Talk:Mark Lloyd (lawyer)

POV

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)

I agree - the article should definitely quote his comments on Hugo Chavez. The Washington Times just published this article on that topic. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Like this one? "I am not a Chavez supporter." Reliefappearance (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the word "incredible" from Oxford English Dictionary

1. Not credible: that cannot be believed; beyond belief. b. In weakened sense: Such as it is difficult to believe in the possibility of, or to realize; said esp. of a quantity, quality, number, etc., of a degree beyond what one would a priori have conceived as possible; inconceivable, exceedingly great.

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3808/captureng.jpg Reliefappearance (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go no more excuses, time for a controversy section: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/jay_ambrose/Where-Chaplin-exposed-tyranny-Stone-applauds-despotic-Chavez-57922992.html "Mark Lloyd, the diversity chief of the Federal Communications Commission, said in videotaped, Internet-available remarks that Chavez was leading a great democratic revolution and implied he was doing great things to deal with Venezuelan media.

Coming from someone who has written about how the federal government has to get tougher on radio stations, the assessment by Lloyd is pretty scary. Chavez’s government is aiming to close as many as 100 politically pesky radio stations and is also moving legally against Globovision, an uncooperative TV network. "

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/?feat=home_top5_shared "described Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela "an incredible revolution." 71.61.216.94 (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS THERE STILL NO DISPUTED NEUTRALITY TAG ON THIS PAGE?--71.61.216.94 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Brandon (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you that those are primarily not reliable sources, at times they can be. Also, it is unproductive for you to be threatening people, Brandon. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:53, 14 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)

Read this please. [1] Reliefappearance (talk) 14:58, 14 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 [2]

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"? [3] (It starts about 50 seconds in.) [4]

[5] [6] [7] [8]

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)

Stop deleting my contributions. Here are two "secondary" and "reliable" sources. Both mention controversy. Therefore, a controversy section is warranted or at least a mention of the Hugo Chavez statement.

[9][10]

71.61.216.94 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but I did not "delete your contributions" You spammed the talk page with the same thing a total of 4 times. I removed 3 of them. I suggest you head on over to your talk page and we can continue this discussion there if you feel a need to do that. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To address your insistence that there be a "Controversy" section. I point you to the Van Jones talk archives. Over there a consensus was reached that we would not add a "Controversy" section. I suggest we adopt that decision and do the same thing here. We should add a section related to his job at the FCC, note that he is being attacked by conservatives led by Glenn Beck due to statements he has made that conservatives object. Also a petition was signed by his colleagues (I think, have to check) in support of Mark Lloyd and that should be included. All of this is covered by reliable sources. No one is censoring anything, you can propose edits, we can debate and come to consensus, then request an edit. If you want the block lifted, you have to pursue that elsewhere. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would advise that you be careful lumping Glenn Beck as a conservative. The man is a self-proclaimed libertarian. He does not adamantly support the Republican party or many current "conservative" ideals.--Krakaet (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay - add a section about his Hugo Chavez statement with the quote since it is mentioned in several articles including the two I cited. Even if it isn't under a controversy section it has to be included, but it can't because this page has been hijacked.71.61.216.94 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You can propose edits right here, but you have to be specific so that when we request an administrator make the change xe is able to copy and paste it. So the procedure is that you propose an exact addition to the article and post it right here on the talk page, then wait for discussion and once consensus is reached we will ask the admin to make the change. Basically what I'm trying to tell you is that saying "add a section about his Hugo Chavez statement with the quote since it is mentioned in several articles" is not going to result in anything happening, because I am not going to do it for you. You have to do it yourself.

Note: If you want to dispute the block itself you have to go over to WP:PADLOCK Reliefappearance (talk) 20:25, 24 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?

Why are you cussing? Reliefappearance (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia is concerned it never happened. "Wikipedia 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 ([edit=sysop] (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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[10] and the Attorney General pushed for a "Media Crimes Law". [11]" 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[10] and the Attorney General pushed for a "Media Crimes Law". [11]" 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)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What's the Deal Wikipedia?

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." http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/68hgg5er9780252031045.html

"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

Please calm down. It's not like this guy is a Supreme Court nominee. Stop pushing your POV and focus on improving the article. Otherwise you should abstain from editing this article.

I came here because this guy was just mentioned on C-SPAN. I do not watch/listen to conservative commentators, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your furor over this has something to do with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.

That said, we do need to be able to actually edit the article to improve it.

Reliefappearance (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I came over here because an editor at the Van Jones article mentioned it was a blocked stub. The University of Illinois Press is a legitimate source on a book written by Mark Lloyd. I am angry at WIKIPEDIA's apparent collusion with the Left to suppress and censor information.ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wikipedia policies transcend politics. This isn't the first time I've been accused of bias, except last time I was a Republican. Funny how that works. Wikipedia is not the place to "expose the truth", if you'd like to do that go start a blog. Brandon (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You can create a section called Publications as in the Van Jones article and indicate he wrote a book. Why would you quote excerpts of the book unless it has to do with his biography? You could find a reliable source that explores his opinions, but you can't post excerpts of his book stating his views. That is WP:OR. You probably can't even post an excerpt from his book saying the date he was born, unless you have another source. But I'm not sure on that. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Seton Motley Opinion

As we draw closer to its execution, we work to ensure that we too do not suffer a Venezuelan fate.

— Seton Motley Director of Communications for the Media Research Center

Can we cite the opinion of a notable person, who uses Glenn Beck as a primary source for the quotes regarding Lloyds' obvious admiration of Chavez, and his quoting of news stories of clamping down on radio stations and media "crimes"?? If he's been on the #1 cable televions show, is it not notable because it is on a conservative TV network? Where on WP does it state that no material from any conservative media source may be ever be used as an RS, even for quotes/video/audio from the subjects own book, ineterviews, or speeches? Doesn't this scare anybody? Isn't this Chavez-ian policy exactly the sort of thing that's keeping any mention of controversy off this page???

http://www.realnation.com/%5Bcatpath%5D/fcc_039diversity039_czar_mark_lloyd_on_socialist_chavez039s_venezuela_039incredibledemocratic_revolution039

FCC 'Diversity' Czar, Mark Lloyd, on Socialist Chavez's Venezuela: 'Incredible...Democratic Revolution' By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive) Originaly posted August 28, 2009 - 11:21 ET From www.newsbuster.org (If the facts or opinions are reliable, how can it not be an RS?) Editor's Note: Audio for the video at right is available here.

.... As we have repeatedly stated, Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.

this also good for inclusion, is this not an RS for this fact? ... Lloyd was also at one time, prior to attending law school, an Emmy Award-winning journalist and producer for among other outlets NBC and CNN.)

this is certainly an opinion that is relevant and RS for opinion of a notable person Lloyd is in fact a Saul Alinsky disciple. In his 2006 book entitled Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he calls for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He wants leftist activists - through incessant political pressure - and the government - through the creation of a totally untenable operating environment of fees, fines and regulations - to work together to force the commercial broadcasters out, to be replaced by public broadcasters.

Can't this passage be quoted? "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Can't we include Lloyds use of the word democratic? Note Lloyd's use of the word "democratic" to describe the "governance" he seeks to promote. It's the same word he uses to describe the work Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela.

Can't this be used to cite the incredible democratic revolution quote? ...June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR) in Minneapolis, Minnesota discovered by the intrepid people of the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program, who used it in conjunction with their graciously having me on their airwaves on Wednesday. If Glenn Beck was the first to broadcast this bit, isn't that worth noting? Especially if he's the next Czar to be taken down? (Oh excuse me, it's not notable until after Katie Couric annouces the resignation...)

There is NO legal way to document this quote without violating BLP? Who want to put money on when this quote will be allowed to in the article more than 5 minutes? It's all over the internet, broadcast on FOX, which has more viewers than most other news cable networks, and nobody disputes that it was fabricated, but it can't be reliably source? God grief. "In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country. The property owners and the folks who then controlled (read: OWNED) the media rebelled" in 2002 against Chavez's "incredible...democratic revolution." You bet they did - they were watching Chavez seize their property and nationalize their industries.

Seton provides analysis which is certainly not synthesis if we can quote his opinion ..Lloyd then expresses disdain for the fact that there were some senior officials in the Bush Administration who gave a wink and a nod to the attempted ouster. How dare we in any way intervene to prevent Chavez's full-on Communist takeover?...(Chavez) came back with another revolution (in 2006), and then began to take very seriously the media in his country."

Well let's see; what does Lloyd mean by this? How exactly did Chavez "beg(i)n to take very seriously the media in his country" when he "came back with another revolution?"

Then Seton does precisely what was deleted here, links Venezuala to a policy of shutting down dissent

• NGOs Warn of Restrictions in Pending Venezuela Law Associated Press - May 7, 2009

Prominent Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations warned Thursday that a bill being drafted by lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez could be used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government.

• Chavez clamps down on broadcast media Irish Examiner - Friday, July 10, 2009

President Hugo Chavez's government is imposing tough new regulations on Venezuela's cable television while revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations.

• Report: Venezuela's Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media Miami Herald - August 14, 2009 An unclassified report lists examples of Venezuelan government efforts to crack down on or seize control of media outlets to stifle criticism.

This is a great Motley quote How's that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?

....Ridiculously exorbitant fees and fines on broadcasters

...."seiz(ing) control of media outlets to stifle criticism."

Motley interprets the quote: ... censorious evolution - from fines, to license rescissions to outright seizures - took place in just over three months. This is Lloyd's definition of Chavez "tak(ing) very seriously the media in his country," as a part of leading an "incredible..democratic revolution."

....Hammer on dissenting media... hmmm, didn't we just have a comment that nothing sourced from conservative or christian talk radio will be allowed or suffer the consequence of losing your licence / blocked???

akin to the "Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations" sounding the alarm about the governmental hammer about to fall on dissenting media - in our case conservative and Christian talk radio.

Does there have to be an article on media censorship in Venezuela before it can be linked from Mark Lloyd?? Bachcell (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't quote Keith Olbermann either. Has nothing to do with left and right. Reliefappearance (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not the standard for inclusion of statements. Again, they must be published in reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Truth

I looked it up, and guess what it says? Wow, I would never guess that from this article...NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. But how prominent must an opposing view be, to merit inclusion in an article? Suppose the article is topic of great scientific importance, and a published author disagrees with the scientific mainstream. Should his ideas and arguments be excluded merely because they oppose the mainstream? Would it violate policy to include them, even if they are held only by a minority of experts?

How do I put an NPOV tag issue on the article? Or is one permissible? It's pretty clear that a viewpoint on the #1 cable television show isn't being mentioned here. I put up a tag saying that significant controverseys were being left out, and even footnoted it... and of course it was reverted. Bachcell (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" Glenn Beck is not a reliable source. Brandon (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the mainstream media ABC CBS NBC CNN, Glenn Beck is certainly a reliable source, its the only one of them that IS reliable. The msm is completely worthless for either Van Jones or Mark Lloyd. Wasn't it in 1984 when "truth" was a lie, and "lies" were truth? The ONLY guy on my 100s of TV channels who knows what the heck he's talking about is unreliable? Bachcell (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck isn't a reporter, he's a "political commentator". His show caters to a specific point of view and openly admits this. If you think that he is actually a reliable source, form consensus on WP:RSN. Brandon (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Bachcell on this. Glenn Beck most certainly is a reliable source. He exposed Van Jones - result? Resignation. He exposed the little WH/NEA "project collaboration". Result? The NEA director was "transferred". Beck pointed out that the Cash for Clunkers .gov website had a statement on it granting .gov access to all of your personal computer files if you filled out the form. Result? .gov. changed it. Beck is exposing ACORN in detail. Result? So far ACORN workers have been fired, the Census Bureau has backed away from using ACORN and the story is going to get bigger. ObserverNY (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

None of that makes him a reliable source. As I said, get consensus on WP:RSN if you want to change the status quo. Brandon (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Van Jones resigned because he was a political problem for the White House, not because Glenn Beck was or was not telling the truth. Read this Bachcell. [11] I think what you and ObserverNY are trying to do is more appropriate for Wikinews.org [12] Reliefappearance (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Turn the block off please

So what's the procedure for appealling the block on this page?? Bachcell (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was already appealed to WP:RFPP and the requesting user was referred to discuss it with the protecting admin. In general protection will not be removed until consensus is formed on the talk page, which hasn't happened. Brandon (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the admin that locked down the page? How can we find this out? I also note that there is no lock graphic and seemingly no explanation. Maybe I have missed it? Reliefappearance (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Log. Brandon (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brandon - MBisanz is at law school and will be editing very sporadically for the time being. In other words, the doctor is on the golf course. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Another admin opinion

I'm just going to walk away, but here what another admin thought of the situation. I don't have the time to try to contribute anything that's just going to be erased with a zillion WP:RULES.

Can they do this? Doesn't WP have specific rules on what can be deleted, especially sections with lots of footnotes from notable sources? Obviously people are trying to scrub this site of any information not provided by the Obama adminstration, and exclude any controversy from the #1 rated cable show. Can you help and tell the folks that they can't do this, or explain to me why they can get away with this? Bachcell (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to be there, contesting the deletion with policy-based arguments. The deletion remarks were incivil and unwarranted, and should have been challenged on that basis. There have been a number of inappropriate POV-pushing deletions on that page, as well as a number of inappropriate additions, in what I reviewed from the ref you gave me to the current/protected version. If you want to participate in such a situation, you need four things: 1) Sourcing! 2) Policy knowledge--know V, RS, SPS, UNDUE, 3RR, etc. like the back of your hand. 3) Time. Don't let bad edits or deletions go unchallenged. 4) Impeccable coolness and politeness under fire. If you're deficient in any one of these areas, I'd just recommend walking away. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I pulled out this section so that more could be documented on Lloyd's philosiphy of localism, but it's been nominated for deletion by brandon, and another user erased the footnotes, again evidently claiming conservatives opinions on TownHall, the largest conservative website and magazine, are not WP:RS. I think any attempt to document localism, or Lloyds statements about Hugo Chavez are likely to be scrubbed whereever they appear, unless he gets fired because of Glenn Beck's investigations. Bachcell (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structural_Imbalance_of_Political_Talk_Radio

Protection admin

Here's why it's still being blocked:

Mark Lloyd Why is Mark Lloyd still blocked?? How can it be unblocked??? Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I need more context here, is Mark Lloyd a user or an article? MBisanz talk 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Mark Lloyd the user's been directed here from Requests for unprotection. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. Given the constant edit warring on the article since its creation, I think it is justified in leaving the protection in place for the full period. MBisanz talk 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to remove block

All who favor KEEP or REMOVE block vote here:

• REMOVE: Bachcell (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  Again, this isn't how it works. No admin is going to remove the block because the moment they do edit warring is going to resume. Before the block can be lifted consensus needs to be established for a version of the article. Brandon (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• REMOVE: this is CENSORSHIP by Wikipedia Admins. Quite sad. ObserverNY (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• NO VOTE, SINCE THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS. Since when are blocks removed by consensus? There's still good reason to believe that this article will be vandalized.— Mike :  tlk  15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, changes can still be made to the article if we come to consensus then request an edit via template.

I do feel there should be a notice posted on the article though explaining why it is blocked.

Reliefappearance (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the dealy yo?

Can someone please recap the controversy here and why this page is protected for us newcomers? All I see is a lot of hot air on both sides. --kizzle (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Every time somebody tries to document that many conservatives oppose the appointment of FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd, and that he made a speech admiring Hugo "shut down the radio stations" Chavez, it's scrubbed on the basis of BLP and RS, even though the ONLY reliable sources on this story have been from the conservative media, especially Glenn Beck. This is especially effective since there has been almost NO coverage of the controversy by the RS media. The final straw was to lock down the page for editing for weeks. Some people claim it's censorship, but it's really just maintaining the quality of WP. Good job men. Bachcell (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

" the ONLY reliable sources on this story have been from the conservative media, especially Glenn Beck". Glenn beck is not a reliable source. — Mike :  tlk  23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems kinda tricky. A cursory Google search shows literally no mainstream sources, not AP, not anybody, not even Fox News in their actual "news" department. I'd have to say that a weak option would be to heavily attribute Beck and mention that he is the only mainstream person talking about this, but it seems kinda bad for a BLP article to include an allegation by one person. If you look at the Wilson article, you have a controversy but it's reported in virtually every mainstream news outlet there is. I don't think it's a partisan thing because like I said, Fox News doesn't report it as news. So I'd lean towards not including it in this article unless you can provide some sort of source besides Beck repeating this. --kizzle (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservapedia

All that stuff that got deleted can be dumped into here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Mark_Lloyd

They won't miss it hereBachcell (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If WP wants to be as irrelevant as the NY Times and ABC News, so be it.Bachcell (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you're not bitter. --kizzle (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed new Publications section

Publications

• Lloyd, Mark (2006). McChesney, Robert W.; Nerone, John C. (eds.). Prologue to a Farce: Democracy and Communication in America. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-03104-5.

anyone want to add more to the cite?

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's already been rejected as an original source. If it hasn't been mentioned by Time or New York Times, it's not allowed here by consensus WP:SPEAK Bachcell (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine as long as you don't selectively quote it. No objections to inclusion. Brandon (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. It's a bio page, it's a book he wrote, no brainer. --kizzle (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

propose edits?

here is the text of the cited source

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.

Missing from the article:

senior fellow at the Center for American Progress General Counsel of the Benton Foundation attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson broadcast journalist for NBC and CNN

proposed changes:

change affiliate to adjunct?

change MIT to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)?

remove citation needed for position at MIT

add senior fellow for liberal think tank, Center for American Progress (should we note it is "liberal"??)

add senior fellow for the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation

change first sentence to Mark Lloyd is an American attorney ?

add broadcast journalist for NBC and CNN

Does anybody know which Dow he worked for? I couldn't figure it out. Brandon (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks lik the name of the law firm is Dow, Lohnes and Albertson. Reliefappearance (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, obviously. Brandon (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

propose new section / heading based on his tenure in the White House position? Reliefappearance (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Grassley quote comment and mention of controversy

proposed addition of Grassley quote comment from The Hill? [13]

The dust-up comes as controversy swirls around another FCC hire. Mark Lloyd, the newly appointed chief diversity officer, used to be a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and, while there, wrote a paper on ways the FCC could encourage more voices on talk radio by imposing new regulations on the industry.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), as well as some conservative radio personalities, raised concerns that Lloyd’s hiring indicated that the agency would change rules pertaining to local stations’ licenses and could bring back the Fairness Doctrine, an abandoned policy that required stations to give equal time to differing political views.

Yes, this should be added. Here is a reliable secondary source: http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=2251171.61.216.94 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WAPO article

We need biographical information on this gentleman. I will see what I can come up with from verifiable sources and present it here for consideration. Also, would this online article from the Washington Post be worthy of consideration for a "controversy" section? [14] It mentions Glenn Beck and accusations of "false and misleading claims" about Lloyd's work". It would be positive if we can work towards creating something that will get this article unlocked.ObserverNY (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

[15] Mark Lloyd's 6/10/08 speech contains some biographical statements and policy directives that should qualify as a verifiable source:

• "I am a former broadcaster and communications attorney and I teach the public policy of communications at Georgetown University." (bio)
• "There is, in brief, too little funding for research, education and outreach to ensure that when February 17, 2009 arrives all Americans will continue to receive over the air broadcasting service." (transition to digital)
• "First and foremost, we are deeply concerned that the $5 million that Congress has allocated to NTIA to educate consumers about the coupon program will be woefully inadequate..." (plea for more money for coupon education program)
• We at the Leadership Conference are convinced that the transition to digital television has the potential for extending the benefits of advanced telecommunications services to all Americans. We believe this is the civil rights issue of the digital age." (politicizing technology)

Please feel free to extract more from this document and compose a mock-up paragraph for consideration. ObserverNY (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And for consideration: http://www.freepress.net/node/41323 - audio file of Lloyd's comments at the Media Reform and Social Change conference ObserverNY (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

agree with Observer. This article needs to be unlocked. otherwise wikipedia is hiding important information about this individual who has manifested some very strange and troubling views regarding the outcome of free speech in America. Plumpurple (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with adding a section titled "Controversy" (per previous discussion on Van Jones talk page) and just adding a list of quotes. we can add appropriate sections and put relevant information in them. also, the fact that the article is locked does not stop us from proposing edits, coming to consensus, and then requesting that the change be made. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance - I think you misinterpreted my suggestion. I provided two verifiable sources as a suggestion for a jumping off point to create an article and get this article unlocked. It was not my intent to introduce just those specific quotes in a "Controversy" section. They are merely there as examples for possible inclusion. I think first we need consensus that the two sources I linked are agreeable, and then work from there. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why do you want to add a list of quotes about DTV transition? He was not even working for the White House at that time. The PDF, these statements are not inherently controversial. Maybe to you they are or to Glenn Beck, but they are not generally. If you want to include the PDF you could mention that he appeared as a witness in front of the US House Committee on blah blah subcommittee on blah blah and provide a link to the PDF. Then you have to wonder, why is it notable that he did this as Vice Pres. of Strategic Initiatives Leadership blah blah. You can't just add a section and cherry pick quotes from a PDF to include. You need to provide context. Also, you specifically said we need a "controversy" section. Please re-read your own comments. The WAPO thing is under a section of Washingtonpost.com called opinions, columns, blogs and then under section called Obama 44, then Cast of Characters. It is not hard news. So be careful how and what you cite regarding that blog, or try to find where that writer got his/her information, maybe another article on Washington Post? You could make a case it is an RS but you'd have to explain why that specific writer is an RS. Also, is the link to the blog post going to stay alive? My conclusion is it probably will. And obviously it should go under a section on his tenure working for the FCC. And the audio file, you also can't just cherry pick quotes. You can say he gave the lecture, put the reference in the article and wait and see what you can get from RS on it. It is not your job to editorialize/quote/deduce anything from the audio tape, the PDF, or the book. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a long edit, in conclusion I think reliable sources have illustrated that Mark Lloyd is being attacked by conservatives, with Glenn Beck in the lead and in much the same vein as the attack machine against Van Jones. Those facts are necessary for this article. Let's worry about specific quotes/controversial statements later, for it seems that RS are saying Mark Lloyd is a natural target due to some past statements which average Americans may think are fringe, thus causing a possible problem for President Obama. Again, how we say all of this is up for debate, I'm just trying to frame what is going on from RS that I've read. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RA - The article is supposed to be a biography of a living person, not your "conclusions" about what another editor's political inclination or politics in general may or may not be. I would like to assume WP:good faith, however it appears you are not really interested in trying to construct viable information to contribute to the article. Again, I put up those quotes as EXAMPLES of what might be considered for inclusion on a section which described Lloyd's tenure at the Leadership Conference. They are his words, they are from but one small time frame in the course of the man's life, but I thought we should try and begin SOMEWHERE. It is impossible to collaborate and work towards unlocking this article if you persist in jumping on a WP:soapbox. ObserverNY (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You can't quote his book, that PDF, or that audio file. (see above discussion) It is WP:OR if not many other things. You may include a link to them of course, as I did with the book. I am focused on improving this article and I have proposed an edit and the edit was included. I'm sure the admins would be willing to unlock the article if they could see that we are capable of discussion and reaching consensus. If you would like to propose an edit please do so, then wait a day or 2 for other editors to comment, then if we agree on it, we can holler for an admin to make the edit. I think the admins have decided that the furious Wikipedia editing that went along with the Van Jones fiasco is not what they want here. Wikipedia WILL reflect an accurate account of the events, however Wikipedia itself should not be part of the events. If you want to do that, head on over to Wikinews. What is accepted over there is exactly what you are trying to do here. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Block?

Why the hell is this page locked down? Why is nothing being done to remove those responsible for selectively censoring articles? This is rather outrageous considering this man's influence and his horrifically racist comments. Koalorka (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed? Seriously now. Brandon (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Page log The article is not "censored." If you wish to propose a change, do so, and when consensus is reached add an edit template and an admin will make the edit. Also, please read WP:5P and WP:EQ. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

pp-dispute template

{{editprotected}} This article should have Template:Pp-dispute on top. Thank you. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It already has a protection template, there's nothing in the documentation of {{Pp-dispute}} indicating that it should be used here, and as far as I'm aware protection template boxes are to be used instead of small lock icons only in exceptional cases. Can you explain the rationale behind your edit request and why you think it's uncontroversial/supported by consensus? We admins are mere button-pushers, not mind readers :) Cheers,  Skomorokh  18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh, I meant to suggest Template:Pp-vandalism because according to the logs that is the reason why it is blocked. Citing the furor on the talk page, I feel the small version is not effective in this case. Reliefappearance (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is currently protected due to "Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy", which is not the same as vandalism...  Skomorokh  20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The first suggestion was a mistake, the second was because I got 2 protections messed up. The first was a semi for vandalism (basically), the second was BLP full protect. So there does not appear to be a template specific to this issue and even if there was I should have looked for consensus to change from small to big lock. I apologize for the confusion. Reliefappearance (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we're all learning. Joyous editing,  Skomorokh  20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

• Schatz, Amy (2009-09-11). "FCC Official Comes Under Fire for Past Statements". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
• Carpenter, Amanda (2009-09-23). "'Diversity czar' takes heat over remarks". Washington Times. Retrieved 24 September 2009.

Anything I'm missing? The Washington Post article is a blog and the SF Examiner article is an opinion piece. Brandon (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither is a sufficient reason to rule them out as reliable sources; link?  Skomorokh  23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[16] is totally unacceptable. [17] is usable but doesn't really include anything that everybody is fighting for inclusion on. Brandon (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the SF Examiner column does not look usable, as the author does not seem to be a significant commentator (though evidently not all editors agree); were it written by Gavin Newsom, it would be a different story. The WaPo source discusses Beck and his campaign, as well as the connection to the case of Van Jones. These two articles in The Wall Street Journal may also be of use.  Skomorokh  00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hill is RS [18] Reliefappearance (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why so short

Why is this article only a stub. This is a pretty short article for someone who's said that the Fairness Doctrine is not enough, and that is discussed almost every week on Glenn Beck. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll see what I can do. Fixentries (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good start? Maybe someone can find more biographical information. I didn't see any mention of a spouse or other info. Fixentries (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good start Fixentries. I wouldn't have known where to start with all the information about this guy. I'll try to find a little more bio info. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I think anything factual will be ok. I didn't notice the discussions above before but it looks like there is some disagreement about this article, so anything related to accusations/political attacks etc would probably cause a problem. Fixentries (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All i'm finding is info from Conservative websites critisizing his beliefs. I really see no bio info, but i'll look harder. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the article looked like before any controversial information was scrubbed and the article was blocked entirely from editing. Most of the information in there is properly cited, but some people won't allow anything that's shown on FOX / GB unless the New York Times admits that it's newsworthy that a guy that admires Hugo Chavez shutting down radio statiohs has bee appointed in charge of censorship at the FCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Lloyd&oldid=313260944 Good luck with restoring the rest of the article. Bachcell (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bachcell, to be honest with you that version of the article is disgraceful. As a Wikipedia editor I'm surprised you would be proud of that. If you want to help improve this article, go ahead. If you want to step up to the stage and grab a microphone, head on over to freerepublic instead. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX Reliefappearance (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is no mention of Lloyds comments about Chavez' "incredible" revolution is what is the real disgrace. I'm not the one that should hang his head in shame. Anyone that wants to get encyclopedic information on Lloyd can look anywhere but the WP because of what isn't in there.Bachcell (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that the version you linked to is disgraceful. As I have said more than twice now to you I urge you to improve the article. Go right ahead. Be WP:BOLD in editing. But if you want to list news articles head over to Wikinews. If you want to regurgitate Glenn Beck head on over to freerepublic. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Views on Freedom of Speech

These need to be included. They are certainly relevant; as he has been appointed to a position within the FCC, views on interpretations of the First Amendment are important. There is no "undue weight" since there is no mention of these views anywhere on this Wiki page. Here is a valid source that quotes his book: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/?feat=article_top10_read I made the change but it was reverted twice without explanation. When I changed it back the third time, I got warned by an admin about being in an "edit war." Since the person who kept deleting the addition GAVE NO REASONING, these were not valid deletions and I should not have been warned - the deleter should have been. Can someone correct this? --Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Be honest. I gave reasons, and you apparently read them, since you are now attempting to respond to them. Undue weight means putting extra emphasis on something that is often marginally relevant. I'd be willing to consider what comments of his belong, but I strongly oppose adding anything and everything that's been used to criticize him. The section should remain a small part of the article.

On the other hand, you are attempting to warp what he said. The comment you are attempting to promote is not about the first amendment nor, in actuality, free speech, if you read closely. He's talking about people crying "free speech" in order to distract from actual issues. In addition, he does not set policy at the FCC, either.[19]

If you want to write a hit piece, create a blog somewhere. This is not the place. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the controversy surrounding that statement. How is quoting someone's words verbatim "warp[ing] what he said." It should be placed on this page for people to interpret. If your interpretation is so obvious, then you should not be worried and people will see that he was worried about people "crying free speech." OR if you have a valid source that says that was what he meant, you can add that. You're interpretation of what he meant is irrelevant to the wiki page and this discussion page - feel free to create a blog somewhere about it though. :) But I have a feeling you don't have a source that says that since you didn't mention it. So how bout we include the valid source that we do have...--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - I added the POV tag since there is a dispute. The dispute is including something that has a valid source or not including it because the valid source does not mesh with Sxeptomaniac's personal interpretation of the quote.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That was not an interpretation of what he meant. He specifically says "blind references to freedom of speech or the press." Still, we are using the source, contrary to your claim, but that doesn't mean we repeat every quote in the article. Attempting to milk every negative possible from one source is not neutral. Instead, it's a sure way to put undue weight on the article and violate biography policy in this case.

So far, what I've read on the topic does not show much media exposure outside conservative media (as well as some liberal media responses). This is a good reason why the section should remain pretty small, as it has not been picked up by most of the mainstream media.

I suggested a blog since adding specific material to this article is apparently your sole purpose for being here at this point. Usually those committed to a single viewpoint on a particular topic would be better off putting their opinions into a blog. People demonstrating strong opinions in articles tend to get themselves blocked sooner or later. See the Tiger essay for more on this. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I specifically included the "blind references to freedom of speech or the press" in the quote when I used it. How is that distorting it? So is your complaint now "undue weight".... including one sentence about a topic that is mentioned in many places is now "undue weight"... you don't want this quote because you don't agree with it... that is not a reason to keep it off the page for undue weight--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend against the path you are choosing. Making claims regarding my motives will only make people question yours as well. I have a history of working on a variety of articles, and rarely in political articles, while you have only contributed to one section of one article from one perspective. See the difference?

Let's back up. Do you understand the issue of undue weight? The thing is, just because something is sourced doesn't give an editor free license to add it any way they want. It needs to be appropriately set within the context of the whole. When it comes to this article, adding every criticism of Lloyd expands the section beyond what is reasonable considering it's a relatively small part of his career at this point. I chose that specific one because it was the last one mentioned in your source, did not seem to have any major commentary, and was fairly large. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in the wikipedia rules does it say you have to edit more than one article to have your work not reverted? Here is my proposition so everyone can see:

Others have questioned Lloyd's commitment to free speech based on his book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America." Mr Lloyd wrote: "At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Simple and straight forward. I'd be willing to trim it down a bit. Or I'm sure you want to add something that says it is only conservatives or bloggers that are saying this. But I think the intro that is already on the "Conservative Criticism" section is plenty to get across the idea that it is the right who is criticizing him (probably too much but thats a separate issue).--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Others" is considered a weasel word, generally to be avoided in articles. The articles I'm seeing all either come from conservative media or say that the criticism is coming from conservatives, particularly Glen Beck, so we should state that.

As far as my comments on contributions, you've missed my point. I was warning you away from doing something that will not help you. It's not a threat, as threats involve an intent to act on my part, while the end result would most likely happen with little to no involvement by me if you were to choose to go that direction. My point is, trying to question my motives will only cause editors here to look at you and go "Ah. He's one of those." I've run into at least half a dozen in the last couple of years here (there was the guy who wanted to tell the world about the evils of Rotary Clubs, the one who wanted to tell of the terrible Amish and Mennonites, the one who needed to save the world from women in ministry, etc.) Our policies may seem daunting at times, but they are in place to help us deal with people who come here with an ax to grind (and believe me, there are a lot of them).

All that said, there is nothing preventing you from sticking around a long time and making a lot of good contributions to Wikipedia.

I've become a strong believer in our biography policy, which is why I'm opposing you on this. Even if the individual facts are accurate, giving these criticisms too much emphasis in the article would make the article as a whole inaccurate by overemphasizing a small subsection of his career. Trimming it down would work, but I don't think we have room for every quote. The section still needs some rewriting as it is, I think.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have a discussion about it, like we are now - and I agree with you that the section as a whole needs reworked. But in regards to the quote What if the word "some" was used instead of other? Or just leave out the quote if you think its too long. Maybe something like this possibly:

Others have questioned Lloyd's commitment to free speech based on certain statements in his book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America."

Would you be against that?--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the quote from 2005 because it wasn't a RS. I replaced the cite with a reliable source.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is words like "some" and "others" are vague, begging the question, "who?" We have one official in the FCC who expresses some concern, but the thrust and the bulk of the criticism is coming from conservative media, from the sources I've seen. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what if we eliminated "some" and "others" and just say:

"Lloyd's commitment to free speech has been questioned based on certain statements in his book, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America."

This is short, no undue weight - the quote isn't even mentioned. No weasel words (some or others). What do you think?--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add the sentence written above if there are no objections. It has been trimmed down plenty and should be perceived as "undue weight." It also contains no weasel words.

"Lloyd's commitment to free speech has been questioned based on certain statements in his book, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America."--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative" Criticism

I also propose to eliminate Conservative from the title. This makes it seem as though ONLY conservatives are questioning Lloyd's views. As this article indicates http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mcdowell_fcc_lloyd_/2009/10/15/272980.html even officials within the FCC are troubled by his views. Also many other wikipages about conservatives that have a controversy section don't say "Liberal Criticism." --Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Only one official, as far as I can tell. Secondly, that the comments came from a publication originally named the "Conservative News Service" does not really help the case that this isn't coming from the right.

On the other end, this article seems to be doing a good job of giving an overview of the current situation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the comments came from the FCC official mentioned in the article. No where does it say that he is conservative. I realize that newsmax probably isn't a RS as per wikipedia standards. But we don't need to cite newsmax, we just need to recognize that this FCC official has said this which in my opinion should warrant removal of "conservative" from the section title.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem with it is that the section title should really be "white house career" or something better worded. The first paragraph should say the date he was appointed, who he replaced and other info. Then you could include some of the current section. Obviously the reason he is being criticized is because he works for the government, not because people disagree with him in general. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I could agree with something like that. My previous concern was that it should not be characterized as just "criticism" when it's clearly partisan in nature. It would not be appropriate to make it sound as if the criticism were coming from a wider base than it actually is. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "Criticism" must remain in the title of the section. I think it is obvious that his views on Freedom of Speech have been brought to light because of his appointment to the FCC. No one would care what his views about free speech were otherwise. I think the "conservative" criticism phrasing is bias. Many other conservative figures with wikipedia pages that have criticism are not labeled "Liberal Criticism"... --Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An easy way to solve this might be to just change the title to "Controversies." Sxepto, the lead in sentence should suffice to get across the idea that the thrust of these controversies or criticisms are coming from "conservative media personalities such as Glenn Beck." I don't think it is necessary to have it in both the section title and the lead in. --Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Section titles should repeat what the section itself is saying. In this case, the section is about conservative-led criticism of Lloyd, so that's what the title should be. However, I think Reliefappearance is right in that the goal should be a "White House career" section, with a paragraph on this particular item. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If section titles should repeat what the section itself is saying then it makes zero sense to place this under the tile of "White House Career." Criticism must remain in the section title. The entire section is about criticism.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sections that are only "Criticism" or "Controversy" are generally considered poor writing. It's preferable that criticisms be integrated into the article as a whole, rather than be kept separate. See WP:CRITS and WP:NOCRIT, which both discuss why they should be avoided.

Criticisms from a specific group (i.e. conservatives) can be an exception at times, but I think incorporating into a section on his career in the White House would be the best result. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a compromise? - "Criticism of Appointment to FCC." Or maybe even just generically - "Appointment to FCC"?--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Did someone criticize his appointment to the FCC? Reliefappearance (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relief - yes - read the conversation above and the links on the article...--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his appointment to the FCC has been broadly criticized by both liberal and conservative persons. Liberals criticize him for his propensity for abridging free speech, while conservatives criticize him for wanting to turn the USA into a Venzuela of the north. Plumpurple (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like nearly the only things that anyone has said about this individual are the accusations, so that should probably go in the main text of the article rather in a separate section. Placing it down below ignores (or hides) the general treatment of him in the popular media. If we ask what is significant about this individual, it is the things in the "criticisms" section, especially since his personal life seems to be a semi-secret - for example who are his parents, his wife, what's his general background, etc. Fixentries (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How are the criticisms only "accusations." The criticisms are from third-parties and are based on Mark Lloyd's own words at press conferences which can be readily seen on Youtube and criticisms from third-parties based on his book. These are the only reason anyone has ever heard of the guy, let's be honest. No one would know who Mark Lloyd was if his appointment to the FCC was not criticized.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a trivial semantic point whether they are "factual criticisms" (?) or accusations. Given that any of it came from electronic media, I'd take it with a grain of salt personally. What's (supposedly) bad about this person is more fundamental than anything he's been quoted saying. Fixentries (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Broadly criticized"? I have seen no sources that would support this, and several that contradict it. Criticism of him has come from one direction: the Right. Mainstream news has mostly ignored him, except for a few passing mentions as part of the coverage of Fox News' "Czar Wars." In my research, left-leaning sources have supported Lloyd or criticized those attacking him, and the attacks have consistently been referred to as conservative in nature.

As a result, titling the section only "criticism" does not improve NPOV, as Lloyd has not been simply criticized, but has been criticized by a particular group of media personalities: conservatives. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think the best NPOV compromise would be "Criticism of Appointment to FCC"--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Full quote?

Currently Wikipedia has Mark Lloyd as saying 'In 2005, Mark Lloyd stated at a conference that white people, good though they may be, must "step down so" "more people of color, gays" and "other people" "can have power."'. To me, that look like selective quoting, so perhaps a full quote and the context would make it clearer to the reader? -93.97.122.93 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to include the full quote, although I can't find a citation for the context -93.97.122.93 (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the former version wasn't too good, but I think this quote is probably a bit more than necessary. I'm considering how to trim it to something smaller Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SSRC as a source

Is it appropriate to cite to SSRC? SSRC profiles can be edited by users like wikipedia. This would be the equivalent of a wikipedia page citing to another wikipedia page as a RS. I propose that all information cited to SSRC should be removed. Thoughts?--71.61.216.94 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct to remove that addition, as it is completely inappropriate. Any information added to the article using that page as a source should be immediately removed as a serious biography policy violation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article cites to SSRC. Look at footnote 4.--Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it needs to be fixed. It's not controversial as far as I can tell, so it's not as urgent, but it needs new sourcing or removal.

Update: This source just might work for now, though I think we still should look for something better. The SSRC site appears to have copied the information from there or a common source (probably a prepared biography submitted for those kinds of speaking engagements/conferences). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Big deletions

What revert any information on the broadcasting study that sheds light on Lloyd's view on broadcasting diversity? Why revert any mention of the actual content of statements broadcast or in print that are the subject of commentary in the RS?? NPOV means that all notable controversies are presented, not that one that do not fit one POV are removed. The sections removed present verifiable, cited, widely published information from at least two sides that does not violate BLP. Bachcell (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV also has an undue weight requirement. 75% of the article text simply cannot be devoted to this. Our hands are tied in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision of the controversy section

Though controversy shouldn't consume the bulk of the article, I think the revised section is somewhat awkwardly written and neglects the substance of the criticisms. It can be rewritten for greater clarity, and to include the quotes that have actually generated the controversy. It is just false to say conservative bloggers are basing their criticisms on "a single line from his book"--but if it were true, shouldn't that line be quoted too? The section can be kept short, while not excluding the content of criticisms. I propose the following text.

Lloyd has been targeted by conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck, with the aim of forcing him to resign, as happened with former White House adviser Van Jones. Beck broadcast a video of Lloyd's comments at a 2008 conference on media reform, in which he described the rise of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as "really an incredible revolution." Conservatives view this as an expression of support for Chavez, though Lloyd has stated that he does not support him. Conservative bloggers have also attacked Lloyd's commitment to free speech, based largely on quotes from his book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, in which he writes that the First Amendment should be placed "in context with other communications policies," and on his 2007 article Forget The Fairness Doctrine, discussing "clear proposals...to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk." Over 50 non-partisan public interest groups have defended Lloyd, calling conservative claims "false and misleading."

This is only about 30 words longer than the present version, but I believe it does much more to inform readers about the controversy. Since the controversy section of this article is so controversial, however, I'll leave my rewrite here for a day or two before implementing it. It's always easier to see bias against your own point of view, so I hope some liberals can improve on my text! But the current version is just not accurate or informative.173.21.159.52 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'm going to implement my rewrite. Sorry I didn't include a signature last time.0nullbinary0 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

controversy section needs redone (POV tag)

I placed the POV tag on this page because the phrasing of the controversy section seems quite biased to me. First, this is not an article about Glenn Beck, as you can see there is already a page about Beck perhaps this info would be better suited on his page. Although it is true, Beck was one of the first to show the Hugo Chavez video, he was not the only. And as the sources indicate, the story was picked up on by several major media outlets. Furthermore, the article is phrased as though conservatives and "right wingers" are the only ones who were critical of his appointment to the FCC. I'm working on a proposed revision and will post here for comments as soon as I come up with something that I think everyone can agree to. Thanks.Neutraltruthseeker (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to avoid the fact that Glenn Beck was the driving force behind the criticisms of Lloyd. Other media tended to not pick up the stories until after Beck pushed them, and that's was nearly exclusively conservative media. The section is far from about Beck, though, as it's important to be clear about the source of criticisms. This has to do with NPOV policy, specifically regarding attributing criticism, and avoiding weasel words. On the other hand, "right wing" is a POV term that I believe should definitely go. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My proposed revision of the controversy section is the next section up from this, and with references here. Unfortunately, the fellow who reversed my edits wasn't courteous enough to explain his reasoning on the talk page, merely complaining vaguely in the edit summary about "distortions of the far right." I still have no idea why it is taboo to quote the passages from Lloyd's book that have sparked controversy, or how removing a web reference to Lloyd's article Forget the Fairness Doctrine, written for the Center For American Progress and certainly a flashpoint of criticism, makes the article more neutral or informative.0nullbinary0 (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the edit history, I wasn't exactly a fan of that change either, but I didn't really have the energy to go into an edit war singlehandedly at that point in time. The part about Chavez would probably benefit from some reworking, but I considered that version one of the better ones so far. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

removing NPOV tag

The POV tag on the article has been up for quite a while. Right now, I'm not seeing any issues, particularly since the article is nearly a stub at this point. If someone disagrees, they can re-add it and explain their issues with the article here on the talk page. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712012347/http://www.c3.ucla.edu/context-previous-excerpts/context-2006 to http://www.c3.ucla.edu/context-previous-excerpts/context-2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111075827/http://www.netcaucus.org/biography/mark-lloyd.shtml to http://www.netcaucus.org/biography/mark-lloyd.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911202332/http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9034BB9E-18FE-70B2-A81017D06F5D1561 to http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9034BB9E-18FE-70B2-A81017D06F5D1561

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)