to see something described as "left-wing" in a political spectrum that (to an ill-informed outsider) seems to range only from right to much further right. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers ah, glad that we've found some common ground! Not sure what you are quoting for "liberal", both Variety and The Week are NOT saying that "The National Memo" is left-wing. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article that were supposed to support "liberal", but did not – Adweek and the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers I thought you've read carefully my arguments above (in this thread). If not, still OK. It's good that we both think NM is liberal and not left-wing or Communist. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement that The National Memo is liberal and not left-wing, So please include the second proposed edit to the text. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so. What I said above about "left-wing" is that "I'm happy for that to be removed, given the diversity of opinions in the various sources". I didn't say anything about putting anything else in its place, nor do I see what we could reasonably put, given – please forgive the repetition – the diversity of opinions in the various sources. That said,, I'll defer to whatever you think best here – this isn't important enough to justify extended discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * happy to stop the discussion on that. My point of view is that "liberal" is supported by better quality sources and broader evidence. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Several edits
Please make the following edits to the article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Further discussion is required as to its point of view. When a consensus has developed, that is the time to open an edit request. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry, I fail to understand what should be a matter of discussion here. According to Verifiability the edits suggested have links to trusted sources. Specifically, Adweek, The Daily Beast, The Week, Time (magazine) and Newsweek - these are all trusted media. I even added 2 references where 1 would do (following Citation overkill). Of course, I more than welcome other editors to share their opinions and provide equal quality references, supporting alternative points of views (I even did part of the job for them and provided some examples of such views with my comments on the quality of sources). One other edit concerning the date of creation is purely technical and follows your critique on the need to have more proof-links to support 2011 as the date of launch. I think at least this one can be included without the discussion (partial edits). Overall, this discussion becomes a bit of a nonsense. Is there another forum (thread) where these obvious edits could be discussed? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion request
A request for a third opinion was placed. I have declined the request as there are more than two contributors engaged in discussion here. You should be aware that there exist other dispute resolution mechanisms at editors' disposal if the matter cannot be resolved in the course of this discussion. /wiae /tlk  19:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thank for your quick feedback. This is not exactly right. There are just two users with conflicting points of views and poor who takes the neutral stance as COI edits reviewer and just waits for 2 of us to find some consensus here. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the Third Opinion instructions make a common-sense exception for disputes involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation; the FAQs add that 3O may also be suitable if there are two principal editors involved in the dispute and other editors have contributed only a few technical clarifications. In my view, Spintendo's participation was more than minimal, and the nature of his role more than clarificatory. However, I won't object if you relist the request at WP:3O and see if someone else considers it ripe for a third opinion. /wiae /tlk  20:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for the explanation. I've raised the one at dispute resolution. Hope it will clarify things. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think third party resolution is an excellent idea. This issue reminds me of a similar issue in another realm of media, so I'll repeat what I said there: The COI editor never really took it to heart that there were areas of the country where the two terms liberal and left wing are not distinct - and that many believe them to be one and the same. I dont believe that the COI editor would ever for a minute agree to that possibility, as they are convinced that the entire country uses only one dictionary, and that they cant have different terms for something that means the same thing, like dinner, supper, soda pop, and soft drink. I think that the COI editor suffers from what I like to call the mirage of nomenclatural correctness, which is to say, they are under the spell of a mirage which tells them that there is only one nomenclaturally correct way of defining liberal and left wing.

When it comes to terms like left wing and liberal, no matter how great the level of control people like the COI editor likes to say exists over the defining and regulating of these terms, there will always be some nonstandard naming practices left "sticking out". When it comes to defining a term like liberal, you may try to make sure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the meaning of the words. The problem is that people add to and distort the attempts at nomenclatural doctrine — a doctrine which informs people of the right way of referring to liberals and the right way of referring to those in the left wing. The COI editor mentions that "many other people agree with them on this" and in those numbers they feel safe in their certainty. I believe that certainty can be an illusion. Those studied in theoretical linguistics understand very well that the process of addition, re-creation and modification of political terms and ideological labels is constant and in all liklihood destined to go on as long as there are organized groups of political parties and voters — all with their own different ideas on what the best titles for those on the political spectrums should be. Unfortunately for the COI editor, people are never quite as nomenclaturally correct as they would like them to be. So I apologize if I was unable to see your way seeing the mirage - that left wing is somehow, comically, more left than a liberal who comes from the left wing.... or was it the other way around...and liberal was more left than left wing? Oh well, whatever.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   05:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Positions clarified
Just to clarify the positions for the future third party reviewer. The article at the time was labeled as left wing: Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   19:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Bbarmadillo - the publication is liberal, not left wing, and the article should be labeled as such. The term left wing should be removed.
 * 2)  - the publication may indeed be left-wing, and that term has been and will likely continue to be useful as a description, so there is no need to change it just yet.
 * 3)  - the two terms are hermeneutically identical, and any variation in meaning is regional and immaterial.


 * The definition of wing in this context is as a smaller group within a larger organization that holds particular views. In this way I can see how the belief would form around the concept of left wing meaning a smaller, more radical group within the left. The problem with this is that the term left also fits the definition of a wing, because the left is a smaller group within a larger organization: the government. There is a left wing of the government and a right wing. How left wing became mislabeled then is probably due to the description of a radical grouping of individuals as a wing existing within another wing, which quickly becomes redundant - you wouldnt say for instance "the left wing of the left wing". Which leads me to believe that this use of the term left wing is incorrect because it is imprecise. The precise name would be a militant faction of the left wing of our political spectrum. Would you agree that is the correct way to describe more militant minded liberals? and that the term left wing when used to describe a radical part of the left wing of politics is a misnomer?  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your point of view. I think that the definition militant faction of the left wing of our political spectrum could be academically correct, but I don’t think it is supported by trusted third-party sources. If you can find such sources that describe the website using this specific term, please share. I’ve provided links to several sources that describe it as “liberal” and “progressive”. Strangely enough, the AdWeek article that used to support his initial left-wing statement describes website as progressive (sub-heading - "new progressive email newsletter") and liberal ("That pulled together a large list of progressives, liberals, and Democrats across the country, who are very interested in political issues"). I also gave links to such trusted third-party sources as The Daily Beast, The Week, Time (magazine) and Newsweek that describe the website either as liberal and progressive. But, for sure, if you can find The Washington Post article or say another Time (magazine) article describing the website as militant faction of the left wing of our political spectrum, it should add value to this discussion. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the website, I'm only concerned with the definition of left wing. The problem is that we're trying to figure out what to label the publication but we're using two different definitions of the words left wing and liberal. Imagine a conversation between a caller and an ambulance dispatcher who are both using different definitions for the words north and poison. You know that scenario is not going to turn out very well. Similarly, we cant really be expected to agree if were using two different terms for the words left wing and liberal. Let's try this...What is your textbook definition of left wing? If you had to describe the term to someone from another planet, how would you describe that term. And how is that term different from the term liberal. How are they alike? Please advise, thnx.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   06:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of discussion would be right for the Talk pages of the appropriate articles. I am discussing here only edits to The National Memo page. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd said this wasn't worth further discussion, but clearly others don't agree. My position, such as it is, is not quite as says. It is this:
 * In this, as in everything else, we go by what the sources say, and nothing else
 * If, as here, the sources are conflicting and confused, we have two options:
 * Report without comment what the various sources say ('It is variously described as "liberal", "left-wing", "centre-left", "pseudo-liberal but right wing", "right wing" ...'), with attribution for each; or
 * Omit the political viewpoint altogether
 * We don't try to extract one definitive reading from a series of conflicting sources, because that would be WP:original research
 * I favour the "omit altogether" option
 * So ping, who added back "left-wing" after it had been removed.
 * Not to enter into more fruitless discussion, but just to illustrate the difficulty of reaching agreement on these nebulous terms: I am frankly amazed by Spintendo's suggestion that left-wing and liberal are synonymous. I lived for a while under a socialist régime (it doesn't matter which one), and I can categorically assure you that there was absolutely nothing liberal about it. Nothing whatsoever. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what matters here is the quality of sources. Left-wing definition is not supported by high quality sources, while both liberal and progressive is. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Socialist regime? My best friend's sister considers herself to be a part of the ultra-left wing in a social market economy. I think it's the Green party... what's so evil about that? And before you say "Well that's a different kind of left wing" allow me to say '''Thanks! My point exactly.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  ''' 14:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated positions + rationales 10-FEB-2018

Comment request
Following the advice from I'm making this request for comment concerning the proposed edits above. Before making this request I've discussed these changes at the article's Talk page, created the discussion at Project Journalism and filed dispute resolution request.

I would like third-party view on including proposed edits to the article as we are unable to reach the consensus here, at the Talk page.

Summary of the discussion
After substantial edits from an important information describing the media's political stance was removed from the article. The editor first removed the phrase predominantly from a liberal perspective and changed it to predominantly from a left-wing point of view. When asked to provide solid references, supporting this point of view, he agreed to drop his initial left-wing claim. As a result of edits from the article now doesn't have any information describing the political/editorial stance of The National Memo as a media. It is important to mention that before I made any edits to the article it has the following consensus edits result: it features daily breaking news and commentary as well as analysis from America's top progressive thinkers from a liberal / progressive perspective. I would like to re-instate the truth as both liberal and progressive statements are well-supported by references to high-quality third-party sources (unlike other claims such as left-wing). I also think that this information is important to Wikipedia users/readers because after the extensive edits (or rather deletions) from it is hard to understand what The National Memo is about. There are several editors (notably and  who think that this information should me omitted from the article. - 10:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've made edits to The National Memo article as a paid editor. My client on this project was Elizabeth Wagley, the wife of Joe Conason, publisher of the National Memo. (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support - I don't see any issue with the proposed changes. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 13:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I don't understand what the question is. My original involvement was at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where the paid editor User:Bbarmadillo filed a request for dispute resolution with two volunteer editors.  Neither of the volunteer editors was interested in discussing the issues raised by Bbarmadillo.  (One of them said that the paid editor was arguing about words that had the same meaning.)  I advised Bbarmadillo either to discuss at the article talk page (here) or to use a Request for Comments.  Here is the Request for Comments, and Bbarmadillo seems to be trying to use a template for the RFC, and is having trouble getting it to work, and has asked me on my talk page for assistance.  (Volunteer editors should not have to spend long amounts of time assisting paid editors in rewriting a Wikipedia article to be a better advertisement, when Wikipedia is not for advertising.)  I am not able to express an opinion on the original question of the RFC because I don't know what it is; the original issue seems to be buried in too many levels of recursion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Caution: If the paid editor User:Bbarmadillo wastes any more time of volunteer editors asking for assistance, it may be necessary to topic-ban them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Summoned by bot. I will come back to the substantive discussion later tonight. In the meantime, I think it would be helpful for User:Bbarmadillo to update the disclosure above. It would be helpful to know the relationship of your client to the article's subject matter. It took very little googling for me to see, but better for you to describe it, I'd think. Chris vLS (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * my client on this project was Elizabeth Wagley. She is the wife of Joe Conason, publisher ot the National Memo, and mentioned as such at the second reference to the article. This just as much as I know about her. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it to the above. I don't know much about the recommended format for such disclosures, but as an editor coming to a dispute, knowing this much of the picture seems appropriate. Chris vLS (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments to the "unreliable sources" tag
Dear editing the article on January 29, 2018 you added the unreliable sources tag. Please provide comments to your edit here and explain which sources you consider unreliable. If you feed that the tag is outdated (after further improvement edits from other editors) please remove it. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see what I wrote on this higher up this page: "I welcome comment ... in particular on the remaining sources, many of which seem to be self-referential, particularly in the sentence about contributors (Sattler is a reference for Sattler, Johnston is a reference for Johnston and so on). The more important question now seems to be whether this thing is actually WP:notable by Wikipedia's standards – perhaps I've missed something, but I see no in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources at all" (added with ). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments to the "third party" tag
Dear editing the article on January 29, 2018 you added the “third party” tag. Please provide comments to your edits here and explain which of the sources you believe to be too closely associated with the subject and provide suggestions for improving the article so that this tag can be removed. If you feed that the tag is outdated (after further improvement edits from other editors) please remove it. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See preceding section. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Arguments for deleting e-books section
Dear please provide extended arguments for your edits to The National Memo page on February 11, 2018. You deleted the "E-books" section with the comments "I don't think this belongs in this article.. belongs in Joe Conason article". The section in question featured 2 different e-books (initially 3) published by The National Memo and not Joe Conason himself. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources made no mention of this neither did the article it seems to me to have little connection with The National Memo and belongs in the Joe Conason article. And why is publishing a free e-book worthy of any note whatsoever? Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * From my reading of the sources (URLs taken from deleted citations, ) Theroadislong is absolutely correct in removing the ebooks subsection. The views of Joe Conason and his coauthor Gene Lyons about Hillary Clinton are the subject of the two articles; the only mention of The National Memo is found in the Dailykos story , which lists Conason as the "editor in chief of National Memo", with no further mentions of the organization being made in the article. I consider this both a trivial mention and a mention in passing, both of which preclude the information from being considered in-depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder
I notice that of about 130 edits to this talk-page, approximately half (I make it 66) are by paid editor. So it is perhaps time for a reminder from WP:PAYTALK: "." I'm not saying that that point has necessarily yet been reached, but I do advise some caution. For myself, I intend to disengage from this page if I possibly can – there must be better uses of my time than futile argument over trivia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Justlettersandnumbers - Yes. I agree.  It appears that the paid editor User:Bbarmadillo is trying to use Wikipedia tools that they are having difficulty using, and is asking for a lot of assistance from the volunteer editor community in changing the wording of the article in order to be a better advertisement for The National Memo, but Wikipedia is not a medium for advertisement in the first place.  If the paid editor uses up any more volunteer editor time in asking for help, it may be time to ask for a topic-ban.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Lack of notability as evidenced by the sources
The sources are appalling..
 * 1 is an Alexa ranking
 * 2 is an interview
 * 3 doesn’t mention The National Memo
 * 4 is a passing mention
 * 5 no mention of National Memo
 * 6 no mention of The National Memo
 * 7 is a passing mention
 * 8 is a passing mention
 * 9 no mention of The National Memo
 * 10 no mention of The National Memo
 * 11 The National Memo’s own website
 * 12 no mention of The National Memo

Unless someone can find at least two reliable in-depth sources about the subject, I would suggest this needs to go to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Theroadislong, I would think that the citations from major publications that used and credited stories from The National Memo described above in would be sufficient to establish notability. Why not? --Nbauman (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly in-depth coverage though is it? Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Objection to the proposed deletion
All right now, poor The National Memo owners have regretted multiple times that they decided to follow my advice and declare paid editing fair way. They just wanted to improve the article (made in 2013 by non-paid editors) a little bit. For those who don't have time to read the talk page, take a look at January 2018 version of the article. It has quite a lot of links, proving notability of this political website/publication/newsletter. I don't understand how a stub article (that's what it is now) can bother anyone. I've already returned the money to my client and have no desire to edit it again. I just hope that some common sense and good WP:GF will finally shine on this article and it wouldn't be punish simply because the owners of this media were fools and believed me. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)