Talk:Mark Levin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Talk:Mark_Levin/Archive 1: inception – June 2006

Talk:Mark_Levin/Archive 2: June 2006 - December 2006 (including mediation)

Contents 1 "Contributions to other radio shows" section 2 Radio Show Section 3 Radio Show Section and Music Subsection 4 "Ultra-Right Wing" and "Ultra-Conservative" 5 The Nobel Prize nonsense 6 Teen Trend Magazine?

[edit] "Contributions to other radio shows" section

It's factual and therefore encyclopedic. I don't see a problem with it, E. - crz crztalk 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is factual and speaks to his biography. I have copy edited a bit and attempted to make it more chronological. NYCTommy 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Show Section

The Radio Show Section Has a heavily negative slant to it and should be revised or taken out completely.

Negative in what way? If you're going to post a NPOV tag, you need to be a little more specific about what the problems are. BillCJ 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag until a proper response is given. - BillCJ 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing negative about this section. I'm the first to admit that I'm an admirer of the show, however even I would concede that Levin *does* routinely bait liberals to call in and then either mockes them or cuts them off before they can make a point. There is nothing "negative" about pointing that out, as it is indeed factual.NYCTommy 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Show Section and Music Subsection

I see no purpose to having a subsection or section for Levin's music tastes for the radio show, why is this info important? Its not noteworthy...just adds to the clutter. Rush Limbaugh's page has nothing on music. Am I wrong? ForrestLane42 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

The section is certainly harmless and the information is trivial in nature, but I'm not bothered enough to make a huge case of it. While the inclusion of trivia is certainly no different from a lot of other broadcasters' pages (see Randi Rhodes "comedic style" section on her prediliction for bells and buzzers and sound effects, or Al Franken "radio show" section on theme songs for guests and the "Tim Robbins rule"), it can certainly go without impacting the overall article.

At some point, it may be preferable to have separate pages for Levin the individual and The Mark Levin show the entity (a la entries on Rush, Hannity, or Franken, for example), but I don't think his show has reached that level of notability yet. But for now, happy to concede on your point. (I do encourage you to go make similar edits to Randi and Al, as well, as your point also applies equally there). But my primary objective here was to get some discussion on this rather than a unilateral deletion. There's a lot of blood, sweat and mediation that went into the current version and I would hate to see a slide back down the slippery slope to where it was a year ago. See you around.NYCTommy 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for the show. Is it all original research? -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to add where he was born and who his parents' are? I'm pretty sure he was born on a military base in the U.S., but I'm not positive. Chenzo23 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Ultra-Right Wing" and "Ultra-Conservative"

Does it even need to be discussed why the "ultra" pejoratives that keep getting added back to article are inherantly POV and need to be reverted? I went and checked Randi_Rhodes's entry, as directed to by editor and I simply see her listed as an "American progressinve radio host".

I'm also perplexed how a non-sequitr mention of Ed Meese's relationship with Ronald Reagan or an opinion that subject of this article is not interested in discourse and only in hearing his own opinion belong in the article. The Meese thing makes no sense (perhaps you should be editing on Meese's page if you feel strong about this?) and the rest is adequately covered in the existing text about Levin encouraging Liberals to call in and then cutting them off. We already establised in another series of recent edits that it is POV to try and psycho-analyze Levin's motivations for how he treats "the Libs" when they call in. NYCTommy 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No psychoanalysis here - there is no doubt that if you look on the political spectrum, Levin falls HEAVILY to the right spectrum.

As for Meese, it provides background into Levin's relationship to wanting to bomb Iran. His working relationship with Meese also has influenced Levin's worldview, no psychoanalysis there. As for Randi Rhodes, I think it would be appropriate to call her ultra-liberal, not merely progressive. I would say leftist - but leftist is perjorative. Neo-con is barely acceptable in place of ultra-con, because neo-con has roots in the Left. Truthiness4000 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Truthiness4000

Forrest (I assume it is you) - please see prior Talk Page mediation and consensus on labeling of Levin in lede paragraph, plus more substantive discussion on his views in Books and Punditry. "Neoconservative" (while better than the "Ultra-Right Wing" label you were pushing yesterday) is still a somewhat pejorative term and not entirely descriptive. Do we label other columnists and pundits on Wiki as neoconservatives? We should probably have some consistency.

On the Meese stuff, although you have now dropped the bits about his "friendship" (your quotes) with Reagan, I fail to see how his working for Meese in the 80's has any bearing on his vocal opinions re: Iran. Could you provide a link, perhaps, for the rest of us to review? I also fail to see the relevance of mentioning Iran Contra, which I don't believe Levin had anything to do with. This is like insisting that Leon Panetta or David Gergen need to have their bios amended to say they "worked as chief of staff to Bill Clinton, who was impeached for his affair with an intern". If Levin had some role in Iran Contra, let's see a link. Otherwise save the gratuitous references for people actually involved in the affair.NYCTommy 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== Yes Truthiness and Forrest are one just at different locations - no intended harm. NYC, I feel that you have not assumed good faith. Neo-con is not a prejogive - only to libs, it is an accurate terminology for a movement.

I never referred to Levin being involved in Iran-Contra, I never said that. I made reference to Meese, highly controversial role in Iran-Contra, I'm not assuming guilt by association, but it is easy to put together the fact that working with Meese must have influence his philosophy on Iran. Psychology or not. In fact, u shouldn't slander psychology to explain seemingly unrelated events.

As for UN-KKK, why are u afraid of it? If Levin said it, it must be mentioned in his entry. Do you think it is an extreme statement? I do, therefore it must mean he is not just an conservative but an extremist. Why not label his foils - this can't be an ode to Levin. Let's get the facts in. Let the facts in! 167.206.60.106 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Truthiness4000

I really don't see why comparing the UN to the KKK is even notable, especially out of context. WHat did he actually say? I don't know, but I might guess he complained about UN soldiers, possibly white Europeans or other non-blacks, going to Africa and raping little black girls. Without the proper context, anything can be made to sound outragelous, and Levin says a lot of things sarcastically to make points. Btw, "see Salon.com" is not a proper citation on Wikipedia. - BillCJ 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole quote: "LEVIN: I have a simple question for John Kerry. How can he support an organization that [is] anti-Semitic? I would like to know how the U.N., given the make-up of the august body, is any different than the KKK or all the rest of it. They've got people in that U.N. that are torturers, mass-murderers, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, anti-freedom, and we're supposed to keep conferring our decisions to them. Why?" Salon story

Much as I thought. Conservatives are constantly compared to Nazis, Hitler, etc. But of course, those things are OK because "everyone" knows they are true, right? Puh-lease! - BillCJ 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Nobel Prize nonsense

Levin didn't "nominate" Limbaugh for any prize, as Levin has no standing to nominate anyone for such an award. He might as well have "nominated" his cat. What Levin did was mail a letter and issue a press release, in a failed attempt to discredit the official Nobel nominators, who nominated Al Gore for the prize. Levin's act was the equivalent of a toddler smearing feces on something he doesn't like. Note, too, that this bit of ridiculousness has been removed from Limbaugh's page, after consensus for non-notability. Eleemosynary 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It all seemed like a tempest in a teapot at the time. Levin clearly sent the letter as a joke/publicity stunt and you instantly had Rush's dittoheads trying to puff it up in his bio as an actual nomination and at the same time the likes of Keith Overbite and the Countdown to No Ratings railing against it as some travesty against humanity. No need for it to be in Levin's bio.NYCTommy 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teen Trend Magazine?

Is someone kidding by posting Levin's interview with something called Teen Trend Magazine as the dominant source for the info in this article? To use this as a principal source is ridiculous. Eleemosynary 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not a joke. I think someone specifically asked for a citation on Levin having been a contributor to Rush's show earlier in his career. (Related to the now deleted Nobel thing as the same citation request was cross-posted on Limbaugh IIRC). I did a search now and found a more comprehensive article at Human Events, which is probably more appropriate as a citation.NYCTommy 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)