Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 14 September 2009

Biography Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This page is so POV as to be laughable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.192.74 (talk)

I've removed most of it. If the commentary from IPs continues I'll just semi-protect the article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd is a media analyst, and he has been fighting for a responsible media for much of his life. I believe there isn't enough attention about his work in promoting a responsible media, and his comments on media bias have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article focuses too much on potential controversies, without really analyzing them. It does not feel POV neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaygets (talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to put in a request for protection to help deal with the problem of IP vandalism. When I looked at this page, it referred to Lloyd as "Marxist". This is simply unacceptable. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I again removed a bunch of BLP-violating content, including one line which was sourced to a Canadian Free Press article which implied, in the title, that Lloyd may be "advocating genocide against Americans". That is not an appropriate source! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither the Canadian Free Press nor "Real Nation" are reliable sources. The latter is a blog whose front page claims that the US is currently undergoing a "fascist" takeover. These sources violate WP: RS and WP: FRINGE. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It also seems as if Beck took Lloyd's Chavez quote out of context. I'm not going to remove that just yet, but the controversy section definitely needs to be more balanced. Right now it is 100% about attacks Lloyd, with no mention of any defenders. The worst of the BLP violations have been removed, but this page is still far from NPOV. I am going to place a POV tag on this article, which should stay until the "Controversy" section becomes more balanced. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried to clean up the "controversy" statement -- since this is an article about Mark Lloyd, and not Glenn Beck, including the Venezuela and Marx paragraphs don't really make sense. The only thing that's clear is that Lloyd has mentioned Chavez and Marx at some point. Perhaps there should be an article on Glenn Beck's campaign against the Obama administration's "czars". If others disagree they should add back content. If Lloyd et al. respond then it would certainly make sense to include. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

It is VERY significant that Lloyd a) admires Hugo Chavez and his revolution b) believes that there was a rebellion against a "media dominated by property owners". Deleting this information is not keeping with a neutral point of view where both views for and against this guy should not be deleted just because they don't fit a particular point of view (such as there's nothing alarming about this guy and Beck is just a !@#%) This is ESPECIALLY significant when you bring in the CONTEXT which is that Venezuela is in the process of shutting down all media not favorable to the government (much as Wikipedian often shut down=delete any edits not favorable to their point of view) and calling for a law to declare it a crime to publish anything not favorable to the government. That such a man has been appointed to determine what content should be censored, and that such a man has stated that he does not believe in completely free press really bugs a lot of people. Just because such information might cause some people to dislike Mr. Lloyd is not reason to keep it out of WP. The action of WP to purge the WP space of anything politically unfavorable to certain people would seem to be the harbinger of the Glenn Beck's charge (which should be in this article) that Lloyd may favor similar censorship of the internet, so that anybody who tries to dig up dirt on any of Obama's Czars would and could be quickly buried. Bachcell (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the evidence that Lloyd admires Chavez? --The Cunctator (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is that Lloyd referred to Chavez's takeover of Venezuella as "an incredible revolution--a democratic revolution," then he went on to talk about how the property owners ousted him but then he came back a second time and paid more attention to controlling the media. It is not often that a government official in America would refer to his revolution in such terms, and arguably he used poor word choice, but certainly the readers should be shown his quote and shown the response of his supporters so that they can reach their own conclusions.

The short video of his actual quote is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk

and a long video of the forum at which he made the quote is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How is it not significant that an appointee to the FCC ADMIRES HUGO CHAVEZ'S TAKEOVER OF THE MEDIA? (He also wrote a book that suggests that government should control the media). The Hugo Chavez detail must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored controversy section

Where in the wikipedia rules does it allow deletion of a carefully footnoted section with facts reflecting another point of view?? This is precisely the sort of internet censorship that Glenn Beck is afraid Chavez-inspired Lloyd might impose on the internet. Where is the rule that if it is not covered by the New York Times it cannot appear in WP??? Bachcell (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some votes here as to whether the controversy surrounding this man should be continuously purged? How many people think that any reference to Hugo Chavez, or shutting down radio stations can or should be deleted? How does this square with WP deletion rules, which are very, very specific about what kinds of information can be deleted? Does WP support the obvious scrubbing of any information on this man beyond what comes from the Obama adminstration???Bachcell (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If any edit you make cites Glenn Beck, YouTube, Twitter, Rush Limbaugh, NewsBusters or Think Progress I'm going to revert it and you'll find yourself blocked. Go read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Brandon (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where in reliable sources that you cannot cite Glenn Beck? You mean if Glenn Beck gets this guy to resign, you can't cite Glenn Beck in this article?? I want to see that passage here. Glenn Beck is cited all over Van Jones because he's the #1 reason he had to resign, and he's the #1 carrier of the cause of this guy. Please explain to me the proper way to document the case against Mark Lloyd?? How is anybody looking for information on Mark Lloyd going to find out if there is any truth to allegations that he has said good things about Hugo Chavez?

Glenn Beck can be cited as the cause of something but he himself is not a reliable source. He cannot cause a "controversy" without third party, neutral, reliable sources covering it as a controversy. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So if Lloyd gets fired because of Beck, then could it appear in this article? Bachcell (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If third party, neutral, reliable sources say that he is fired because of Beck, then yes. If he resigns and nobody covers it, then no. Brandon (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This article must have a controversy section to be non-laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is a joke. Apparently if someone is a democrat the rule are different and you can't put anything bad about the person on wikipedia (e.g. Van Jones, Mark Lloyd...) BRANDON: here is the coverage http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-embattled-van-jones-quits-but-czar-debates-rage-9373.html?scp=3&sq=mark%20lloyd&st=cse

As I said below, all that article says is "In a Twitter posting late last week, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck urged his viewers to "find everything you can on Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner."" That's all that has been sourced so far, got sources for the rest of the section I removed? Brandon (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just use the video itself of Lloyd talking about Hugo Chavez's "incredible revolution ... democratic revolution"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg (It starts about 50 seconds in.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQb_H6rxhQc

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125262959925001745.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/pub-fccs-new-hire-previously-targeted-gop-radio-stations/ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/lloyd_fairness.html

Cass Sunstein's article quotes from his own writings and offers his views on legal philosophy, the First Amendment, animal rights, and taxation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We can not use primary sources. The sources must be both secondary and reliable. The WSJ article (which the Fox News article echoes) is a reliable source, you should try proposing an addition based on that. However, be mindful of undue weight. A section dedicated to controversy would not be appropriate for the sourcing provided. Brandon (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks exactly like FCC stub

This article looks just like the FCC stub.

Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN.

google or bing "Mark Lloyd" and you'll get tons of controversy over Hugo Chavez, incredible revolution, fairness doctrine, but this article will be scrubbed of any controversy as it stands now unless its' from the New York Times, which hasn't covered the issue, or Van Jones for that matter. Bachcell (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No controversy??

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-embattled-van-jones-quits-but-czar-debates-rage-9373.html?scp=3&sq=mark%20lloyd&st=cse Embattled Van Jones Quits, but 'Czar' Debates Rage On By MICHAEL BURNHAM of Greenwire Published: September 9, 2009 In a Twitter posting late last week, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck urged his viewers to "find everything you can on Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner."

Would you like to put "On a Fox News program commentator Glenn Beck asked his viewers ""find everything you can on Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner.""" in the article? That's all that is sourced to NY Times. Brandon (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, why don't you put that shit in the article and mention the controversy surrounding him?

Is your response gonna be that no one has found anything yet? Well, what happens when someone finds something and Beck reports it? Then your response is gonna be that the only show that reported it was Beck's. The fact is when Beck reports it, it'll be easy to find a referencing source, like when Beck reported his quote about Chavez, all you have to do is go to YouTube to find the official recording straight from the conference where it was said.

Because they source says nothing about a controversy. Every single claim must have a secondary source. Every one. Glenn Beck isn't a reliable source, so that can not be used as a secondary source. If only he reported it as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned it never happened. "Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." Lloyd's works are primary sources, thus are not fit for inclusion, Glenn Beck isn't a reliable source thus him reporting on Lloyd's works is not fit for inclusion. Brandon (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

biography living persons violation??

MBisanz (talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Mark Lloyd": Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy ( (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC))))

What is this? It's violation of BLP to mention that there are zillions of web hits complaining that Mark Lloyld scares the living daylights out of anyone terrified that Lloyd who admires Hugo Chavez (fact) may want to emulate shutting down the media (documented by many pundits, including Glenn Beck, 3rd largest radio, 1st largest cable TV show)????? Who think Glenn Beck is not a notable opinion?? Bachcell (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the violations you are referring to? The "unreliable source" is junk if the underlying facts are true, then what is unreliable about the source? Does anybody challenge whether the video on YouTube is a fake? Whether there is a controversy over his appointment? Nothing in the material removed is false, unreliable, or smears any living person beyond what's been written and broadcast by notable sources. This is a crime. Hugo Chavez would be proud of you, and this is what will happen to the press once "consensus" has the power to edit out the alternative press like it can the WP. Bachcell (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Truth. There are two distinct problems with your sourcing, primary sourcing and unreliable sourcing. Using primary sources such as his book and interview in the manner you are is original research. All beliefs and quotes must have appeared in secondary sources for them to be included in the article. The second problem is using unreliable sources such as glennbeck.com, Fox News transcripts of the Glenn Beck show, newsbusters.org and thinkprogress.org. If you feel that these sources are indeed reliable you can try to get consensus on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also remember that everything that you include must have reliable secondary sourcing, having an NY Times article doesn't give you license to include the previous text, only what is said in the article.

Both Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons place the burden of sourcing on those that seek to include content. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Brandon (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that at least four of these removed sources should have no question of qualifying as RS (sources 3,4,10 and 12} of the last full version. These include Lloyd's own book (good grief), the Halprin book, the New York Times and the Latin American Times. The deleting editor clearly used no thought in deleting those sources and the underlying text to which those line notes were appended. The mass deletion of properly sourced material is an embarrassment to wikipedia and a shows clear bias of hiding Lloyd's identity from the world. Please restore all the text and sources that are RS. Thank you. Plumpurple (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

All those sources spare the NY Times are being used for original research. What is happening in Venezuela is not and never will be relevant to this article. "Venezuela is especially notable since a top official there has announced the closing of 34 radio stations in the process of "democratizing" media ownership and the Attorney General pushed for a "Media Crimes Law". " is exactly the kind of BLP violation we don't allow in articles. You can't do your own research about topics to extend sourced statements. There is nothing wrong with the NY Times article but I'm failing to see how it alone should be in this article any more than Glenn Beck's. Brandon (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your response is stunning. How is it that you are the arbiter of what is original research? Lloyd's view of the Venuzeulan governmental media control is intrinsic to Lloyd and thus the article. The Venuzuela material is vital to the integrity of this article. Please do not make wikipedia a laughingstock by filtering out intrinsic facts. I am not seeking to be the arbiter of OR, nor should you. I thought wikipedia is to allow all sourced material germane to the topic, not as a forum for a narrow POV. The article as it stands is a tool of the left to disallow a full view of Lloyd. Plumpurple (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Extending a (theoretically) sourced statement such as "Lloyd supports Venezuelan public broadcasters" with "Venezuela is especially notable since a top official there has announced the closing of 34 radio stations in the process of "democratizing" media ownership and the Attorney General pushed for a "Media Crimes Law". " is textbook original research. If you disagree with my interpretation of the policy feel free to take the case to a noticeboard and gain consensus for inclusion. Until then I will continue to remove any BLP violations from the article. Brandon (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to say Lloyd supports Chavez's censorship, you can quote what Lloyd actually said, which is linked was like, "Chavez's incredible revolution, democratic revolution ... property owners were mad ... He came back and paid more attention to the media in his country." link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQb_H6rxhQc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary source. Brandon (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the Deal Misplaced Pages?

You've got to be kidding me. No edit on this article? I suppose concerned American citizens who want the truth exposed about this unvetted Czar will have to put it here on the discussion page. Is that a violation? I DON'T FUCKING CARE!!!! I am SICK AND TIRED of radical leftist tyranny!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!

In 2006, Mark Lloyd wrote: Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America (History of Communication). The University of Illinois Press summarizes Lloyd's writing regarding how the media in America should be "re-created" as follows:

*"Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, Lloyd demonstrates that despite the persistent hope that a new technology (from the telegraph to the Internet) will rise to serve the needs of the republic, none has solved the fundamental problems created by corporate domination. After examining failed alternatives to the strong publicly owned communications model, such as antitrust regulation, the public trustee rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and the underfunded public broadcasting service, Lloyd argues that we must re-create a modern version of the Founder’s communications environment, and offers concrete strategies aimed at empowering citizens."

"Publicly owned communications model" - Translation - Government Controlled Media - ABOLISHMENT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT!

STOP WIKIPEDIA CENSORSHIP NOW!!!! ObserverNY (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

1. Template:Cite web=url=http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/68hgg5er9780252031045.html

• Start-Class biography articles
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles