Talk:Mark Levin

Deep state "conspiracy theories"

Sources that say Levin pushes conspiracy theories about the Deep State:

• The Atlantic: "Levin and Breitbart’s conspiracy theory"[1]
• TIME: "Most references from the President himself have been more subtle, alluding to conspiracy theories, like Saturday’s tweet-storm accusing Obama — without any evidence — of wiretapping Trump Tower before the election... Breitbart, the far-right website Bannon used to run, has published numerous articles about an alleged “Deep State” aligned against Trump, including one recapping conservative radio host Mark Levin’s theory that Obama loyalists are waging a “silent coup” against Trump. That article was widely speculated to be the source of Trump’s wiretapping accusation against Obama."[2]
• WaPo: "the administration conceded that the president was basing his claim not on closely held information, but on a Breitbart News story quoting the conservative radio host and author Mark Levin... But in conservative media, where the claim originated, Trump has gotten credit for cracking open a plot by a “deep state” of critics and conspirators to bring down his presidency. And the perpetrator is former president Barack Obama...
• ABC Australia: "The question is whether the conspiracy is real or just an unsubstantiated theory... Breitbart's senior editor-at-large Joel B Pollak laid out conservative radio host Mark Levin's case that a "silent coup" was taking place. The article claimed the Obama administration ordered surveillance on Mr Trump prior to the election... However, the claims regarding surveillance by the Obama administration remain unverified and unsubstantiated."[3]

The "conspiracy theory" language ought to be restored. That would be consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" language should not be restored. What Snooganssnoogans (talk) is attempting to do is to marginalize and prejudice Mr. Levin's positions and statements by characterizing them as "conspiracy theories" and "fringe" beliefs. By leaving the neutral title as simply "Deep State", readers can make up their own minds about the positions.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's reliable sources that characterize his views as conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include, but be specific and use in-text attributions... don’t state use contentious labels in Wikipedia’s voice (as being “truth”), phrase them as being opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Levin's anti-Soros smears belong in the article

The editor Mr Ernie, who is going around Wikipedia to revert me willy-nilly, removed reliably sourced text about Levin's anti-George Soros conspiracy theories - this time in the context of the Trump-Ukraine scandal. This text obviously belongs, and it fits in a pattern of Levin's character (a proponent of conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is the link that was reverted about Levin's anti-George Soros conspiracy theories? Both here and in the following RfC, I don't think that we should have to search the main page for this information. --UberVegan🌾 18:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is one source cited in "References" in the RFC. You don't have to search for anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

None of the text you added is encyclopedic or neutral. Please don't do that. It's simply an attack on a BLP using Politifact, which is something you do frequently. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Whistleblower - George Soros conspiracy theory

Should we insert a sentence about Mark Levin's conspiracy theories about the Trump-Ukraine scandal whistleblower, which includes falsely linking the whistleblower to George Soros?

References

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Levin is renowned for his incendiary rhetoric (which has been the subject of peer-reviewed research and academic treatments[4][5]), right-wing conspiracy theories and pro-Trump advocacy. His conspiracy theories about the Ukraine whistleblower is just one piece of basic content that fleshes out Levin's rhetoric across a range of issues during Trump's presidency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• It depends - Are there a significant number of reliable sources that discuss Levin’s role in promoting/spreading this particular conspiracy theory? If not, then our mentioning/highlighting it will be UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per Snoogan's general editing pattern of advocacy. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, It is not our job to "flesh out" anything. Per Blueboar, without coverage of this, it just another example of Levin expressing his opinions. MB 15:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per Snoogans misguided beliefs in what is encyclopedic based on their history of NPOV editing, and because it is UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No One citation over such a controversial topic and edit is not enough. Per Wiki's RSs/Perennial Sources, PolitiFact is a "reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates". Levin is not a politician nor a candidate. This is a continuation of Snooganssnoogans' ongoing WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that they are exhibiting across Wikipedia. UberVegan🌾 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What does Levin being a politician or candidate have to do with anything? He's a pundit and he's spouting these falsehoods and conspiracy theories to a sizable audience. Also, please elaborate on what is controversial about the topic - is it in dispute that George Soros is behind the whistleblower complaint against Trump? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it was clear. You cited only one source with questionable reliability per WP:RS/P. Without more reliable sources, "spouting these falsehoods and conspiracy theories to a sizable audience" is WP:OR, and WP:BLP extends to the talk page. UberVegan🌾 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

PolitiFact is not a questionable source. The last RS noticeboard discussion was about a very specific use of PF, which is why the perennial sources listing words it that way. PF is obviously a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• No Snooganssnoogans arguement makes no sense. If Levin is renowned for his conspiracy theories, then there is no need to list each and every one of them. Johnny Carson was renowned for his opening monologues during his 30 years on the Tonight Show. That doesn't mean we insert 7,500 sentences or one each for every one of them, in fact it means the opposite. TFD (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. His false claim is notable enough for mention here and PolitiFact is a RS, with more due weight than his false claim. That limited RfC has no application here. PolitiFact is generally a RS, especially in their area of expertise, which is vetting claims that may or may not be false or misleading. This certainly applies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Procedural close, defaulting to No. The RfC question is in essence requesting an open cheque. We cannot provide meaningful approval or rejection of what we cannot see. Propose some text based on sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC) - amended Ryk72 ^talk 14:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is one way to word the content: "Levin criticized the whistleblower who revealed that Trump had requested an investigation into his political rival. Levin falsely claimed that the Hungarian-American philantrophist George Soros, who is the subject of a wide range of right-wing and anti-Semitic conspiracies, was involved in funding the whistleblower and the whistleblower's lawyers."[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why mention Soros at all? ... if we omit that, then there is no need to use politifact to counter it. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That text fails WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV in more ways than I care to count. I also note that on review PolitiFact appears to have significantly misrepresented Levin's statements - they claim he says "Soros involved in funding all of them"; he clearly says "Soros involved in funding one of them".

• No: The PolitiFact article is not sufficient to establish weight for this material especially since the question being asked doesn't say exactly what is being added. Other editors can't easily verify that the added content is directly to the point of the PF evaluation or is twisting something said in the source to suggest something else in this article. Also, it's not clear that PF evaluations should be used as secondary sources or if they are primary sources. Do we have other RSs saying this and PF backs or disputes the claim or is this being added only because PF mentioned it. Finally, it's generally poor editorial form to run around and add what amount to unintegrated factoids to articles. By factoids I mean individual facts/claims that are not integrated into the larger narrative of the article. It seems this is done most frequently to smear/tar article subjects by associating them with the text equivalent of sound bites with no context. I guess it's a way to get a high edit count but it doesn't make a better Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• "By factoids I mean individual facts/claims that are not integrated into the larger narrative of the article." Except that Levin is renowned for incendiary rhetoric (which is the subject of peer-reviewed research), conspiracy theories and his pro-Trump advocacy. This item fits perfectly within the larger narrative of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't wp:bludgeon those who don't support your POV. Springee (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)