Talk:Media Matters for America/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

The quoting of Media Matters

While the occasional use of direct quotes from the subject of a Wikipedia article is appropriate, this article (particularly the first half of it) uses them mighty frequently. This effectively allows Media Matters not only to make its own points but to make them in precisely the language it prefers. That's the main reason we have seen so many "progressives" and "conservative misinformations" in this article. I would suggest some tweaking here.Badmintonhist (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is excessive. We should use wording sourced to secondary sources wherever possible instead. Drrll (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of those sections are reporting on Media Matters' research. I'm not saying that the level of quoting that's there now is precisely correct and that it would be a mistake to take any out or put any in, but is there really a better way to describe the conclusion of their own research than to quote it? If there are opposing viewpoints that deserve weight in the article, we can include (and even quote) them as well. Croctotheface (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated RfC: Wording of lead sentences

How should the first two sentences be worded to reflect the ideological orientation of Media Matters for America?:

4. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

5. Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group. Often described in news stories as liberal, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

6. MMfA is media watchdog group which says it is describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." [the discussion of whether MMfA is "liberal" or "progressive" is deferred until later in the article body]. Drrll (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed "says it is" to "describes itself as" in #6 because the latter wording is more professional and parallels the wording in #4. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• 5 Per my comments in original RfC' Drrll (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• 5 ...and suggest replacement text "Often characterized as liberal...". "News stories", IMHO, should be broadened considerably. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that "characterized" is better than "described." What do you suggest to replace "news stories?" Drrll (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing...just a comma after liberal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to convey that straight news sources (even from left-leaning sources like NPR) often characterize MMfA as "liberal." In my view, it wouldn't matter to the reader nearly as much that someone like a conservative commentator might characterize it that way. Perhaps "news stories" is not broad enough, though. Drrll (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could say "Often characterized as liberal in traditional media...". I can't foresee much, if any, heartburn over that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4 or 6, per arguments in the previous RFC. Regarding the comments directly above about using the word 'characterised', if this were done without qualification it would probably be tagged with a 'by whom?' note in short order. 'News stories' might not be appropriate, but if option 5 is successful then there certainly should be some sort of qualification there about who is doing the characterising. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that could be easily accommodated by provision of source citations were it to be challenged (which, last time I looked at WP:LEAD, is the only time lead citations are appropriate...tho that may have changed). JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I originally changed this a few weeks ago, I included 5 citations that backed up the use of "liberal." I could literally provide hundreds of references from many dozens of different sources. Drrll (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and assume he's alluding to source bias. I'll betcha you can find more than adequate sourcing from widely recognized liberal/progressive sources. Even if you couldn't, even biased sources could still be WP:RS with appropriate attribution and some minor editing. Cross that bridge if and when you come to it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about source bias or anything along those lines, as I'm not particularly fluent in the subject matter. My secondary thoughts in my initial comment were more to do with using wording such as 'characterised as', 'said to be', 'referred to as' or the like without qualification/attribution. Inline sourcing is good, but some drafts of this paragraph seem to suggest that the characterisation comes in large part from the media, in which case wording such as 'characterised by the media' would be clearer. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies then for misconstruing your comment and, as you can see by my suggested edit above, I believe we are in agreement on that point. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Per original comments. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• 5 Per my comments at older RFC. Also, use improved wording from JakeInJoisey (?) in 2nd Response above. --Noleander (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing new in this rfc. I have the same position as before, as probably everyone above does, and their positions should be weighed as heavily as the "new" positions here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the obvious winnowing of choices based upon responses in the earlier RfC, where 5 had more, but barely more support than 4, there is an additional unique choice suggested by TAAMA. 1-3 simply didn't have adequate support. Drrll (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that last bit about 1-3, but everyone who supported 1 or 3 also expressed a clear preference for 4 or 5 as well. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Per original comments. New wording would be preferred.Mpgviolist (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• 5 As per my comments in previous discussions SeanNovack (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean, reading your above comments, it seems that your main reason to use "liberal" is that Media Matters does not use it. You said above that Media Matters "would rather not be known as" liberal, but do you have any evidence of that? They don't choose to describe themselves as liberal, sure, but I sign all my posts Croctotheface; does that mean that I "would rather not be known as" Croc? (For the record, I'm completely comfortable with that nickname.) Is "we should specifically make sure to describe them using a term they don't use" really a good line of argument here? Croctotheface (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• 5 Saying how sources describe them is a good idea and this has that. (I'm assuming sources do say that) --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• 4 or 6 per my earlier comments. As stated earlier, using tortured language like "often described as" is just poor encyclopedic writing, will soon be tagged, and then we'll end up with even worse language like "referred to by the Washington Post as..." There might be a reason to discuss third-party opinion of the organization in the article (although I doubt it, as every organization has someone that feels one way or the other about them), but there is absolutely no reason to make that the very first thing mentioned in the first sentence of the lede paragraph, as if that is their primary notability. This is actually a larger issue which should be discussed project-wide as this has been creeping into other articles about people and organizations perceived to be on the right or left. Let the reader decide. We don't need to immediately slant things by "warning" them they're about to read an article about liberals, right-wingers, extremists, etc. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If the writing is bad, how could the same point be conveyed better? It's actually the second sentence of the lead paragraph, rather than the first. I could support a project-wide standard that strongly discourages/disallows labeling in the lead or at least the lead sentence/paragraph. Consistency would be nice, but do you see a measure like this getting implemented? Drrll (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4 is the best of these. 5 is downright awful with that "often described in news stories as" crap in there. Forget about the years and years of conservative editors attempting to push "liberal" into the lead of this article; the writing of that option is just embarrassingly bad. I'd much prefer just flat out calling the group liberal to appending some nonsense qualifier like that. For most people, the presence of a passive-voice qualifier won't make them question what follows it, and besides, to the degree that "liberal" denotes "left of center," it's accurate. Now, "progressive" is more accurate both because the group chooses it for themselves and because it speaks to social movements, which is much more in line with MM than New Deal liberalism, but really, whatever. I should be clear, though: a lot of editors in the past have weighed in on this precise issue and said that there's no need to put "liberal" in there. To me, this constant desire to revisit the issue when no relevant facts have changed seems like an end-run around the process. Proponents of this change hope that editors such as myself who participated in the past will no longer be motivated to participate, so they can "win" that way. I suppose that strategy has worked with respect to me. I don't edit much anymore, so there's one voice that, under different circumstances, wouldn't have come here to speak to what he believes in. But then again, while I think that "liberal" in the lead will make the article marginally worse, if some editors care THIS MUCH about it, if they care so much that they're motivated to make the same arguments year after year, no matter how many times consensus has gone against them, then maybe it's time to roll our eyes, shrug our shoulders, roll our eyes again, and move on. Croctotheface (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

5 is downright awful with that "often described in news stories as" crap in there.

I believe that "often described as liberal" requires no qualification (and so suggested), but it IS a factual and well-supported characterization and it is not, IMHO, simply gratuitously irrelevant.

That the appellation "liberal" might actually be considered so repulsive a pejorative (and perhaps so inviting a barb?) in some editor's perceptions so as to perpetuate this incessant rhetorical ruckus is, at least to me, rather novel. Perhaps I've just been tone-deaf in my political ears.

While I have not read archives on this apparent festering sore (and don't intend to), a degree of prior intransigence on BOTH sides appears to have been a hallmark of this debate. This suggests (to me anyway) that WP:POLICY may have become subserviant to POV considerations, albeit in good faith, on both sides of this issue. Nor do I find assertions of prior "consensus" for exclusion to be particularly persuasive though they are certainly not without merit. However, time and tides change as do facts, perceptions and opinions. IMHO, this current attempt at re-examination on the vitality of a current "consensus" for exclusion is, IMHO, to be both expected and applauded, weariness of the issue notwithstanding, and resolution resides in an adherence to WP:POLICY and process in which this examination plays an integral role. It's how we do things here...or, at least, should be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This reply is almost completely lacking in actual content. My objection to "often described in news sources as," which is much longer than the condensed version you include, centers not on whether it's "factual" (or WP:FACTUAL if you prefer) but on the fact that it is awful writing. That you don't recognize that "liberal" is used as a pejorative suggests first that you may lack the necessary background in American politics to persuasively comment on an issue like this and second that you certainly did not read the prior discussions in which consensus was reached, since that specific issue came up multiple times. Croctotheface (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. End of discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4 - Hasn't changed in this continuation RfC. Per my various comments on this page. I'll also accept 6. — Becksguy (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• 4 is my first preference, 6 is my second. "Often described in news stories" is weaseley verbal gymnastics with the aim to foist a label some see as pejorative onto MMfA when there are plenty of neutral or positive synonyms that can be applied. Also, we don't need to take the terminology of news stories, which generally favor brevity, because we can include MMFA's self-description, which is ideologically self-characterizing twice ("progressive research and information center", and "correcting conservative misinformation"). Quigley (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know anything about this particular organization, but I'm involved in journalism, so here are my thoughts. From reading options 4 and 5, it seems that there is some contention over whether the organization is truly progressive or truly liberal. Thus, like you suggest in option 6, I think this discussion should be deferred. Number 5 I'm concerned about. "Often" and "news stories" are vague, and this also allows room for judgment by the editor (which I find inappropriate and inviting of skewed POV). I'm also wondering what type of news sources this claim comes from, because it would not be appropriate for the original news source to describe this organization as liberal if that's not how it describes itself; that would be putting words in the organization's mouth. It sounds to me like these "news sources" might be columns/op-eds, which are commentary, not news, and commentary (if that's the case) should not be used to define the goals of an organization. Number 6 I'm most comfortable with, but it's usually best if you can avoid quotes in leads.--Jp07 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources for "liberal" are all straight news stories (the 5 I was going to use are news stories from The NYT, The WaPo, NPR, CNN, & Newsweek). There are literally hundreds of separate straight news stories that describe Media Matters as "liberal." Because of those hundreds and because I was going to cite 5, I think that "often" is appropriate (but that could be left out). When straight news stories from reliable sources are actually examined, there are far fewer examples of them calling Media Matters "progressive," especially when you get into top-tier news sources like The NYT, The WaPo, & NPR. Drrll (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that they are all straight news stories? Below you cite the number of 1381 sources - did you check them all individually? Lexis/Nexis indexes both news and opinion material from their sources, as I'm sure you know. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear--all the sources I was going to use to support "liberal" are straight news stories. Yes, as my response below to you indicates (in the section about the NYT), I obviously know that LN includes opinion pieces, as well as press releases, in its results. No, I didn't check the 1381 sources individually, though I did check some specific sources individually. Drrll (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And again, how many news stories mention them but do not refer to them as either liberal or progressive? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as 3 of the highest-quality sources go, The NYT directly calls them "liberal" in about half of its MMfA news stories; The WaPo directly calls them "liberal" in about half of its MMfA stories, and NPR calls them "liberal" in two-thirds of its broadcast segments (when the voice is in the voice of an NPR journalist). Drrll (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding, my fault not yours. I was replying to two different sections and got confused about what was being discussed where. Gamaliel (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I still have reservations with calling them liberal when their website [1] (a primary source) calls them "progressive." Even journalists at the New York Times (a secondary source) are not error-proof (and we really need to provide specific sources if we're going to make any sort of claim like that -- astute readers will be dubious unless you show, not tell). How can we call newspapers a more definitive source of information on the organization than the organization itself? Articles like this one [2] and this one [3] seem to be intentionally avoiding a discussion of the organization's political ideology. You've got to remember that journalists really value concision and clarity; to accurately identify the organization as progressive would require a definition of the political philosophy (which probably isn't truly related to the article) as I think few people are aware of the goals of progressives. Perhaps I shouldn't admit this, but I know practically nothing about progressivism, but from what I've read there is a noteworthy difference between progressivism and liberalism.--Jp07 (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, The NYT directly calls them "liberal" in these news stories: here and here, along with about 30 other NYT news stories, not just once where error could be attributed to the description. Similarly, the WaPo directly calls them "liberal" in about 30 news stories, such as here, along with NPR 11 times, such as here. We should go with how top sources describe them instead of how they describe themselves (e.g. we would never just parrot that "Fox News is a fair and balanced news organization"). Drrll (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources cited in the Fox News article that dispute the accuracy of their slogan. Where are the sources here that dispute the accuracy of the description "progressive"? Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If there was a WP policy or guideline that stated that we should use an organization's self-description unless contradicted by sources, you would have a point. Drrll (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Playing off of Gamaliel's comment, I would also like to point out that the "fair and balanced" thing is Fox's news slogan, not their political ideology; that's how Fox markets itself, so yes, I agree with you, we should not describe them that way. MMfA's progressivism is not a marketing ploy; rather, it is a basic, underlying political philosophy that motivates their actions. Even if their actions do not completely mirror their stated political ideology, another person should not make the decision that they are of a different political philosophy (writers aren't psychic). That's sort of similar to the frequent name calling Obama has received -- outside sources keep calling him a socialist, but that does not make Obama a socialist at all. If there's a mismatch, point it out in the article.--Jp07 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

5 It is liberal. Describing it as anything else is intellectually dishonest. The term "progressive" is being substituted because Liberal has a negative connotation. Logical fact (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If it has a negative connotation, then WP:NPOV would dictate that we cannot use the term at all. So you seem to be making the case for the opposite of what you're arguing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Who voted the second 5 option after Drrll? It's not clear. Please sign it with correct time stamp. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was JakeInJoisey. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops...sig added. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this being brought up for yet another RFC by the exact same editor that brought it up two weeks ago? Just scroll up a couple of comment threads on this page to see how other editors feel about it. This is classic WP:FILIBUSTER, where the same argument gets raised repeatedly until only the zealots bother to respond anymore (and then they claim "consensus" because no one else has the patience to repeat themselves ad infinitum). Also, I would point out that the repeated use of the phrase "vote" seems to indicate a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. We don't "vote" on article content.--Loonymonkey (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the 'Tally' section above for the reasoning behind this 2nd Rfc. Basically, it was a close call between 4 & 5 and so I attempted to recast the question (without a new RfC) with just 4 & 5 as options plus an additional option suggested by TAAMA. Since some had gone with options 1 & 3 (with several opting for two choices, some of which expressed a preference for one over another), this was an opportunity to obtain a clearer consensus. The RfC bot didn't properly list the modified RfC, so I tried the option of a fresh RfC. It would be nice if you would not assume bad faith on the part of me and others here with your talk about filibusters and "zealots." As you can see from the responses, no one is forced to repeat themselves--most just give their response per their previous rationale. We may not decide content purely upon votes, but we do decide content based upon consensus. Drrll (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Loonymonkey: There was an agreement between both sides of this debate to recast the question with options #4 & #5 (and the new #6) to see if there is clearer consensus as part of the original RfC. However, it turns out that a new RfC was required due to technical issues with the RfC bot. This is not a filibuster nor an attempt the game the system, just a good faith effort on the part of Drrll & JakeInJoisey on one side, and myself on the other, to help the process of gaining consensus on the wording of the lede. I may be on the other side of including "liberal" in the lede, but we are all collaboratively working together to achieve consensus. A striking of the comments on filibustering and zealots would help clear the air, I think. Although a straw poll may have the appearance of a vote, it part of the consensus building process and is being used to test for consensus, per WP:POLL. This debate is actually going rather well, without the drama seen at some venues. — Becksguy (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the RfC bot problem that disregarded formatting and created a single wall of text has been rectified. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for keeping an eye on that. Drrll (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping note: are there any objections to moving non-vote content here so as to un-clutter and isolate RfC submissions? I assumed that was the idea behind this section creation, no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I created it. Although this section should include consensus development discussions that are too long to fit into the responses "straw poll" thread, as that is for testing consensus. Here we can develop consensus. So go for it. — Becksguy (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Not 100% sure on what you mean...but feel free to adjust accordingly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, if it's that big a deal, just call them a liberal group. Let's keep it real, cluttering up the lead with a silly qualifier like "often described in news stories as" makes the writing of the article much worse. The issue here is that editors, not the group itself, take issue with our encyclopedia describing Media Matters as liberal when they don't choose the label but instead choose one (progressive) that is just as accurate and descriptive. As my past comments indicate, I agree with that sentiment, but it's really not that big a deal to use liberal, too. The phrasing of "option 5" (is this a new sci-fi TV series, by the way? I should check it out.) makes it seem like someone is defensive about the "liberal" label. I see no evidence that Media Matters is, and we shouldn't let the squabbles of this talk page create some kind of fake compromise version that doesn't make anyone happy and makes the writing of the page worse. Seriously, that kind of nonsense qualifier would NEVER be put in an article without this kind of years-long squabbling. It's agonizingly poor text.

I should say, though, that the best option would be to do some version of what we had been doing for a long time. But since it seems that editors who feel some deep need for the article to say "liberal" one more time will keep pushing this issue forever, I say just give them what they want and move on with our lives. Croctotheface (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you state that prefer the longstanding consensus version to this new one that is being argued for, I don't see why you would simply "give them what they want" and move on. As a matter of principal, editors should never be allowed to make changes for which there is little consensus simply because they are willing to push the issue forever and spend more time arguing it, until other editors such as yourself just throw up their hands and say "fine, whatever." That's called filibustering and it degrades the quality of the entire project. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to raise the filibustering issue at a noticeboard, you might be able to make that case. It's pretty clear to me that it's what has happened here. But to be clear, I am not saying that using "liberal" is the best way to go, but to say that almost ANYTHING is better than putting "often described in news stories as" in the lead of the article. I'd rather just call them "LIBRUL" in all caps than put that "often described in news stories as" phrase in there. That phrase is offensive to me as a writer. Croctotheface (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is cleaner to just call them liberal or both liberal and progressive instead of option 5, but that was not the consensus of the earlier RfC that included those options. Wikipedia is supposed to be about following reliable sources and reliable sources overwhelmingly describe MMfA as "liberal," as I demonstrated earlier (for example, the NYT describes it as "liberal" 43 times to just 3 times as "progressive," and with NPR it is 12 to 0). The question is, is that overwhelming use enough to justify saying in WP's voice that it is definitively liberal? Obviously "often described in news stories as" is obviously not winning any popularity contests, so what alternative wording do you suggest to convey the same idea? The point was to make clear that it is straight news stories that characterize MMfA that way, not your random conservative commentator. We could just say "described as liberal" and then give references to the straight news stories that support it. Drrll (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there would need to be a multi-step process here. First, there would need to be a consensus that we must call them "liberal" in the lead of the article. You realize that there are multiple references to "liberal" elsewhere in the article, right? Croctotheface (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: it really seems to me that there exists a consensus that both liberal and progressive are more or less accurate. I know that not everyone holds that position, but it seems to be a consensus view across both "sides" of this argument. If we can move past that, the substantive arguments seem to boil down on one side to "I want to use liberal because some media outlets use it" versus "There's no need to say both liberal and progressive, and the article is better if we quote their self-description than if we don't quote it." I actually think, though, that the ancestry of the editors involved on the "use 'liberal'" side suggests that they want to insert the word either because they think it's less flattering or, more likely, because they think it will piss off the other side to force that label onto the group.

I was particularly disheartened to see SeanNovack's argument boil down to saying that we change the article because Media Matters "would rather not be known as" liberal. First, I don't think that's true at all. I haven't seen any sources that suggest Media Matters somehow denies that the word "liberal" applies to them; they just choose another label instead. Moreover, a consensus exists that the label they choose is accurate. Is it our usual practice to apply a label to someone specifically because they don't choose it for themselves? Again, I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but an attempt by editors with an agenda to piss off those they perceive as "the other side", and really, it's kind of a shame when you look at it that way. Croctotheface (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My objection to using the label "liberal" in the lede is essentially the same as using any term that pigeonholes and characterizes the political orientations of people or organizations using a one-word-one-size-fits-all undefined label by force. Examples include: liberal, conservative, radical, reactionary, or progressive. In this case, MMfA characterizes itself as progressive, which attributes the source of the characterization. I'm not even claiming MMfA is not liberal, and I'm sure there are many reliable sources that label it as such. The essential problem is that liberal has different meanings across the political, cultural, and socioeconomic spectrums in the US as well as in other Anglophone countries. Is it "liberal" in the sense of Paul Krugman, or "liberal" in the sense of Ann Coulter who equated liberalism to treason [Quote: "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.."]. Is it in the sense of a well educated person who gives to Greenpeace, or in the sense of a high school drop out member of a racial hate group who thinks liberals are the same as communists. It can be a badge of pride as used by some, and a deadly insult as used by others. Liberal has been the target of multiple GOP and conservative attacks and the term has become highly pejorative. There is enough emotional and semantic baggage attached to it, so that the use of the term by itself is hopelessly charged and without any meaningful neutral definition. In other words, it violates WP:NPOV. And if explanations to attribute or define the term are included alongside the term, to fix that problem, then it's not appropriate for the lede, per WP:LEDE. Either way, the use of the term and it's meanings and attributions belong in the body of the article, not in the lede. We write for readers, not us, and we should not be feeding them unqualified, ambiguous, and pejorative political characterizations in the lede. — Becksguy (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples include: liberal, conservative, radical, reactionary, or progressive.

But you overlooked, at least for our purposes here, a most salient characterization...neutral.

The essential problem is that liberal has different meanings across...

Appropriate fare for Liberalism, but not for this article.

...it violates WP:NPOV.

If RS sourcing indicating that "liberal", as applied to MMfA, is a notably disputed characterization not reflected in the current content, you might have a point. However, even if that were to be the case, if there is adequate RS sourcing supporting notability in the use of "liberal", attribution/qualification of the term with inclusion of the missing content would be the NPOV resolution, not deletion of the subject of the dispute.

Perhaps a not exact but similar example from another perspective might be helpful. The article on Jerome Corsi currently labels him as an unqualified "conspiracy theorist"...in Wikipedia's voice. Mr. Corsi, almost assuredly, would blanche at that characterization were he to address it (he hasn't, at least that I'm aware of) and it is certainly not one that is applied to him by anyone that might even remotely be characterized as "supportive"...or arguably even "neutral". Contextually speaking and IMHO, "conspiracy theorist" is a highly pejorative characterization BUT an argument for deletion cannot be made under NPOV since the characterization is clearly WP:V & WP:RS. What CAN (and should) be done both in reference to Corsi AND MMfA, is either to document (with sourcing) evidence that the characterization, in this case of MMfA as "liberal", is NOTABLY in dispute OR appropriately qualify and/or attribute the term so that it reflects the term as an opinion and not as a universally held fact. In this case, "...often characterized as 'liberal'" clearly satisfies, IMHO, WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Before, you said that "liberal" did not have any negative connotations. Now, you're putting forth "conspiracy theorist" as a parallel case. Which is it? Croctotheface (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a fundamental contradiction that has been unaddressed by the pro-liberal faction for years. They have argued both that it is a harmless synonym and that progressive is used to "cover up" liberal simultaneously. Which is it, synonym or cover up? If they are synonyms, why bother changing it and why argue so vociferously for a synonym? If there is a "cover up", where are the sources demonstrating this? Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all which one it is. What matters is what is favored in reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why pose those arguments so frequently on this page if they do not matter? Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To use the text "often characterized as liberal" just invites more issues, since who did the characterizing is absolutely necessary so that readers can gauge which meaning of liberal is being applied here. And the phrase is a violation of WP:Weasel words#Unsupported attributions, part of WP:MOS. It invites the tag {{Who?}}, a neutrality banner, or a trip to a noticeboard. So, no, it does NOT satisfy NPOV. There is a parallel situation with using the term "homosexual" in Wikipedia to characterize gay people or organizations. Homosexual is a pejorative term. Gay is the term to be used, except in direct quotations, per WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...who did the characterizing is absolutely necessary so that readers can gauge which meaning of liberal is being applied here.

Ridiculous assertion. Were that the case, "liberal" would have been so qualified in every iteration in every source it appears in. Let's get real here.

It invites the tag {{Who?}},...

Easily accommodated by the provision of citation(s) and, if consensus REALLY wants to press the issue, "...such as the NY Times and the LA Times," immediately comes to mind.

There is a parallel situation with using the term "homosexual"...per WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities.

That "liberal" and "progressive" are not recognized in those "conventions" should suggest something to you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If it suggests anything to me, it's that maybe we shouldn't feel quite so compelled to spread such labels around in the voice of the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And your equating Wikipedia's "voice" with multi-sourced "Often characterized as liberal,..." suggests something to me. Shall we go on? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jake, I see that you feel hostile toward me, but I don't think it furthers the conversation. I am baffled as to how anyone can prefer a passive-voice, weasel-worded phrasing like that. It implies that Media Matters is defensive about the liberal label, but we have no evidence of that. They just choose not to use it. It calls attention to liberal vs. progressive in the lead as if it's the most important thing in the article. It's not. That tortured phrasing makes the issue worse, not better. Croctotheface (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spare me. You waltzed into this discussion with a chip on your shoulder the size of a mature oak and were hardly measured in expressing those views. As before, end of discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you somehow dislike me personally, that means you're going to ignore the substantive points I raise and declare the discussion over? That's rather convenient for you. Croctotheface (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I "may lack the necessary background in American politics to persuasively comment on an issue like this", I'd best simply withdraw. I was, quite erroneously, laboring under the impression that WP:POLICY (about which I'm somewhat familiar) would be governing here. My bad. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I understand that you dislike me personally. You've made that clear once again with this comment. But there have been numerous discussions on this talk page about how the conservative movement has sought to turn "liberal" into a dirty word. You said that you had read the previous discussions, but you also said that you were totally unaware of anything that might have to do with "liberal" having a pejorative meaning for some people. As far as policy, I've said this before, but it's much easier to do what you're doing--flat out assert that your viewpoint follows policy and that others' do not--than it is to actually engage on the merits of the discussion. Until and unless there is a policy that specifically speaks to liberal vs. progressive in this sort of context, then we're stuck with the often frustrating task of interpreting policy. Ignoring someone else's arguments and simply asserting that your interpretation follows policy (or WP:POLICY if you prefer to shout) doesn't somehow make it so. I could just as easily shout back a one line reply of my own: "NO! It is MY INTERPRETATION that agrees with WP:POLICY!" That doesn't further the conversation, though. Croctotheface (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While I had no intent to pursue further discussion with you, that you have now resorted to both mis-stating and mis-representing my comments mandates making a for the record note. Your arguments have no merit under WP:POLICY and I have more than adequately stated my rationales for those assertions. Finis. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have simply asserted that my arguments don't follow policy and yours do. I believe the opposite, and I have put forth my arguments as to why that's the case. You have not engaged with those arguments; in fact, you've repeatedly tried to cut off the discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have simply asserted that my arguments don't follow policy and yours do.

That you saw nothing but a "simple assertion" in my comments bereft of any supporting argument, your myopia on this issue has now advanced to affecting even your vision. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal" as a pejorative

Since I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, I figured it makes sense to call editors' attention to this section in our article on modern liberalism in the United States: "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Useful reading. Apparently such high-quality sources as the NYT, the Washington Post, and especially NPR (with 12 uses of "liberal" and no uses of "progressive") didn't get the memo that "liberal" is a pejorative to be avoided. We should let WP:MOSFOLLOW be our guide, as well as WP:LABEL, as pointed out by Becksguy. Drrll (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear--the entirety of your argument is that "sources use 'liberal'"? When someone says that sources also use "progressive", that there may be issues with the liberal label, or with featuring it so prominently, or with anything else, your only response is to reiterate that sources use it? I'll say this for the second or third time: counting hits for one search string versus another doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves. But even if it did, there are still serious problems with the change you'd want to make to the article, not the least of which is the weight issue of putting "often referred to in news stories as liberal" as the first and most prominent piece of information that our article conveys. Still, at some point, ignoring the substance of other editors' comments and merely reiterating that sources use "liberal" really seems like you're dodging the issue. Croctotheface (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The thrust of my argument is that WP is about doing what reliable sources do, as explained in policy and MOS guidelines. And what policy or guidelines back up your view that the liberal label should be avoided? Explain to me what method you believe is superior to LexisNexis in determining the "style adopted by high-quality sources," as called for by WP:MOSFOLLOW. Actually the first and most prominent piece of information that our article conveys is that MMfA is a media watchdog organization. We are again mirroring sources that use "liberal" as a major piece of information when mentioning MMfA. Again, what WP policy or guideline am I dodging? Drrll (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My argument is not and never has been that "'liberal' should be avoided." It's in the article several times, and I don't intend to change that. My argument is that we should quote their self-description because it is informative and accurately characterizes their politics. It seems that everyone agrees on this point; the debate is over whether to leave the description intact, cut it off right after "progressive" or add "liberal" in a few words before "progressive." Both "liberal" and "progressive" are used in sources. My view is that the second option has neutrality problems because it seems born of the desire to foist a label used as a derogatory epithet onto the organization. I think the third option is at best redundant, and at worst it's designed to call attention to the labeling kerfuffle, which has the same sort of neutrality problem as option 2.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that liberal is always used as a derogatory epithet, but the fact that it sometimes or often is used that way strikes me as plenty sufficient to make sure that we use it judiciously. Even if I stipulate that sources use "liberal" more frequently, I think that these neutrality issues are much more important. And, to be perfectly honest, it sets off POV pushing alarms in my head when there's a concerted effort spanning several years to feature a label used as a derogatory epithet very prominently in the lead of the article. Why is this such a big deal to some people? It sets off more alarm bells when there are comments made to the effect of "progressive" is "warm and fuzzy" or "candy coating," then I think the jig is up: that comment seems to concede that desire to use "liberal," for at least some editors, is its use as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How skeptical should we be?

It seems that the discussion at this point concerns whether to cut off Media Matters' self-description after they say "progressive" or whether to leave in that part of the quote. This is kind of puzzling to me: a lot of the arguments for editing the quote this way talk about how we shouldn't trust an organization to describe itself, and so forth. Why is it, then, that we're comfortable with the rest of the quote? Everyone here is fine with letting Media Matters write every other part of the description in the lead of our article. This strikes me as rather telling--editors are fine with whatever else Media Matters wants so long as we put "liberal" right up top. And what's the significance of "liberal"? Well, conservative activists have spent decades trying to turn it into a dirty word. To me, that's the real neutrality issue here. Croctotheface (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's why the use of "liberal" violates WP:NPOV. It's a "Value-laden label" per WP:LABEL, and those and other emotionally charged and denigrating words, like "baby killer", "pinko", "terrorist", "traitor" and "liberal" violate neutrality, per se. To some, "liberal" is a badge of honor, to others it's a deadly insult, just as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". — Becksguy (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sad to say, but this is the only logical explanation here for what's happening. It's the only reason to explain why the pro-liberal faction sees one part of the self-description as acceptable and another incredibly suspect, has for years dodged direct questions about the contradictions of the arguments presented, and holds up some RSes as the gold standard while dismissing and ignoring others. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the only reason to explain why the pro-liberal faction sees one part of the self-description as acceptable and another incredibly suspect,...

"Pro-liberal"? But of course you mean those advocating for inclusion of "liberal" and "progressive".

...has for years dodged direct questions about the contradictions of the arguments presented,...

Does anyone else detect a certain odor of WP:TRUTH here?

...and holds up some RSes as the gold standard while dismissing and ignoring others.

Interesting. WP:RS sourcing consistently demonstrating "liberal" as a pejorative when characterizing MMfA was just simply and unceremoniously ignored. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*Of course, I thought that was fairly clear.

*And another dodge here. What's so terrifying about that question? Why not simply address it?

*I have no idea what you are referring to here. My comment was about citing some and ignoring other factual descriptions from reliable sources. What reliable sources use liberal as a pejorative when characterizing MMFA? If they are using terms in such a manner, that sounds more like a polemic or an opinion piece than a reliable source. I think you should clarify what you're getting at here, or better yet, point me to some relevant talk discussion on whatever you are talking about. Gamaliel (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*Of course, I thought that was fairly clear.

Actually what was fairly clear is that your "pro-progressive faction" (to use your own stylistics) have apparently dismissed any plausibility (It's the only reason to explain...) that there might actually be a WP:POLICY "faction" to which editors might subscribe. That's what was "clear" to me. And it's also quite "clear" to me just how and where this subject of editorial intent was, rather unfortunately, injected into this process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a policy based issue, why dismiss some RSes and not others? If this is a policy based issue, why repeatedly dodge - for years! - direct questions about the arguments posted here? Gamaliel (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a policy based issue, why repeatedly dodge - for years! - direct questions about the arguments posted here?

Rejecting, of course, your assertion that I've "dodged" anything (in fact I've addressed its irrelevancy, or some variant of its irrelevancy, several times as I recall), for the simple reason that they are off the WP:POLICY reservation and into WP:TRUTH landia. One needn't look beyond allusions to non-existent WP naming conventions or calls for Liberal/Progressive "resolution" as being the equivalent to WP:V, WP:RS sourcing to understand what's afoot here. As your forthcoming response will, no doubt, be yet another repetition of obduracy posing as argument, I'm done here...and your "pro-progressive faction" all courts press in repetition and last-wordism will be, I can assure you, quite successful. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to anything I've said and have already made up your mind regarding the content of my response, there isn't much point in continuing this. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are not cutting off anything. Option 5, for example, gives the entire first sentence from their self-description, "progressive" included. We just don't use "progressive" uncritically in Wikipedia's voice like we do now. We instead make clear that it is MMfA's description, along with the rest of their self-description. Drrll (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's your issue, then I think we might be able to resolve this much more readily. From what you say, you don't care about getting "liberal" in there, so it sounds like you'd be fine with going back to the something like the old version, which read, "Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a media watchdog group organized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock, Media Matters describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." We can take out or rearrange some of that stuff in the beginning to put the quote with "progressive" sooner, too. Something like that strikes me as a fine compromise. Croctotheface (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some problems with going with that. First of all, this RfC is still in progress. Second, that proposed text is similar to what we already have in options 4 & 6. Third, unlike option 6, there's no mention of discussing the liberal / progressive issue later on in the article body. But you're obviously free to propose that option in a separate section / RfC. Drrll (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But you're obviously free to propose that option in a separate section / RfC.

An "option" which, without CLEAR and SUBSTANTIVE RS sourcing establishing that an unqualified, non-pejorative RS characterization of "liberal", SPECIFIC to MMfA, CANNOT be made should be summarily dismissed. Were such an option to be even entertained, to say nothing of WP instituted via some ill-considered "naming convention" tom foolery, it's an open door to injecting this decidedly POV, ideologically inspired fringe umbrage into ANY article subject in which a "liberal" characterization is already (or would be) WP:POLICY, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE legitimate and appropriate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant he is free to do so per WP:CCC. I don't think it would get anywhere because of WP:RS and WP:MOSFOLLOW. Nor do I think it would be wise to put it up as an option right after a two-month old debate ending with an RfC. Drrll (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, to be clear then, your concern is not what you said in the above comment? Your goal is not to change the article so that it no longer "uses 'progressive' uncritically in Wikipedia's voice", but rather your goal is to put "liberal" into the article as close to the top as possible? Croctotheface (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If my goal was to put "liberal" into the article as close to the top as possible, my first choice would have been "MMfA is a liberal..." Incidentally, that's what's done for most conservative organizations: "X is a conservative...." Is your goal to keep out any mention that news sources describe it as liberal? Drrll (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I don't think that telling readers that some news sources use one label instead of another one (when some use the second one, some use both, and each label is accurate) serves to inform them about Media Matters. It's just not an informative enough piece of information to warrant inclusion for its own sake, especially not in the lead paragraph. It only seems that way because it's become such a big issue on this talk page, and that's only happened because some editors insist on getting the word "liberal" featured prominently in the lead of the article and some other editors resist that. If we apportion weight in the article based on how much sturm und drang the issue has raised on the talk page, then we're not putting the readers first.

With respect to the conservative organizations, I'd only consider them parallel cases that might inform what we do here if they prefer to use a different label (say, "right wing") that accurately describes what they do. If they affiliate themselves with conservatism, then the usage you describe is the same as the one currently in the article: the organization chooses an accurate label, and we use the same one. If they deny that their politics are right of center, then we don't have a parallel case because Media Matters does accurately describe their ideology with "progressive."

That said, I'd prefer openly calling the organization "liberal" to engaging in weasel worded verbal gymnastics like "often described in news stories as." My general belief is that we're better off avoiding the morass altogether and keeping the "which label" stuff out of the lead of the article. If there are relevant quotes from individuals who call MM liberal, then we should use them without hesitation; that's the reason that the article does say "liberal" several times. It's not as if I'm totally against putting it anywhere in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The poll as a snapshot

Could we also agree on one other thing: this straw poll with bulleted votes really just captures a snapshot of editor opinion at a certain point in time. Past discussions contain relevant editor opinion as well. It happens that A lot of editors who used to participate in these debates (which have dragged on for years now) are no longer participating, but that shouldn't mean that their voices are no longer relevant. In fact, it would be entirely logical for them to believe that, after every single identical debate came out one way, that they would no longer need to stop by and provide their opinion every few months because the same group of editors wanted to relitigate the issue. Croctotheface (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) According to WP:CCC, "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding." So, current consensus trumps past consensus, just like someone in the future can challenge this consensus.

(2) In looking over the archives, there has been only one other RfC, 18 months ago, and that was about whether to categorize MMfA as a liberal organization.

(3) Previous discussions often focused on a supposed WP preference for using self-descriptions, when no such preference exists in WP policy or guidelines. WP is about reliable sources.

(4) Previous discussions did not offer a wide range of choices, just the choice between "progressive" and "liberal."

(5) Previous discussions did not present evidence that reliable sources, especially top-tier sources, overwhelmingly describe MMfA as "liberal" over "progressive."

Drrll (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, it's your view that past opinions are completely irrelevant here? I mean, come on, how can anyone listen to you say that and view this whole operation as anything other than an attempt to game the system? You don't like the consensus, so you relitigate the same issue again and again and again until it achieves the result you want. Just for clarity's sake: in (1), if you do prevail, you are inviting those who disagree with you to reopen this issue on a constant basis until they get their way? And in (2), you suggest that we are not currently debating whether to categorize Media Matters as liberal? Does that mean you're not comfortable categorizing them that way? Croctotheface (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Past opinions are not completely irrelevant; they are just useful in a limited way. Again, from the WP consensus can change policy, "While past 'extensive discussions' can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." You would have a point about gaming the system if I had started a new RfC shortly after another similar RfC resulted in the verdict I didn't like. There has never been an RfC even close to this one, with fresh choices and fresh data presented. (1) anyone is free to reopen the issue at some point in the future, at which time we go with the result of that discussion. (2) The only other RfC here was whether to use the WP category 'Liberal organizations' for MMfA. The RfC result 18 months ago was no, but that could be reopened in the future and I would support the use of the category, again, based on reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is your vision for Wikipedia really that people should relitigate the same issues again and again because they're not satisfied with the result? It's true that people can bring up just about any issue just about whenever they want. But is that really what we should do? I don't like the result, so I just relitigate it until the people who disagree with me give up? That sounds like a a battleground to me, and it's not what we're supposed to be about here. Croctotheface (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am advocating, although WP policy would seem to allow that. I don't think it would serve Wikipedia well for an editor to quickly turn around after consensus is built and then pose the same or nearly the same question for reconsideration, especially if there are no new facts / evidence / ideas. I think that such an editor would be ignored for such a stunt, and that's not what I have done here. On the other hand, it doesn't serve Wikipedia well to remain impervious to reexamination every so often. Drrll (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What "new facts" came to light since the last time this was discussed? The arguments are identical. It's the same exact conversation every single time. Croctotheface (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For one, the demonstration that top-tier sources overwhelmingly favor "liberal" over "progressive." Something else not presented before is how WP:MOSFOLLOW guides this dispute. Drrll (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that the "Google hits test" is really the best way to go? What I see from the data you link there is that both words are present at a high clip in sources. There's a pretty strong consensus on Wikipedia that "there are more hits for search string A than for search string B" should not be taken as a persuasive argument for much of anything. Plus, "liberal" is in the article a bunch of times. It's not like we're totally unwilling to use it. The question is whether we must either cut off Media Matters' self-description before progressive or put "liberal" in a few words before, which is at best redundant and at worst a neutrality issue because it's meant to imply the conservative activists' "liberal is a dirty word that people on the left should run away from" meme. Croctotheface (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the argument that liberal appears more frequently in sources most certainly was raised before. It's not new. Croctotheface (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a "Google hits test." It's using the preeminent news source database, LexisNexis, which is far more precise than Google. It covers all articles published by the NYT, WaPo, etc. for the past four decades or so. The specific search used is one that shows all instances in which the words "liberal" or "progressive" appear in the same sentence as "Media Matters." It's not even a close call between the proportion of use, especially in the "high quality sources" that WP:MOSFOLLOW suggests using (like NYT, WaPo, NPR and the others listed in my breakdown above). Again, we are not cutting off Media Matters' self-description--"progressive" is right there in the lengthy quote. It would be redundant if we used "liberal progressive" together; it is not redundant to show what is overwhelmingly favored by sources and then what is favored by MMfA. It is not a neutrality issue when both WP:MOSFOLLOW and WP:LABEL are adhered to. Drrll (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, "more hits for search string X than for string Y" is not generally considered a strong piece of evidence here. But even if we stipulate to that, there's the issue that it' a subjective label, and even moreso, that putting it right at the top of the article implies that the most important thing about Media Matters is that they are "often referred to in news stories as liberal". But as I've said elsewhere, you've made your argument about sourcing; you don't need to repeat it. My point is that such an argument is not new. This is yet another attempt to present the same arguments to relitigate the same issue. Croctotheface (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, put forth a better method to utilize WP:MOSFOLLOW. What policy or guideline states that we shouldn't use subjective labels, especially if the usage is so common? The source argument may not be new, but the clear demonstration of the stark difference in usage of "liberal" over "progressive" in top-tier sources is new. Drrll (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This commonality has not been established. That simple fact seems to be glossed over in recent discussion with a couple of editors trying to move forward as if it's a given. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

It's been 16 days since this updated RfC started. Any objections to wrapping it up?

7 went with 5, 4 went with 4 (including an implied 4 by Gamaliel), 2 went with 4 / 6, and 1 went with 6.

The original proposed text for 5 was: Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a media watchdog group. Often described in news stories as liberal, it describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

With suggestions from JakeInJoisey, I say that we change "often described in news stories as liberal" to "often characterized as liberal", cited to five news stories with links from the NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, CNN, and NPR. There are hundreds of news stories that characterize MMfA as "liberal", including 36 NYT news stories that directly do so, so I think "often" is justified. Drrll (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My .02: Good job to Drrll on shepherding this to closure (and it would have been 8 favoring had Tom not, for some inexplicable reason, declined to weigh in with a vote) and compliments to all on a vigourous debate. Close the RfC first by removing the template...then incorporate the favored text (as written in the RfC). IMHO, any pain associated with the result won't be half as bad as was the process.

After that, we're back to normal editing as to tailoring the content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? With numbers like that, I'm genuinely unsure which version you think is "favored." Croctotheface (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wait, what?" was precisely my reaction. That's 7-6 in favor of version 5, and that's only if you totally ignore the previous long standing consensus and the results of the previous RFC that was held ten minutes before this RFC. Not to mention the numerous unresolved issues on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no consensus whatsoever for that language. Again, these decisions are made through consensus, not voting. That is the fundamental principal of wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to delisting the RfC, since keeping it open any longer is not likely to break the impasse. However, I disagree that there is any new consensus based on either RfC poll, or both, or anything else on this page. In the first RfC, #4 lead by one point, in the second one (which is linked to the first) #5 lead by one point. There were 17 different editors that participated in both RfCs (14 in the first and 10 repeats plus 3 new ones in the second). Seven or eight points aren't even majorities of that number, and none of the options had a super or significant majority taken separately or together. More importantly, polls are not binding, per WP:POLL. — Becksguy (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Option 5 may have not been overwhelmingly supported, but it was supported more so than any other option, especially considering that two editors didn't specify a preference for 4, but instead opted for 4/6. One thing is abundantly clear--the current wording is not an acceptable option to keep. When the primo source, the NYT, directly calls MMfA "liberal" in 36 separate articles and only calls MMfA "progressive" once, and with the guidelines of WP:MOSFOLLOW, we should be able to agree that the current wording won't do. In fact, I contend that both WP:MOSFOLLOW and WP:LABEL suggest that we should directly label MMfA as "liberal." Any takers of that or other suggestions to proceed forward? Drrll (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, again along the lines of WP:MOSFOLLOW, The Washington Post describes MMfA as "liberal" in 30 separate news articles and "progressive" zero times. NPR describes MMfA as "liberal" in 11 separate broadcast segments and "progressive" zero times (compare that to only five other times that MMfA is mentioned on air by NPR journalists without an explicit ideological characterization). Drrll (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, you're forgetting that the current version is the consensus version which was hammered out in extensive discussion. Yes, consensus can change, but clearly there is no consensus for any proposed changes. Second, while the NYT may (according to your own research) refer to them as liberal more often than progressive, they most often don't label them as either. Thus, WP:MOSFOLLOW would indicate that we do the same and simply refer to them neutrally without subjective adjectives, letting the reader form their own opinion. This is what I've long advocated here and on other articles of the right and left. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It may have been the consensus version before, and yes, there is no overwhelming consensus now, but there is a clear consensus that "MMfA is a progressive..." is not an option (see the first iteration of this RfC, before the choices were narrowed down in the most recent iteration). Actually, the NYT does label them ideologically more often than they don't. And the ideological label they use by an enormous margin is "liberal." Drrll (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Solicitation for an uninvolved administrative RfC closure may be the appropriate approach here...and let the chips fall where they may. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a sound way to go. Do you know how to request such a closure? Drrll (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I would think the "Dispute Resolution Notice Board" might be a good place to solicit an uninvolved admin. If there's a better place, I would imagine that advice would be obtained rather quickly. Just my .02 On edit, even better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was also thinking WP:DRN might be a good place. This can then be sent to mediation or perhaps better, an non-involved admin can hopefully determine consensus, since apparently we can't agree on our own. The RfC has been open for almost three weeks, has gone well past the point we agreed it would be closed, and there hasn't been any new selection activity in six days. So unless someone objects, in a short time I will remove the RfC tag which will initiate the RFCBOT to de-list the debate. Or Drrll can do it, as nominator, if he prefers. We should close the RfC before going to dispute resolution anyway. — Becksguy (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I object. The RfC should and will be closed in a manner selected by the editor who placed it. Drrll has placed a request (see above) for an uninvolved admin to do that job and his request should be honored. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear if removing the RfC tag will close the RfC or just de-list it. Since I just requested via the uninvolved template that an uninvolved admin close the RfC, I'm not sure if I should remove the RfC tag now. If we don't get assistance soon from the uninvolved template, I'll post something at WP:DRN or WP:ANI as well. Drrll (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been my experience that a closing admin will generally handle the removal of tags as part of the closing process. That being said, if you elect to remove the tag itself, it actually doesn't affect anything (save for de-listin the RfC) until the closing admin hats the RfC. So, IMHO, removing the tag is almost meaningless. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll just let the closing admin remove the tag then. Drrll (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord. I just looked at the other RfC and it's been listed since 3 MAY !!!! ROFL! Looks like another way will be needed to solicit some uninvolved closure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to that? I looked at the RfC listings and did't see the other RfC there. Drrll (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the Old Town entry that's very old indeed. Since there are objections, I'll leave the tag here. So ANI or DRN for help? Noting that DRN requires some work to initiate and is in trial mode. — Becksguy (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial thought was WP:DRN as well. AN/I gives me the hives. Give it a whirl there? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted at WP:DRN. Not sure if I got it right. Please edit it if you see any improvements that can be made to it. Drrll (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

One other thought. You might consider an adminhelp template? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from the dispute resolution noticeboard. Based on what info I have (17 days up on RfC, mixed consensus) I'm thinking it would be a good idea to let this RfC continue and possibly for people to discuss and revise their positions. I know that the group was looking for a closure, but why create a new RfC to re-litigate the same question when this one can continue? Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Does anyone have a suggestion for a modified version of the options under consideration that might garner more support? Drrll (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep talking about a modified version as though this one is flawed. From what I can tell, several people are pontificating and not attempting to come to a consensus. The fact that there is a mixed consensus tells me either that people in the debate are firmly entrenched in their viewpoints (in which case outside editors need to be drawn in via a significant announcement (like a posting at [WP:CENT] possibly?)) or more convincing needs to occur to possibly get people to change their minds. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't very clear. I'm not talking about another RfC; I'm talking about making changes to a current option in the RfC (#4 or #5) to perhaps allow a clearer consensus. I could be wrong, but I don't think that there will be much movement toward a single option without doing some tweaking. In your experience, does WP:CENT bring significant attention to others? Drrll (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first H2 "Uninvolved admin requested for RfC close" since that just added a whole empty dispute entry before the one we are involved in. Updated the overview subsection to include "uninvolved admin" and "closure" as part of the reason. Feel free to edit also, as this was mostly housekeeping. One question: Should all the involved editors be listed, including everyone that !voted, or just the ones involved in the actual discussion since the 1st RfC started. There were 17 editors that !voted, and about 13 editors that got involved in the discussion threads, with the majority of the posting by a smaller number. This approach is new to everyone here, so we will all have questions. — Becksguy (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My .02: I don't know that mediation is appropriate here...at least not yet. I believe there are clear questions related to WP:POLICY that should benefit from fresh, experienced eyes looking at what is basically a content issue. I'm inclined to go with Hasteur's recommendation to leave the RfC open and seek broader input elsewhere, the "Content" noticeboard being the most likely. I've never been there before but I assume this RfC is related to it's function. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to option 4

Since no one has yet proposed a tweak of the RfC options to garner wider support, I thought I would. I was earlier reluctant to go this route and went with option #5 instead--that is until I more closely examined top-tier news sources like The NYT, The WaPo, and NPR, and until I was made aware of the MOS guideline WP:LABEL:

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

"Liberal" may not be on the same level as "cult," "racist," "terrorist," or "perversion," but it is a "value-lade label" and "contentious." In addition, the MOS guideline WP:MOSFOLLOW suggests that we "follow the sources":

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources.

It is precisely the highest-quality sources that most often refer to MMfA as "liberal."

How about this tweak to option #4. It is definitely cleaner than option #5:

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a liberal media watchdog group which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

If anyone has a specific question as to just how "widely used by reliable sources" / "high-quality sources" "liberal" is, let me know. Drrll (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, again, you are stating as fact (in the voice of wikipedia) what is subjective opinion. And besides, this is just poor writing. It's terribly extraneous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please put forth your own proposal that is a variant of option #4 or option #5. As it stands now, we are "stating as fact (in the voice of wikipedia)" that MMfA is "progressive." And that is not supported by reliable sources or MOS guidelines, unlike the use of "liberal." How does simply adding "liberal" to option #4 suddenly transform it into poor writing? Drrll (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, we are "stating as fact (in the voice of wikipedia)" that MMfA is "progressive."

If you are suggesting agreement with the above (which is not clear to me), I'd suggest neither argument is correct. What defines a statement of "fact in Wikipedia's voice" is the presence or lack of "attribution" and/or "qualification". The characterization "progressive" is attributed to MMfA. The characterization "liberal" is clearly attributable to WP:V, WP:RS sources.

Just HOW a FACTUAL WP:V, WP:RS characterization "liberal" might then be "qualified" by consensus-supportable language (which, I believe, these comments both address) is a secondary consideration to be resolved via a subsequent consideration on consensus-acceptable composition under WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

That Gamaliel is now arguing the relative "frequency" of the use of BOTH terms suggests that "liberal", as a "fact on opinion", is now stipulated as WP:V, WP:RS supportable. Enough of this "Wikipedia's Voice" nonsense. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that saying "X is a Y such and such" is in the voice of Wikipedia, but you may have a point that it is less so if there is attribution. Drrll (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not "less so" Drrll, but "not so". JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose adding "liberal" to option 4 for reasons expressed many times by all those opposed to it's inclusion. The whole point to option 4 is that it doesn't use the label "liberal". It doesn't characterize at all. — Becksguy (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely no one is suggesting "tweaking" of the current RfC language itself at this stage in the process? To discuss text composition subsequent to RfC closure is one thing, but to "tweak" the language of the existing RfC once comments have commenced this far quite another. The time for "tweaking" the wording of this RfC was prior to posting it or shortly thereafter, not 17-18 days after commenting had commenced. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting that we tweak the wording of option #4 or #5 in order to get a clearer consensus than we currently have (that's what was suggested by the person from WP:DRN). I don't think that we can implement anything until there is more agreement and we surely shouldn't leave the wording as it is now. If there's not more agreement, we may have to go to informal or formal mediation. Drrll (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, on the contrary. If the language of the current RfC is generally found to be wanting and, perhaps, contributory to an inability to achieve consensus, then close it and formulate a new RfC with language/options carefully chosen to reflect the current status quo. Rewording the text options would mandate a re-consideration by all who have already contributed and comments on reworded option preferences simply cannot be assumed.

In short, I don't think the viability of dispute resolution via a better-constituted RfC has been exhausted or, for that matter, more appropriately tested. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I think I personally have put forth more than enough RfCs on this issue for the time being, with two of them close together. I think it would be best if someone else took a stab at it, whatever position they have taken in this RfC. Drrll (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing option #4 completely so that it resembles the more objectionable option that people voted against is not a "tweak." That's a 180-degree reversal of the language. The choices were basically call them liberal or don't. You're saying "what if we take the option where we don't call them liberal but call them liberal in it? Compromise, right?" It sounds like you're trying to open this up for a third RfC which is utterly absurd. You can't permanently and repeatedly litigate the same issue without end hoping that you'll eventually get the result you desire. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How about you come up with a variation of #4 or #5 that is more acceptable to you, and present it for consideration? Drrll (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. It's not a matter of tweaking, the sticking point is the word liberal. A couple of editors are fighting tooth and nail to insert the often-pejorative label "liberal" into the lede and other editors would never allow that. So do you see yourself supporting any language that doesn't label them "liberal?" Is there a tweak that doesn't have liberal in it that you could live with? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, possibly, if this proposal or #5 doesn't gain any more traction. If we end up going that route, I'd like to see a discussion of the labeling of MMfA by sources later in the article body, however. Drrll (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So Loonymonkey, do you see yourself supporting a compromise that includes a discussion of the labeling of MMfA by reliable sources later in the article body? Drrll (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? After weeks of debate about "liberal" in the lead, you take the version that people have supported specifically because it does not include "liberal," put "liberal" in right up front, and call that a "tweak"?! It's hard to see this as anything but a cynical and disingenuous attempt to trick people into supporting something they don't support. The alternative is that Drrll just hasn't been paying any sort of attention to the discussion here. Either way, I find it hard to support an assumption that he is working in good faith any longer. It's clear that Drrll's motives are to get the word "liberal" into the article lead as close to the top as possible, nothing else. Croctotheface (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My goal is simply to find a version that can be more supported than #4 or #5. As you can see above, I've requested multiple times that other editors suggest their own variations of #4 or #5 to get a higher level of consensus than we have now. This attempt by me is based upon a change in thinking I had because I looked closer into top-tier sources and found how overwhelming the use of "liberal" is & because I was made aware of WP:LABEL. If you were paying attention to the other sections here, you would have seen that I said that #4 as is, followed by a discussion later on in the article body of how reliable sources characterize MMfA, might ultimately be the solution that's widely accepted. Why don't you suggest a variation of #4 or #5 that's more acceptable to you that might get wider support? BTW, you yourself have said that you would prefer just directly calling MMfA liberal to the way that #5 is constructed. Drrll (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

With due respect to the noble Drrll, one the finest Wikipedia editors with whom I have ever had the honor of collaborating, I would be content with [4]. Informing the reader that Media Matters describes itself as "politically progressive" and that it is dedicated to fighting "conservative misinformation", for all intents and purposes, tells him or her that MMFA is LIBERAL. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words. Likewise to you. I appreciate your careful consideration of issues here and look to you when considering whether I'm getting ahead of myself. I think you may be right that your version or one similar to it may end up being what's most agreed to (preferably with a discussion of their labeling in news sources later on in the article. Yes, your version does in essence convey that they are liberal. I just believe that my above version is more reflective of the top sources and I wanted to give it a chance for consideration. Drrll (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Badmintonhist

...for all intents and purposes, tells him or her that MMFA is LIBERAL.

Yikes. You appear to be suggesting that the rationale offered by exclusionists is so inherently flawed that any prospective reader will inevitably reach an "MMfA is LIBERAL" determination without mention or citing? I'm not sure where to even begin assessing that assertion and/or its bearing on this discussion.

First, that an uninformed prospective reader will necessarily make that leap is highly speculative. Second, how is your anticipated implication even germane to this discussion which, as I see it, debates exclusion of a WP:V, WP:RS alternative view from the lead sentence by a determination that can only be legitimately assessed under a WP:UNDUE consideration? Why wouldn't it be much more WP:POLICY based to both document and cite MMfA's wide, non-pejorative alternative characterization as "liberal"? And what of the precedent that might be established here related to ALL characterizations as "liberal" beyond this characterization of MMfA? This debate, IMHO, needs to both continue and come to some sort of consensus resolution on the issues. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MMFA DOES describe itself as progressive and no reliable source, as far know, disputes the accuracy of this self-description. It is true that the more common RS term to describe MMFA's ideology is liberal and I don't think there is any need to avoid that description in the article, but in the opening sentence or two of the lead I think the statement that MMFA describes itself as progressive is fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but just so I understand your WP:POLICY basis for exclusion from the lead sentence, you are reaching that conclusion based on an assessment under WP:LEAD,WP:UNDUE, a combination of both? Something else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Option #5 is preferred more than any other option, but obviously not overwhelmingly. How about we go with option #4 wording, but like option #6 specifies, we defer how MMfA is described by sources until later in the article body, away from the lead? Drrll (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fine with me. It's either we compromise by ourselves, or ask for mediation, IMO. — Becksguy (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the case for juxtaposition of "liberal" in the lead as a widely held alternative characterization to "progressive" is clearly supported by WP:POLICY and, specifically, WP:LEAD considerations. Arguments for exclusion from the lead are just as clearly non-WP policy based. Your suggested compromise resolution reflecting RfC non-consensus as to direct juxtaposition seems to imply that "liberal" does NOT satisfy a WP:LEAD notability consideration for lead incorporation...period...unless juxtaposed directly with "progressive". Am I understanding your proposal correctly? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that per WP:LEAD including "liberal" in the lead is supported, since it helps define the topic. I further believe that per WP:MOSFOLLOW and WP:LABEL directly labeling MMfA as "liberal" is warranted in the lead. Nonetheless, given the current state of opinion, I just don't see how that's going to be implemented (do you see a way that it could be implemented?). The alternative, barring mediation, is worse--leaving it directly labelled as "progressive" in Wikipedia's voice, even though that is not supported by the consensus of sources. Can you think of an alternative compromise? Drrll (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To be frank, I've not even considered how "liberal" might be incorporated in the lead as other than a legitimate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE juxtaposed alternative as reflected in the RfC. I'll have to give some other "lead" incorporation some further thought, but I don't think it should simply be resigned to main body only without further consideration/discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the RFC expired today? The first RFC was created on 14 June, so we have been in a continuous RFC discussion for 42 days total. The RFCs have failed, dispute resolution (DRN) failed, and the uninvolved tag failed (it probably should be removed, since the RFC is no longer active). We need to discuss the compromise proposal at hand, come up with or reintroduce another potential compromise, or eventually admit we can't come to consensus on our own. This is a classic content dispute with both sides mostly dug in and trading comments across no-man's land, so to speak. FWIW, I'm not happy with the "progressive" label either. — Becksguy (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that the RfC tag expired and was automatically removed. I agree with your analysis. We'll see if this compromise leads to anything (I've noticed that some editors involved in the RfC have completely ignored this compromise) or if someone can come up with another compromise. If few people are willing to budge, it looks like we'll need to go to mediation. Drrll (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I could agree with this proposal with stipulations: 1.) That is is made very clear that this is consensus and all parties agree and we can finally put this to bed unless new reliable sources rise to change it in the future. 2.) It is also made very clear that the word "liberal" in the main body portion of the article is also there by consensus and all parties agree that it stays there unless new reliable sources rise to change this in the future. I am sick of having this fight every couple of months, only to have the fight last for months, and then have someone bring up the whole "MMfA isn't targeting conservatives!" (yes, this happens a lot here) or on the flip side (with all due respect to Drrll) "MMfA is liberal, not progressive!" a few months later. 3.) Put this issue at the top of the talk page as a "Settled Argument" and include criteria for what must be included in order to reopen it. SeanNovack (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said and think that putting the issue at the top of the talk page, with the criteria for reopening it, is a good idea. I just wonder how possible it is to get everyone to agree with my proposal or any alternative one, or even to get everyone who weighed in with an RfC response to weigh in here. We shouldn't decide the issue on a simple majority, but consensus shouldn't require unanimity. Drrll (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the first time since entering this discussion, I just checked the current article text and see no language or sourcing indicating that MMfA ITSELF is EVER characterized as "liberal" (did I miss it?). According to WP:LEAD, lead content is supposed to present a brief summary of "notable" content contained in the main body where it must first be incorporated. Ergo, I don't see how #5 could have been justified anyway given the current absence in main body presentation. Leave the "liberal" qualifier out of the lead but incorporate it in the main body AS WRITTEN in #5 juxtaposing it to MMfA's self description. That should be painless. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like my current proposal here, but with more specificity with regard to what we put in the body. It should be painless, but we still need a number of editors who initially responded to the RfC to weigh in. Drrll (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean, out of curiosity, could you point me to the "MM is nonpartisan" changes that people have made? I'm confused about what the logic behind them could possibly have been. Croctotheface (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a very bad idea to devote article space to this "which label" question. Where are the sources that discuss any sort of controversy with respect to which label to use? If we're going to frame the issue that way, shouldn't we have sources that use that frame? A statement like "MM's politics have been described as as:" followed by a list of synonyms for "progressive" is really silly writing, and it's not informative to the readers. Croctotheface (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not enough to fully get your way in the lead? How do you propose that we resolve this situation? Drrll (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How about answering my question? Do we have sources that speak of any sort of controversy when it comes to picking a label? Or would that strictly be based on the rigamarole on this talk page? Croctotheface (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about "getting your way" it's about making a good article. If you can't justify inclusion for any reason other than it's owed to you as consolation prize because you couldn't get consensus on the lede, then what are we even discussing here? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that Wikipedia is about collaboration and compromise. Even though my version of the lead was more supported than the other versions, I offered a compromise to get more consensus. What's your plan? Drrll (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's my plan? What's my plan for what? To help you get consensus for something that I and other editors oppose? Why would I have a plan for that? For reasons stated a million times already, in this and other articles, we shouldn't be applying subjective labels. We should let the reader make up their own mind. Never in this very lengthy process have you ever achieved consensus. At some point you'll have to just accept that and move on. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, to propose something that will get support of most editors. Are you fine with the current state where we say in Wikipedia's voice that MMfA is progressive, despite the fact that few editors support doing so and little support exists for that in reliable sources? Drrll (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

...the current state where we say in Wikipedia's voice that MMfA is progressive...

Let's be clear here. An attributed statement (in this case to MMfA's "self-description") is NOT "...in Wikipedia's voice". JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Option #4 makes it completely clear that "progressive" is being attributed to MMfA. The current wording, "Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group" does not. Drrll (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Drrll is absoultely correct here Loonymonkey. He and those supporting the word "liberal" in the lead outnumber those that are against it, and both sides have valid Wikipedia policy backing their arguments. While "consensus" should not be a simple majority, by no means should the minority opinion be favored in a content dispute 100%. That is completely absurd. Your allegation that Drrll is attemting to "justify" anything at all is completely out of line and quite frankly insulting. Perhaps he could have worded his sentance better, but he's absolutely correct. He is acting in good faith and deserves credit for being willing to compromise, not unwarranted scorn. SeanNovack (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I counted up the users who participated in both RfCs, I tallied more in favor of non-"liberal" options than "liberal" options. Did I get that wrong? I understand that the most recent RfC had one more user support the "liberal" options than the non-"liberal"s, but it's a little silly to only "count" the most recent RfC when they're a week or two apart. Don't we generally follow the principle that users need not repeat their opinions once they've already been noted? Croctotheface (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You would have a point if the two RfCs were identical. Instead, the newer RfC narrowed the choices down, away from the little-supported options. Drrll (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not really correct SeanNovack. The burden for consensus is on those wishing to add something to the article to get consensus. In the absence of consensus, it doesn't get added. It's a common complaint of inclusionists that the rules favor exclusionists, but that's just the way it is. Essentially what you're saying here is "it shouldn't be decided on a slim majority but the minority shouldn't get what they want so it should be decided on a slim majority. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

...and both sides have valid Wikipedia policy backing their arguments.

If the exclusionists have somewhere cited Wikipedia policy for exclusion, I must have missed it somewhere in this wall of text. However, I'm fully prepared to be enlightened in that regard. Under what "Wikipedia Policy" is this well-sourced characterization being excluded (besides "editorial judgement" mandated by non-consensus)? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. At least, that's what my arguments are grounded in. Croctotheface (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Grounded in" or not, they don't even survive the first line of WP:NPOV (emphasis original)...

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you quote policy language as if it supports your position without a single word explaining why it does. The drive to include a label used as a derogatory epithet strikes me as the epitome of an attempt to "bias" the article. Do you want to include "liberal" and focus so much attention on it precisely because it's sometimes derogatory? Do you at least understand the argument I and other editors have made that the baggage surrounding "liberal" poses neutrality concerns? Croctotheface (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

JakeInJoisey, one of the cornerstones of policy regarding consensus is that it's up to the editor(s) seeking to add or restore material to achieve consensus. In this case, that would be the "liberal" descriptor. See WP:BURDEN for further explanation of this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to start re-litigating during what seems to be a possible compromise discussion thread? We already have a wall of text filled with everyone's arguments. Why add more of the same. — Becksguy (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much legs this proposal is going to have, to be honest. I'd prefer just calling the group liberal in Wikipedia's voice to adding a section on some phantom "labeling controversy" (the controversy exists on this talk page, but it's original research to read it into the sources) or a laundry list of labels that have been applied to the group (terrible writing, not illuminating to the readers, and redundant with "progressive," which is already in the article). Sometimes positions get entrenched for a reason, and the space between is more of a no-man's land than anything else.

The word "liberal" is already in the body of the article several times, and it's clearly being associated with Media Matters. Short of awkwardly editing the article so as to include a redundant re-decscription of the group's ideology, I'm not sure what we could do. And if we did rework the article that way, it wouldn't help the readers understand anything, it would just be an attempt to placate editors for, as you say, relitigating the same dispute with the same arguments for years and years. Croctotheface (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about adding something like a "labeling controversy" section. I'm talking about putting material under the 'Reception' section to indicate how it is ideologically characterized by news sources. Drrll (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, you're flirting with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH here. As I see it, the characterization of MMfA as "liberal" can only be incorporated as a WP:POLICY satisfactory presentation of an alternative view to MMfA's own self-characterization. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So, instead, you're talking about putting option #5 language into the article body, right? What section do you suggest we put it under? Drrll (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Either that or remove MMfA's self-descriptive "progressive" from the lead entirely (where it doesn't really belong anyway since it doesn't reflect "main body" content per WP:LEAD anywhere that I'm aware of). As to just where #5 might be incorporated, that's a bridge that can be crossed (rather easily IMHO) once agreement is reached as to the particulars of how this compromise will be structured. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)