Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:11, 26 March 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Talk:Mark_Levin/Archive 1: inception – June 2006

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

Early life

I can't find any information on where he was born and stuff before his writing and law practice and political career - here or on the internet. I'll keep looking - though I know that's not findable for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.25.116 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Political Career

Apparently a very important piece of Levin's history is missing from this Wiki. I took the liberty of adding mention to his tenure with the Reagan Administration. I felt it necessary to break this off from his "Professional" career into it's own separate section, as it's a very notable achievement and keystone of his biography. I apologize to any naysayers about my brevity in taking the liberty. Pyrex238 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

"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 Misplaced Pages. - 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 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)

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)

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)

Book and punditry Section

Levin was among the many neoconservative pundits criticized in 2006 for their ...

You site a blog entry by a specific person. Unless you are going to cite Mark Levin in all the Misplaced Pages articles of all the people that Levin criticizes every day, then I suggest you leave this out. The word neoconservative or neocon is often misused and thrown around to mean "Jewish or Zionist Conservative who works for Israel."70.216.143.230 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTR#Using questionable or self-published sources:

Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

Therefore, in accordance with Wiki POLICY, I am removeng the blog-sourced material completely. You've been re-adding this item long enough to have found a credible source by now. Please find a verifiable source per Wiki policy for this material before re-adding it this time, or I will seek administrative action to remove it this time. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of contentious statement

I have rewritten the following statement: in which Levin criticizes what he argues to be the perils of "judicial activism" by the judicial branch. As I understand it, Levin does not criticize "the perils of judicial activism". Rather (not Dan), he criticize "judicial activism" itself! Levin is not the only person who beleives what he does about judicial activism, so we shouldn't try to make it sound like hi is the only one. I've tried to restore what I think the previous editor was trying to say, and removed the slight POV re-added in the rewrite to remove the so-called POV. I think the quote marks in the current sentence indicate what is meant be "what he argues to be" in a much more concise manner. Obviously, his book is not about "what he does not argue to be". I mean, really, who writes a book in support of what they don't believe? Just because an editor disagrees with a subject's beliefs is no reason to try to marginalize them and their beliefs. That is NOT what NPOV is. Just give the straight facts without the twisting, and let the readers decide for themselves. - BillCJ 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

This section was removed completely I placed it back in. Its factual and encylopedic. If you want to clean it up, fine, but Mr. Levin does encourage his listeners to do things that are questionable in nature, including calling the congressman's congressional office to tell him he can't win a presidential race. It seems the person who edited this section out might be trying to bias this article in favor of Mr. Levin by censoring things hes done that are negative.--Putting this back in rather than listen to more complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.0.228 (talk)

Why is this section being constantly removed? It is factual.

If you don't know why it was removed, you should ask first, because you obviously don't undertand how Misplaced Pages works. Please read Original Research, Attributions, Neutral Point of View, and biographies of living persons. The addition violated those POLICIES, and cannot be allowed to remain in the article as written. The threshold in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not "facts", and one MUST have credible, verifiable sources to add such info. I also question the Notability of such a minor incidents, as Levin is not known for his "niceness" towards those who disagree with him, so this is hardly something unusual. Besides, the whole incident smells of Ron Paul supporters trying to smear someone they disagree with, as it is obviously biased towards Paul and against Levin. - BillCJ 01:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is considered vandalism to remove the comments of others from talk pages. - BillCJ 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, it was not vandalism - someone else questioned you and I minimized it into a nice and easy to read sentence. Vandalism is removing entire sections from the wiki entry repeatedly when it had multiple sources. You have been editing this entry since March 2006 - I would question your neutrality towards this specific entry.

You removed comments, period - that is vandalism, regardless of the intent. We do NOT refactor or remve the comments of others except on our own talk pages - that is a basic Wiki courtesy. Of course, we can remove blatant vandalism or nonsense by disruptive users, but that is certainly not the case here. Second, I wasn't on Misplaced Pages in March 2006, so I question your ability to report "facts". Whether I'm biased towards the entry is not the question - it has NO references, which is the primary problem - I don't know how you can call that multiple sources, but there were not any at all. Deal with that, and then we can address substantively the source itself, as to whether it is appropriate by Wiki standards. But adding unsouced info like was there in a biography of a living person is a big no-no. - BillCJ 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be a big believer of "Do what I say, not what I do". Also, your authoritarian comments are way too long, I heard you the first time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.0.228 (talk) 19:53:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

To any viewing admin, see what I'm dealing with? - BillCJ 20:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we see that, Your Highness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.0.228 (talk) 21:46:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

This might be a bit late, but I just noticed this page from a Ron Paul forum , and figured some more explanation might be useful. (Especially because several users of the forum I saw seem to be threatening to edit war, and they might continue when semi-protection is lifted) The latest version of the controversies section I saw had no referencing at all, and in any Biography of Living People, this quite often results in legal problems when the material in question is negative about anyone. In this case, the proposed section accuses Levin of insulting a large group of people on public radio, which as I hear is probably true and might be verifiable. But the proposed section doesn't demonstrate that, instead, with absolutly zero references, all a reader can safely assume is that the section is merely the private rambling of a single Wikipedian. And, furthermore, if Levin has too much free time on his hands, he could pursue legal action against Misplaced Pages, because the accusations against Levin wern't referenced. Sure, he'd probably lose such a case handily since there is proof out there for everything, but the point is that the proof hasn't been given for this particular paragraph. Furthermore, it also did not appear to be written very neutrally. Of course, since zero referencing was given, framing the section in context of what the references say would of been quite impossible, but the section went above and beyond just having unreferenced assertions, the language used was very clearly aggressive in tone. Whether the section is true or not, it should not be allowed in the article if it will not be written in a fair and neutral manner. Finally, the first paragraph was a single run-on sentence. So to anyone else who may of come here in search of re-inserting that controversies section, you should know that as currently written, it was not only clearly in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, but it was a pretty lousy section too. It really isn't helping Ron Paul at all when his supporters try to defend him with lackadaisical at best sections criticizing his opponents. Homestarmy 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a section entitled "Conflict with other Radio Host"? I never seen or heard Mr. Levin but the website that this section links to does not seem credible. I was just curious about who Mark Levin is and came here for a quick summary. Using sites such as opednews.com to supply supposedly accurate information seems antithetical to the purpose of Wikepedia. My apologies if I missed some nuance of the Misplaced Pages rules. Is it permissible to use sites like the one mentioned or Thinkprogress, mediamatters or other obviously biased sites? Wouldn't it make for a stronger article to find a more reputable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.34.100 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC) If you admit knowing nothing about Mark Levin, Misplaced Pages rules or the sources, why did you edit the article? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

External link

What's the dispute concerning this link?

• Dahlia Lithwick on Levin, Landmark Legal, and judicial appointments

Slate is usually considered a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That piece reads like commentary, and I don't believe it's approriate here. The user who keeps adding this is relentless in removing anything he does not agree with from this page which he feels is "biased" (read "right-wing"), so I see no reason not to do the same with left-wing commentary. Reliable publication or not, the piece is still opinion, and very biased at that. We already have one highly-biased piece from that author, which is there by consensus from before I started editing this page. I have respected that consensus, even adding it back myself on occasion after it has been removed. However, I ask that a new consensus be reached before adding this new piece. That is only fair, and I will repsect the consensus if one is reached (and 2-1 is not a consensus). Thanks - BillCJ 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The personal attacks from BillCJ aside, there is nothing wrong with including the link, as it is reliably sourced criticism. BillCJ does not own this page, and may want to check WP:OWN for a refresher course on policy. It is not "only fair" that a huge consensus vote be taken for the addition of a link from an already established reliable source, until such a decision is reached that BillCJ "respects." Disrupting the article in this way is a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, such a demand is childish and laughable. I've restored the link, will continue to restore it, and would appreciate the help of fellow editors in restoring it in the future.

I also notice that there's a link to an NRO opinion piece extremely biased in favor of Levin. This is no surprise, and I have no problem if that link remains. But for a single editor to try to scrub the page of well-sourced criticism is ridiculous. --Eleemosynary 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• After watching you ride heard on this page for a number of months, it is laughable for you to accuse me of violating WP:OWN. Come one, you even removed the mention about the book on Levin's dog as "advertising"! As to my "personal attack", you responded more harshly, accusing me of disrupting to make a point, and then attacking my actions as "childish and laughable". Did I accuse you of anyhing even comparable? So please, at least grant others the same right you regularly exercise to watch over the article. And watch the threats of engaging in edit wars, such as "I've restored the link, will continue to restore it". - BillCJ 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop talking about each other, and talk about improving the article instead? I recomment that we all drop the word "you" from our WP vocabularies. Let's instead talk about our text and what changes we want to make to it. It's much less personal that way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Point taken. - BillCJ 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's all stick wth the precept of "comment on the edits, not the editors". We should aim for balanced POV in the external links just as we do with the rest of the article. We don't need to include every positive or negative commentary about the subjct. If a particular author has written more than one relevant piece on the ubject would it be possible to link to an archive instead of the individual articles? Or would a different author provide another POV on the topic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

At present, four of the external links are pro-Levin, and three are critical. We need to either find one more critical link, or remove a pro-Levin link. --Eleemosynary 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Beeback and BillCJ. As discussed ad nauseum in the mediation on this page last year (see Talk archive), we should aim for quality in the external links, not an exhaustive list of every single mention of Levin on the internets. As for balance in POV, there are currently 3 external reference links specifically related to the subject of the article (his show website, his blog, and his legal foundation - all specifically about or by the subject, not independent positive praise or negative criticism).

In terms of POV commentary, the other external links, the list includes a substantive, critical review of levin's philiosophy from Slate ("critical" in your terms), a comprehensive index of all Media Matters for America releases critical of Levin ("critical" in your terms), and a positive review of Levin's radio show from NRO ("pro" in your terms) . I think the list is quite balanced as is and I don't think this page needs to revert back to an exhaustive catalogue of every Levin mention ever, no matter how relevant. He is barely mentioned in the September 10 Slate article, whereas the other articles are all specifically about Levin himself. Why not link to this over at the Landmark Legal Foundation page? That would seem more appropriate given the article's actual content.NYCTommy 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the link to Landmark Legal Foundation sounds like a good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! NYCTommy 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Slate doesn't have the reputation of one of the major news media outlets, and the cited article is purely opinion (a panning, to be precise). How does presenting a single negative review of a highly-sold book further our knowledge of Mark Levin or the book he wrote? Dahlia Lithwick's resume indicates she's partisan liberal and her review would likely reflect her bias. Even if it were balanced with a positive review, it would still be out of place in an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry. Stick to facts like sale amounts, or barring that, at least a broad selection of varied reviews on his book. It's obvious the inclusion of a single negative review is an attempt by a liberal to shed some partisan negative light on Levin. Let the facts speak for themselves. The man wrote a book, sold a lot of copies, was praised by conservatives and criticized by liberals.

This practice of adding "external links" is simply a way to sneak in negative opinion into what is supposed to be a fact-based article. I mean, if it's necessary to include Media Matters' criticism of Levin, are we also not obligated to include links to pages from partisan conservatives that praise him? If that's the route we're taking, then Misplaced Pages is going to evolve from encyclopedia to blog link database.

Pointing out that a highly partisan Democrat organization has criticisms for an outspoken and popular conservative is a waste of time, space, and electrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative

Mark Levin has a neoconservative view point not a conservative view point please keep this distinction on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated and discused already (see entries, below). "neoconservative" has become something of a perjorative term and there are virtually no self-described "neoconservatives". Consensus has been that Conservative is the right label to describe Levin and his overall philosophy and then the article later points out that he subscribes to what is described as a "neoconservative" philosophy with respect to pre-emption and foreign policy. I am reverting back to prior.NYCTommy 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Neo-conservative" means "NEW conservative". The term should not be used because it's a stupid and usually inaccurate term that spiteful "progressives" to throw around, because "conservative" doesn't adequately describe their contempt for alternate viewpoints.

Further to the point, I challenge anyone to find an instance in public discourse where the term "neo-con" was used in either a complimentary or neutral connotation. Seems to me "neo-con" is only used by liberals when attacking conservatives. That would certainly make it a perjorative term and out of place on Misplaced Pages. Using "neo-con" instead of conservative is about as productive and informative as using the n-word in place of "African American". All it really tells you is the writer/speaker REALLY doesn't like whom he's talking about, and that the writer/speaker needs to increase his vocabulary.

Sorry dude, the term neoconservative is not just used by liberals. Apparently you have never heard of Pat Buchanan, a paleoconservative. See instance of a conservative using the term "neoconservative" here: http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html Oh yeah William F Buckley Jr used it too: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060401_william_f_buckley_bush_will_be_judged_on_failed_iraq_war/ 98.215.54.162 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also looks like there is a book advocating Neoconservatism (http://www.amazon.com/NeoConservatism-Why-Need-Douglas-Murray/dp/1594031479/) - "Neoconservatism, why we need it". So far I have the founder of the National Review using the term and a book advocating the philosophy. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Books and "punditry" now books and beliefs

The use of the word punditry in this section to start it off seemed a way of worming/weaseling in a subtle amount of POV, as the word punditry can carry with it negative connotations. Beliefs should be fairly non-inflammatory and provide a suitable replacement. However, that being said, this whole section seems a bit choppy. I may have problems with the fact that he is in as much labeled a neoconservative in pejorative way, but that is nothing compared to the fact that the section feels poorly written. I'd like to clean it up a bit so that the facts seem less like they are cobbled together, but with any semi-political person there seems to be much ire about edits period. Again, I am not saying that I want to sanitize the article so it sounds favorable, but that the sentences do not flow in a natural manner. Any thoughts? Rocdahut (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keetoowah/Getaway/JobsElihu, etc... there's nothing pejorative about the word "punditry." Hope that clears things up. --Eleemosynary (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics