This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Media Matters for America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Media Matters for America. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Media Matters for America at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Efforts to get article to B-class have included addressing: NPOV, OR, SYNTH, Undue Weight, excessive quotations, Non-notable sources, Non-notable content, BLP, copyediting to get more precise and concise text and section titles, removing redundancies, organizing more clearly, generally copyediting for consistency + clarity, fixing incomplete or inaccurate citations, and citation formatting with most of the issues addressed and the rest flagged. Superb Owl ( talk) 01:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggest we make citation #1 into a single cite - perhaps the NYT or something already used elsewhere. Then move the other cites into a talk page section. And leave an inline edit comment referencing where to find additional sources. The article has a lot of sources, and reduction will help. There's no reason to have all these sources for this claim, it gives the appearance of battleground. Lead sections should have minimal citations. -- Green C 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources moved ( Special:Diff/1206036745/1206038687) from the lead section to the talk page:
-- Green C 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I have a hunch all the above were cherry-picked for the rather watered-down phrase "left-leaning." A Google News search for "Media Matters for America" in the past year of course finds the phrase is sometimes used, but the same outlets (and other exceptionally reliable sources) also describe MMfA as a "liberal advocacy group", [1] [2], "left-wing advocacy group", [3] "liberal (media) watchdog group" [4] [5] [6] [7] "progressive analysis group", [8] and especially, "progressive watchdog". [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] This is not a scientific analysis, but suggests that "left-leaning" may not be the single best descriptor to use to introduce the organization.
Going beyond those pesky dumb journalists, recent scholarly sources, when they make any mention of partisanship, also use terms such as "progressive watchdog", [17], "progressive nonprofit organization", [18] and "liberal and progressive" [19] as well as "left-leaning". [20] [21] --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
At the fore of this article is MMFA's funding sources. Is this an attempt to prejudice the reader? Other Wikipedia articles about New Media Alternative conservative outlets don't even have funding sections (the Daily Wire for example.) 2600:8801:BE28:A800:8B7:2C3E:74C8:F3A9 ( talk) 18:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Two points, (1) the title "Antisemitism on X (formerly Twitter)" is not neutral, that is, that there is or was "antisemitism" on X, was an accusation attributed to Median Maters, and since that accusation is currently in dispute before the court, it would be more neutral to use a title that is more factual, for example, "Median Matters accuses X of antisemitism" (2) The links in this section are outdated and none are from 2024. For example, see the following for more recent content [1].
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Media Matters for America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Media Matters for America. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Media Matters for America at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Efforts to get article to B-class have included addressing: NPOV, OR, SYNTH, Undue Weight, excessive quotations, Non-notable sources, Non-notable content, BLP, copyediting to get more precise and concise text and section titles, removing redundancies, organizing more clearly, generally copyediting for consistency + clarity, fixing incomplete or inaccurate citations, and citation formatting with most of the issues addressed and the rest flagged. Superb Owl ( talk) 01:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggest we make citation #1 into a single cite - perhaps the NYT or something already used elsewhere. Then move the other cites into a talk page section. And leave an inline edit comment referencing where to find additional sources. The article has a lot of sources, and reduction will help. There's no reason to have all these sources for this claim, it gives the appearance of battleground. Lead sections should have minimal citations. -- Green C 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources moved ( Special:Diff/1206036745/1206038687) from the lead section to the talk page:
-- Green C 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I have a hunch all the above were cherry-picked for the rather watered-down phrase "left-leaning." A Google News search for "Media Matters for America" in the past year of course finds the phrase is sometimes used, but the same outlets (and other exceptionally reliable sources) also describe MMfA as a "liberal advocacy group", [1] [2], "left-wing advocacy group", [3] "liberal (media) watchdog group" [4] [5] [6] [7] "progressive analysis group", [8] and especially, "progressive watchdog". [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] This is not a scientific analysis, but suggests that "left-leaning" may not be the single best descriptor to use to introduce the organization.
Going beyond those pesky dumb journalists, recent scholarly sources, when they make any mention of partisanship, also use terms such as "progressive watchdog", [17], "progressive nonprofit organization", [18] and "liberal and progressive" [19] as well as "left-leaning". [20] [21] --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
At the fore of this article is MMFA's funding sources. Is this an attempt to prejudice the reader? Other Wikipedia articles about New Media Alternative conservative outlets don't even have funding sections (the Daily Wire for example.) 2600:8801:BE28:A800:8B7:2C3E:74C8:F3A9 ( talk) 18:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Two points, (1) the title "Antisemitism on X (formerly Twitter)" is not neutral, that is, that there is or was "antisemitism" on X, was an accusation attributed to Median Maters, and since that accusation is currently in dispute before the court, it would be more neutral to use a title that is more factual, for example, "Median Matters accuses X of antisemitism" (2) The links in this section are outdated and none are from 2024. For example, see the following for more recent content [1].
References