text:
Jon Huntsman Jr.

Jon Meade Huntsman Jr. (born March 26, 1960) is an American businessman, diplomat, and politician who served as the 16th governor of Utah from 2005 to 2009. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the ambassador of the United States to Russia from 2017 to 2019, ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011, and ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1993.

Huntsman served in every presidential administration from the presidency of Ronald Reagan to that of Donald Trump. He began his career as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and was appointed deputy assistant secretary of commerce and U.S. ambassador to Singapore by George H. W. Bush. Later as deputy U.S. trade representative under George W. Bush, he launched global trade negotiations in Doha in 2001 and guided the accession of China into the World Trade Organization. He served as CEO of Huntsman Family Holdings, a private entity that held the stock the family owned in Huntsman Corporation. He has also served as a board member of Huntsman Corporation, and as chair of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation. Huntsman is the only American ambassador to have served in both Russia and China, having been the U.S. ambassador to China under Barack Obama from 2009 to 2011 and as the U.S. ambassador to Russia under Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019.

While governor of Utah, Huntsman was named chair of the Western Governors Association and joined the executive committee of the National Governors Association. Under his leadership, Utah was named the best-managed state in America by the Pew Center on the States. During his tenure, Huntsman was one of the most popular governors in the country, and won reelection in a landslide in 2008, winning every single county. He left office with approval ratings over 80 percent and was succeeded by Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He ran for governor again in 2020, but narrowly lost in the Republican primary to Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox.

Huntsman now serves as a No Labels National Co-Chair, and on July 17, 2023, he appeared with US senator Joe Manchin as headliners for a No Labels Common Sense Agenda Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Early life and education
Huntsman was born March 26, 1960, in Redwood City, California. His father, Jon Huntsman Sr., was a business executive who later became a billionaire through the company he founded, the Huntsman Corporation, which achieved breakthrough success in the 1970s manufacturing generic styrofoam cartons for McDonald's and other fast food companies and by the 1990s was one of the largest petrochemical companies in the United States. His mother is Karen (née Haight) Huntsman, daughter of David B. Haight, an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Through his father, Huntsman is the great-great-great-grandson of early LDS Church leader Parley P. Pratt.

In 1975, Huntsman earned the rank of Eagle Scout, the highest rank of the Boy Scouts of America. He attended Highland High School in Salt Lake City but dropped out before graduating to perform as a keyboard player in a rock band. Huntsman later obtained a G.E.D. and enrolled at the University of Utah, where he became a member of the Sigma Chi fraternity like his father. Jon Huntsman Jr. served as a missionary for the LDS Church in Taiwan for two years and later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with a bachelor of arts in international politics in 1987.

Political career
While Huntsman was visiting the White House in 1971 during his father's service as special assistant to U.S. president Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger confided to the eleven-year-old that he was secretly traveling to China. Jon Huntsman Jr. worked as a White House staff assistant in Reagan administration in 1983. From 1987 to 1988, Huntsman and his family lived and worked in Taipei, Taiwan.

Huntsman and Enid Greene Mickelsen were co-directors of Reagan's campaign in Utah. During the 1988 presidential election, he was a state delegate at the 1988 Republican National Convention.

George H. W. Bush administration
Under President George H. W. Bush, Huntsman was deputy assistant secretary in the International Trade Administration from 1989 to 1990. He served as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, from 1990 to 1991.

In June 1992, Bush appointed Huntsman as U.S. ambassador to Singapore, and he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate in August. At 32 years old, he became the youngest U.S. Ambassador to serve in over 100 years.

George W. Bush administration
In January 2001, after George W. Bush took office as president, The Washington Post reported there was a strong possibility Huntsman would be appointed to be the new U.S. ambassador to China. In March, Huntsman reportedly turned down the nomination to be the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia. On March 28, Bush appointed Huntsman to be one of two Deputy United States trade representatives in his administration; he served in this role from 2001 to 2003.

Governor of Utah
In March 2003, Huntsman resigned his post in the Bush administration. In mid-August, three-term incumbent governor Mike Leavitt, who Huntsman strongly supported, decided not to run for re-election in order to become EPA administrator in the Bush administration. Shortly thereafter, Huntsman filed papers to run for Governor of Utah. In the June 2004 Republican primary, Huntsman defeated State Representative Nolan Karras 66–34%. In November 2004, Huntsman was elected with 58% of the vote, defeating Democratic Party nominee Scott Matheson Jr. In 2008, Huntsman won re-election with 77.7% of the vote, defeating Democratic nominee Bob Springmeyer.

Huntsman maintained high approval ratings as governor of Utah, reaching 90% approval at times. He left office with his approval ratings over 80%. Utah was named the best managed state by the Pew Center on the States. Following his term as governor, Utah was also named a top-three state to do business in. The 2006 Cato Institute evaluation gave Huntsman an overall fiscal policy grade of "B"; the institute gave him an "A" on tax policy and an "F" on spending policy.

Depending on the methodology used, Utah was either the top-ranked state or fourth-ranked state in the nation for job growth during Huntsman's tenure, with a rate of either 5.9% or 4.8% between 2005 and 2009.

The Utah Taxpayers Association estimates that "tax cuts from 2005 to 2007 totaled $407 million." Huntsman proposed eliminating the corporate franchise tax for small businesses making less than $5 million. During his term as governor, he was successful in having Utah replace its progressive income tax with a top rate of 7%, with a flat tax of 5%; cut the statewide sales tax rate from 4.75% to 4.65% and sales tax on unprepared food from 4.70% to 1.75%; and raise motor vehicle registration fees. He proposed a 400% increase in cigarette taxes, but the measure was never signed into law. In 2008, he successively proposed tax credits for families purchasing their own health insurance, as well as income tax credits for capital gains and solar projects.

During Huntsman's administration, the state budget rose from $8.28 to 11.57 billion.

Huntsman supported cap and trade policies, and as governor, signed the Western Climate Initiative. He also supported an increase in the federal minimum wage. He also cut some regulations, including Utah's very strict alcohol laws. In 2007, he signed into law the Parent Choice in Education Act, which he said was "the largest school-voucher bill to date in the United States. This massive school-choice program provides scholarships ranging from $500 to $3000 to help parents send their children to the private school of their choice. The program was open to all current public school children, as well as some children already in private school." The voucher law was later repealed in a public referendum.

Huntsman was one of John McCain's earliest supporters in his 2008 presidential campaign. Huntsman helped McCain campaign in New Hampshire and other early primary states and went with him to Iraq twice including over Thanksgiving in 2007. At the 2008 Republican National Convention, Huntsman delivered a nominating speech for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the party's nominee for vice president. Huntsman also helped raise more than $500,000 for McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. Speaking about McCain's loss, Huntsman later observed, "We're fundamentally staring down a demographic shift that we've never seen before in America".

Ambassador to China
President Barack Obama nominated Jon Huntsman to serve as the United States Ambassador to China on May 16, 2009, noting his experience in the region and proficiency in Mandarin Chinese. His nomination was formally delivered to the Senate on July 6, 2009, and on July 23, 2009, he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which favorably reported his nomination to the full Senate on August 4, 2009. On August 7, 2009, the Senate unanimously confirmed Huntsman and he formally resigned as governor of Utah and was sworn in as ambassador to China on August 11, 2009. Huntsman arrived in Beijing on August 21, 2009, to begin his assignment, and he delivered his first press conference on August 22 after a meeting with Commerce Minister Chen Deming.

In February 2011, Huntsman made a controversial appearance at the site of a planned pro-democracy protest in Beijing. The spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in China stated that Huntsman had been unaware of the planned protest, and happened to be strolling through the area on a family outing.

Huntsman resigned from his position as ambassador, effective April 30, 2011, in order to return to the United States to explore a 2012 presidential bid.

Background
Huntsman's name appeared on lists of potential Republican nominees for the 2012 presidential election as early as 2008 and 2009, and John McCain specifically mentioned Huntsman as a potential candidate for the 2012 election in March 2009.

In August 2010, a group of political strategists close to Huntsman formed a political action committee called Horizon PAC. On February 22, 2011, Horizon PAC launched its official website, stating that it "supports free-market values, principled leadership and a commitment to long-term solutions".

Campaign
On January 31, 2011, Huntsman submitted his formal resignation from his post as U.S. Ambassador to China effective April 30, 2011, indicating his plans to return to the United States at that time. Huntsman's associates indicated that he was likely to explore a 2012 Republican presidential bid.

On May 3, 2011, he formed an official fundraising political action committee, building on the efforts of the previously established Horizon PAC. On May 18, 2011, Huntsman opened his 2012 national campaign headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Huntsman formally entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination on June 21, 2011, announcing his bid in a speech at Liberty State Park in New Jersey, with the Statue of Liberty in the background—the same site where Ronald Reagan launched his campaign in 1980.

Huntsman sought to establish himself as an anti-negative candidate and take the "high road". In his announcement, he also stated "I don't think you need to run down someone's reputation in order to run for the office of President." Huntsman aggressively touted himself as a fiscal conservative, pledging considerable business and personal tax cuts as well as a foreign policy moderate, calling for a decrease in defense spending and withdrawal from Afghanistan, while increasing pressure on Iran and support for Israel.

Huntsman focused his energy and resources on the New Hampshire primary. On October 18, 2011, he boycotted the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, out of deference to New Hampshire, which was locked in a political scheduling fight with Nevada. Huntsman eventually finished third in New Hampshire, and announced the end of his campaign on January 16, 2012. He endorsed Mitt Romney at that time.

Post-campaign politics
A month after dropping out of the 2012 race, Huntsman suggested there was a need for a third party in the United States, stating that "the real issues [were] not being addressed, and it's time that we put forward an alternative vision." Huntsman said that he would not run as a third-party presidential candidate in 2012. In early July, Huntsman announced that he would not be attending the 2012 Republican National Convention for the first time since he attended as a Reagan delegate in 1984; he stated he would "not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States—a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits."

Shortly after Obama was re-elected as president, Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina suggested that the Obama campaign believed Huntsman would have been a particularly difficult candidate to face in the general election. Messina said that the campaign was "honest about our concerns about Huntsman" and that Huntsman "would have been a very tough candidate".

In January 2014, Huntsman was named chairman of the Atlanticist think-tank the Atlantic Council. Huntsman indicated in an interview with Politico that he would not run in the 2016 presidential election.

In April 2016, Huntsman decided to endorse Republican nominee Donald Trump, but later retracted his endorsement of Trump following the Access Hollywood controversy. However, Huntsman later defended Trump in interviews with Fox News and The New York Times after Trump received criticism for accepting a congratulatory phone call with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, during his transition process. Huntsman said the critics were overreacting to Trump's decision to accept the phone call, and that Trump's nontraditional style might be an opportunity for a shift in Asia relations in future talks with China.

In November 2016, Huntsman said he was considering a run for the U.S. Senate in 2018, though he ultimately chose not to run for the seat.

Huntsman was the co-chair of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, along with Dennis C. Blair. The commission is an independent and bipartisan initiative from the public and private sectors. Its mission is to document and assess the extent of international intellectual property theft, particularly by China, and propose appropriate policy responses. According to the commission's analysis, the U.S. has lost up to $600 billion in illicit technology transfers to China. According to Huntsman,

The vast, illicit transfer of American innovation is one of the most significant economic issues impacting U.S. competitiveness that the nation has not fully addressed. It ... must be a top priority of the new administration [in 2016].

Ambassador to Russia
On December 3, 2016, the Associated Press reported Huntsman was being considered by Donald Trump and the Trump transition team as a possible choice for United States Secretary of State in 2017, although Rex Tillerson was chosen 10 days later.

On March 8, 2017, it was reported that Huntsman accepted a position as United States Ambassador to Russia. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he said, "There is no question that the Russian Government interfered in the U.S. election" in 2016. He also said the relationship between the two countries was "among the most consequential and complex foreign policy challenges we face." Huntsman was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, via voice vote, on September 28, 2017.

During his time as ambassador, Huntsman reported having access to senior Russian officials, which he stated was not always the case during his ambassadorship to China. He also expressed a desire to avoid repeating past mistakes in the relationship, stating: "In the years past, every new administration has tried to reset or redo of some sort.(...) Let's not repeat the cycles of the past, because in every case,(...) those resets could not be sustained. Let's not even begin with that thought in mind; no resets, no redos. Just take the relationship for what it is, clear-eyed and realistically."

Huntsman submitted his resignation as U.S. Ambassador to Russia to President Trump on August 6, 2019, with his resignation taking effect on October 3, 2019. After Huntsman left post, Bartle B. Gorman, deputy ambassador to Russia, served as the embassy's Chargé d’Affaires (until the arrival of John J. Sullivan as new ambassador).

2020 Utah gubernatorial campaign
After his resignation as U.S. ambassador to Russia in August 2019, many speculated that Huntsman was considering another run for Utah governor. An October 2019 poll of likely Utah voters showed Huntsman as a favorite among several potential gubernatorial candidates.

On November 14, 2019, Huntsman announced on KSL Radio that he would run for Governor of Utah in the 2020 election. In the six weeks between Huntsman's announcement and the end of 2019, Huntsman's campaign raised $520,000, and visited all 29 Utah counties.

His daughter, Abby Huntsman, announced in January 2020 that she would leave her position on The View to join his gubernatorial campaign as a senior advisor. On February 7, 2020, Huntsman announced that Provo city mayor Michelle Kaufusi would be his gubernatorial running mate. A poll taken among likely voters in February showed Huntsman leading the race with 32% support, while 31% remained undecided. However, Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox ultimately won the primary with 36.4% of the vote against Huntsman's 34.6%, and went on to win the general election.

Political positions
Huntsman has been described as "a conservative technocrat-optimist with moderate positions who was willing to work substantively with President Barack Obama" and identifies himself as a center-right conservative.

During his first term as Utah governor, Huntsman listed economic development, healthcare reform, education, and energy security as his top priorities. He oversaw tax cuts and advocated reorganizing the way that services were distributed so that the government would not become overwhelmed by the state's fast-growing population.

Healthcare
During his time as Utah governor, Huntsman proposed a plan to reform healthcare, mainly through the private sector, by using tax breaks and negotiation to keep prices down.

In 2007, when asked about a healthcare mandate, Huntsman said, "I'm comfortable with a requirement–you can call it whatever you want, but at some point we're going to have to get serious about how we deal with this issue". The healthcare plan that passed in Utah under Huntsman did not include a healthcare mandate.

Fiscal policy
In a 2008 evaluation of state governors' fiscal policies, the libertarian Cato Institute praised Huntsman's conservative tax policies, ranking him in a tie for fifth place on overall fiscal policy. He was particularly lauded for his efforts to cut taxes. The report specifically highlighted his reductions of the sales tax and simplification of the tax code. However the report concluded that: "Unfortunately, Huntsman has completely dropped the ball on spending, with per capita spending increasing at about 10 percent annually during his tenure." He defines his taxation policy as "business friendly".

As part of his presidential campaign Huntsman said "our tax code has devolved into a maze of special-interest carve-outs, loopholes, and temporary provisions that cost taxpayers more than $400 billion a year to comply with". The candidate called for "[getting] rid of all tax expenditures, all loopholes, all deductions, all subsidies. Use that to lower rates across the board. And do it on a revenue-neutral basis".

In addition, Huntsman has proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, eliminating corporate taxes on income earned overseas, and implementing a tax holiday to encourage corporations to return profits from offshore tax havens. He favored eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Social issues
As the governor of Utah, Huntsman signed several bills placing limits on abortion.

During the 2012 presidential race, and as governor of Utah, Huntsman supported civil unions for same-sex couples but not same-sex marriage.

In a February 2013 op-ed published in The American Conservative, Huntsman updated his stance to one of support for same-sex marriage, stating: "All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience." In 2013, Huntsman was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.

Environment and energy
In 2007, in response to the issue of global warming, Huntsman signed the Western Climate Initiative, by which Utah joined with other governments in agreeing to pursue targets for reduced production of greenhouse gases. He also appeared in an advertisement sponsored by Environmental Defense, in which he said, "Now it's time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse-gas pollution."

In 2011, in response to comments by Rick Perry and other Republican presidential candidates, Huntsman stated he "believe[s] in evolution and trust[s] scientists" on climate change. Commenting later on his statement, Huntsman remarked “I felt that it was important to remind a lot of Republican voters who care and a lot of independent voters who care, that there is a candidate who does believe in science.”

Huntsman has stated a preference for international cooperation in handling climate change, stating "it’s a global issue. We can enact policies here [in the United States], but I wouldn't want to unilaterally disarm as a country."

Foreign policy
Huntsman has repeatedly stated, "We need to continue working closely with China to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program". He has also named Taiwan, human rights, and Tibet among the "areas where we have differences with China" and vowed "robust engagement" as ambassador. Huntsman, who lived in Taiwan as a Mormon missionary, said he felt "personally invested in the peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences, in a way that respects the wishes of the people on both Taiwan and the mainland. In 2009, he said that then-current U.S. policy "support[ed] this objective, and [he was] encouraged by the recent relaxing of cross-strait tensions."

Huntsman is a supporter of Israel and has made several visits to Israel.

During his 2020 gubernatorial campaign, and after serving as Ambassador to Russia, Huntsman stated that “ [the Russians] want to see us divided. They want to drive a wedge into politics... The American people do not understand the expertise at their disposal to divide us, to prey on our divisions. They take both sides of an issue to deepen the political divide. They are active during mass shootings. They are active during racial tension. They take advantage of us. We think it’s fellow Americans who are taking extreme positions sometimes. It’s not.”

Immigration
In 2005, Huntsman signed a bill giving undocumented migrants access to "driving-privilege cards", which allowed them to have driving privileges but unlike driver licenses, cannot be used for identification purposes. In a 2011 presidential debate, Huntsman defended the move, explaining that "[illegal immigrants] were given a driver's license before and they were using that for identification purposes. And I thought that was wrong. Instead we issued a driver privilege card, which in our state allowed our economy to continue to function. And it said in very bold letters, not to be used for identification purposes. It was a pragmatic local government driven fix and it proved that the Tenth Amendment works."

In June 2007, Huntsman joined other Western governors in urging the Senate to pass comprehensive immigration reform. As governor, Huntsman threatened to veto a measure repealing in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

Huntsman has stated support for a border fence, saying that, "as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me … but the situation is such that I don't think we have a choice".

Huntsman supports granting more H-1B visas to foreigners. Huntsman also supported the DREAM Act, which proposed a path to citizenship for young people brought to the United States by their parents illegally.

Business career
From 1993 to 2001, Huntsman served as an executive for the Huntsman Corporation, chairman of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, and CEO of Huntsman Family Holdings Company.

In January 2012, Huntsman Cancer Institute announced that Huntsman had been appointed to the position of chairman, replacing his father, who founded the institute.

Huntsman was appointed to the board of directors of the Ford Motor Co. in February 2012. The announcement quoted Ford's executive chairman, William Clay Ford Jr., as praising Huntsman's global knowledge and experience—especially in Asia—as well as his tenure as the governor of Utah. Huntsman was appointed to the board of Caterpillar Inc. in April 2012.

From 2014 to 2017, and again from September 2020, Huntsman served on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation.

Huntsman is a founding director of the Pacific Council on International Policy and has served on the boards of the Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Asia Society in New York, and the National Bureau of Asian Research.

Personal life
Huntsman has eight brothers and sisters. He married activist Mary Kaye and they have seven children: daughters Mary Anne (b. 1985, who is married to Evan Morgan, son of CNN commentator Gloria Borger. ), Abigail (b. 1986), Elizabeth ("Liddy"; b. 1988), Gracie Mei (b. 1999; adopted from China), and Asha Bharati (b. 2006; adopted from India) and sons Jon III (b. 1990), William (b. 1993), both of whom are graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy, and serving active duty assignments.

Huntsman is distantly related to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Their relationship has been reported to be one of rivalry. After a scandal erupted over the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney and Huntsman were both considered to take over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the games. After intense lobbying, Romney was chosen, and the Huntsman family was reportedly "livid." As Romney prepared his 2008 presidential run, he began consulting Huntsman on foreign policy and trade issues. Huntsman's father signed on as a finance chair for Romney's campaign, and it was expected that Huntsman would endorse Romney; instead, Huntsman backed John McCain and became one of the McCain campaign's national co-chairs. Huntsman did endorse Romney in the 2012 election after dropping out.

Huntsman is a self-proclaimed fan of the progressive rock genre and played keyboards during high school in the band Wizard. Huntsman joined REO Speedwagon on the piano for two songs during their concert at the Utah State Fair in 2005. Huntsman is a fan of riding motocross, and he helped in pushing extreme sports and outdoor sports and tourism for the State of Utah.

Huntsman has been awarded eleven honorary doctorate degrees, including an honorary doctorate of public service from Snow College in 2005, an honorary doctorate of science from Westminster College in 2008, an honorary doctorate of humane letters from the University of Utah in 2010, an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010, and an honorary doctorate of law from Southern New Hampshire University in 2011. He also received honorary doctorates from the University of Washington, University of Arizona, Utah State University, and University of Wisconsin. He has been recognized as a Significant Sig by Sigma Chi.

In 2007 Huntsman was awarded the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award by the BSA. In October 2018, Huntsman was diagnosed with stage-1 melanoma and sought treatment at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. On June 10, 2020, Huntsman announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19.

Religious views
Huntsman is a member of the LDS Church and served a church mission to Taiwan. In an interview with Time magazine, he stated that he considers himself more spiritual than religious, and in December 2010, he told Newsweek that the LDS Church doesn't have a monopoly on his spiritual life. In a May 2011 interview, Huntsman said "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."

Huntsman rejects the notion that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. He said, "The minute that the Republican Party becomes . . . the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."

title: Jon Huntsman Jr.


text:
National Forest Act

The National Forest Act, the name of several United States federal laws, may refer to:

 * Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which established the U.S. National forests
 * Forest Management Act, United States statute in 1897
 * National Forest Management Act of 1976, which addresses the management of renewable resources on national forest lands
 * Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005, Public Law 109-118, which designates certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: National Forest Act


text: Category:A cappella musical groups

title: Category:A cappella musical groups


text: Category:Electronics manufacturing

title: Category:Electronics manufacturing


text: User talk:24.197.144.16

title: User talk:24.197.144.16


text: Category:Semiconductor device fabrication


text:
Bais Yaakov

Bais Yaakov (בית יעקב also Beis Yaakov, Beit Yaakov, Beth Jacob or Beys Yankev; lit., House [of] Jacob) is a genericized name for full-time Haredi Jewish elementary and secondary schools for girls throughout the world.

Bais Yaakov, started by Sarah Schenirer in post-World War I Kraków, was at the time a revolutionary approach to Jewish women's education. It has since achieved mainstream status within Orthodox Judaism, with branches located worldwide in every Jewish community with a significant population.

While many of these schools carry the Bais Yaakov name, they are not necessarily affiliated, though they may be for other reasons.

History
The Bais Yaakov movement was started by seamstress Sarah Schenirer in 1917 in Kraków, Poland. The first school building survives as apartments, and is marked with a bronze plaque.

While boys attended cheder and Talmud Torah schools (and in some cases yeshivas), at that time, there was no formalized system of Jewish education for girls and young Jewish women.

Schenirer saw that there was a high rate of assimilation among girls due to the vast secular influences of the non-Jewish schools that the girls were then attending. Sarah Schenirer concluded that only providing young Jewish women with a thorough, school-based Jewish education would effectively combat this phenomenon. She started a school of her own, trained other women to teach, and set up similar schools in other cities throughout Europe.

She obtained the approval of Yisrael Meir Kagan (author of Chofetz Chaim), who issued a responsum holding that contemporary conditions required departing from traditional prohibitions on teaching women Torah and accepting the view that it was permitted. Following the Chofetz Chaim's approbation, the Bais Yaakov Movement in Poland was taken under the wing of Agudath Israel. Additionally, Schenirer sought and received approbation from Hasidic rabbis as well, most notably the Belzer Rebbe and the Gerrer Rebbe. Judith Grunfeld was persuaded to assist Schenirer. The original Bais Yaakov was a seminary of sorts, intended to train girls to themselves become teachers and spread the Bais Yaakov movement. Grunfeld would lead the seminary from 1924 to 1929.

Girls who were taught in the Bais Yaakov movement used their education as psychological support to survive World War II and the Holocaust.

Besides elementary and high schools, there are also post-secondary schools in the Bais Yaakov system, usually referred to as "seminaries". These run various courses, generally lasting between one and three years.

Etymology
The name Bais Yaakov comes from a verse in the Book of Exodus in which the expression "House of Jacob" is understood by Jewish commentaries on the Bible to refer to the female segment of the Jewish nation: Moses is instructed to "say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel", where the parallel expressions are interpreted as referring respectively to the female and male segments.

Educational approach
The educational policies of most Bais Yaakov schools worldwide is generally that of Haredi Judaism and the Agudath Israel movement. In accordance with the differences between the Israeli and Diaspora Haredi communities, there are slight variations in outlook and philosophy between Israeli, American, and European Bais Yaakov schools. Israeli Bais Yaakov schools tend to de-emphasize the secular content of the curriculum, whereas in North America and Europe, the girls frequently receive a more diverse secular education. Large cities may have several Bais Yaakov schools, each with small variations in philosophy, typically over the importance placed on secular studies and/or accommodations made to secular values.

Students are required to uphold a dress code or wear uniforms which conform to the rules of tznius (modesty). Uniforms differ from school to school, but typically consist of a long pleated skirt, oxford shirt, and sweater or sweatshirt.

The schools' primary purpose is to prepare students to be contributors to family and community, as good Jews, wives, professionals, and mothers.

Secular studies sometimes reflect government proficiency requirements in such subjects as math, science, literature, and history in their respective countries.

Curriculum
Most non-Hasidic Bais Yaakov schools in America teach Judaic studies in the mornings and a college preparatory program of secular studies in the afternoons. Judaic studies usually include study of Chumash (Pentateuch), Nevi'im (Prophets), and other parts of the Hebrew Bible; and instruction in the Hebrew language, in Jewish history, and the study of practical halakha (Jewish law), sometimes directly from the text, and other times as a summary of classic halakha sources.

One of the tenets of Orthodox Judaism is that it is impossible to fully understand the written Torah without the Jewish commentaries; so, Bais Yaakov girls are taught the Tanakh through this approach. A major focus is on Rashi, considered the foremost Torah commentator.

The curriculum of Bais Yaakov differs from that of male-only yeshivas, where the core component of study is the Talmud. Girls in Bais Yaakov schools do not typically learn law from the text of the Talmud itself, but may study its non-legal portions of aggadah (homiletics). This contrasts with the approach of many Modern Orthodox Jewish day schools, which increasingly teach Talmud to women.

Locations
Branches exist in most North American cities with large populations of Orthodox Jews, including New York City, Boston, Montreal, Miami, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, St. Louis, Toronto, Lakewood, Passaic, Monsey.

Bais Yaakov-type schools exist in most Israeli cities, and are also found in major Jewish centers in Europe, such as London, Manchester, Antwerp, Paris, Aix-les-Bains and Moscow, and in several other Jewish centers around the world, including Johannesburg, Buenos Aires, São Paulo and Melbourne.

Pre-war locations included over 260 towns and cities in Poland, with its central teachers' seminary in Kraków.

Hasidic schools
Schools for girls within the Hasidic world generally share much of the same values, outlook, methodology, and aims of the non-Hasidic Haredi schools. However, they may place a greater emphasis on the teachings of their individual Hasidic Rebbes, and the instruction of religious subjects may be conducted in Yiddish, which is still the home language for most Hasidic families in New York today.

In Israel, nearly all of the Haredi schools for girls operate within one of three educational systems; these schools utilize the Israeli Ministry of Education's core curriculum, and most take the requisite Bagrut high school matriculation exams.

Schools for young Hasidic girls which are not part of the Bais Yaakov movement take names such as: These schools (excepting Chabad) follow a different curriculum of Judaic studies, which is less text-based, and more focused on practical knowledge, than the curriculum in other schools. Within their communities, these schools are usually referred to as offering education al pi taharas kodesh, roughly translating as "holy, pure education".
 * Bais Rivkah, Bnos Menachem, Bnos Rabbeinu, Bais Chaya Mushka, or Bais Chana for the Chabad Lubavitch girls' schools.
 * Bnos Zion for the Bobov girls' schools.
 * Bnos Belz or Beis Malka for Belz girls' schools.
 * Bnos Vizhnitz for Vizhnitz girls' schools.
 * Bnos Frima for Munkacs
 * Beis Rochel schools for girls of the Satmar community, as well as some girls' schools of related Hasidic groups (often of Hungarian background).
 * Bnos Yaakov or Bnos Esther for Puppa Hasidim

Several Hasidic groups, also, extend their program to the "Seminary" level, where women train for two years to certify as teachers, in parallel with further Torah study.

title: Bais Yaakov


text:
User:Mazur

Mazur z Mazur ;-)

title: User:Mazur


text:
Talk:Media Research Center

Old comments
I'm wondering about how (or if) to include the MRC's self-described mission and history. That seems perhaps more relevant than a legal action in which they were involved. "'The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)'"

My concern is this - when a determined group of people have an end in mind which they intend to prove, even the best scientists have a way of making sure that is what they prove. It's called "experimentor bias" in the social sciences. The MRC is high profile and I'm sure believe that their findings are evenly balanced, but with a pre-determined assertion, finding evidence to back it up is usually not hard.

I'm not advocating discrediting this organization (that would be POV in the extreme), just including facts about their mission and funding - it's important and pertinent information which any person should know before taking as fact the findings of any organization. I would welcome thoughts and comments on the matter. --ABQCat 00:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dear sir. Please don't edit my edits based on npov without providing under which auspice you are referring to.  The NPOV neutral language as I've read states that factual information is not subject to POV.  The above quote is factual(also it's from their own site) and does not violate NPOV.  The edit I made was directly from the meta description of MRC website and it's been clearly recognized by most major news that MRC is a conservative group. --dis- 13:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

funding
In this edit, the words
 * funded almost entirely by Richard Mellon Scaife

were removed. Why? If the information is correct, it should be in the article. If not, it would still be desirable to have a true description of its financial sources. regards, High on a tree 03:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

about
The about media research center information should be included. However I already added their meta name=description from their website. Though I do think their "about us" is more appropriate.

+_+_+_+_

I'm quite disappointed. This entry has obviously been written by someone who does not like this organization. I personally have made a number of small adjustments, including making the language more neutral. I have also added examples of typical content that MRC produces. Someone has erased them twice. The person who wrote this entry has totally focused on negativity ("Controversies," "Criticisms") without giving any examples of typical MRC content. The writer has not been fair to MRC. This is a good example of why Wikipedia is building a reputation as a source which has an anti-conservative, pro-liberal bias. Fair and honest changes are made, and then they are erased. That is not cool. (1-13-07) 71.107.222.197 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

 * 1-15-07 - I have re-formatted this entry so it is less biased. The entry now contains "examples of content" AND "controversies" and "criticisms." I also changed the biased language of the opener so its language is neutral. 71.107.222.197 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * 2012-09-11 Coming very late to the game, incensed by heavy and biased MRC advertising...
 * Shouldn't the claim above that Wikpedia is "building a reputation" be ... founded in the real world and be supported by citations? Or at least re-worded to "getting a reputation"?
 * Repeated unfair edit deletions are referred to as Edit warring — there are specific steps to follow in that case.
 * — Mwr0 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NewsBusters description
Simply in the interest of an accurate description of NewsBusters, is it important to include in that section of the article mention of how on NewsBusters' own 'About' section on their site, they repeatedly refer to the media as having a liberal bias?

"Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield of Dialog New Media, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting." - http://newsbusters.org/about

I'm just thinking that with that on the site's own 'About' section, that it would be important to include in a description: their belief that the media has a 'liberal media bias' whether it be factual or not. Lettersandpackages (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MMFA
I do not understand why a link to Media Matters is offered on this page. Whoever posted the link needs to offer an explanation beside the link telling readers why its there and what its purpose is. Otherwise, I may delete. Please advise.

 * It is an organization which provides a similar function from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Gamaliel 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I realize that. However, I do not think that a link to an organization dedicated to the opposite cause of the original organization being discussed is needed. Perhaps it would be more fitting if someone created a "Criticisms" section of this page that included a few of the criticisms that MMFA has offered on their website. Until then, I do not think that it is helpful. Until someone creates a criticisms section including MMFA critiques, I think it will be best for me to delete the link.

It would be a very sad day when they deleted any chance for the Americans to question the right wing conservative control of the media. This site is far worse even than Fox News with its constant one side attacks of clinton and any liberal candidates, Ie. Gore, Obama, etc. They even attack science just as the White House would not allow scientists to publish their knowledge of global warming.

"However, to this day, the MRC continues to promote the idea that the WWE holds a liberal media bias."
Needless to say, I think someone else put this up for humor. While very funny, I think it needs to go. Any others seeing something in it that I'm not?

 * Where's your signature? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

someone rip into this please
http://newsbusters.org/node/3465

 * Why? Is Wikipedia a liberal blog or is it presenting the FACTS on the MRC and Newsbusters? Equinox137 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * MRC and Newsbusters are good at exposing Democrats, but they always turn a blind eye when Republicans screw up and when it's time to expose them. That's why it's worth mentioning in the article. Ericster08 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please ...
I have re-written this entry so it is less biased. The entry had obviously been written by someone who has a bias against MRC. I have changed the biased language of the opening line. I have also added "examples of content," yet "controversies" and "criticisms" still remain. Wikipedia needs to be more neutral in its content of conservative voices. Very sadly, Wiki is building a reputation as a source of liberally slanted information. The previous MRC entry was a good example of that. Thank you. I appreciate any feedback. HonestAndFair 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Newsbusters.org generally only allows neoconservatives to leave their comments. They will not be satisfied until they totally control the media.

Here is a typical comment left by homophobic neoconservatives that has nothing to do with global warming but their hatred and fear(disguised by insults) of Al Gore:

" February 26, 2007 - 22:56 Thanks for reminding me about this, Schmidt...... I heard from Brother Rhayes the other day. He had just received his marching orders from Pat Robertson and was heading out to East LA to preach the Word and drive the demons from the Vampires when he told me something profound.  He said that he was profoundly mistaken about the "neocons." He also, for the first time, was being counseled by Brother Pat in private about his affinity for "other men."  I told him that I couldn't relate to that, but that I was happy that he was facing his sin head on with Brother Pat.  Rhayes also confessed to me that he found Al Gore "hot" and that he knew that was wrong and wanted the forgiveness of the Lord.  Rhayes told me that he struggled with "Gore's sexiness".  He felt really bad.  I reminded Rhayes that he was pathetic in terms of his worldview.  He told me that he's "trying" to change. I'm glad. BTW, he told me that Jesus Camp was tool of Satan

If a so called liberal (disagrees with Bush's neocon philosophy) would make the same gay slur, they would be banned. This site has a double standard in regards to media. They feel that the truth or facts is liberal bias.

"It has also accused Wikipedia of a liberal bias, and claims that it "habitually delivers unflattering content about conservative media figures while giving liberals a much lighter treatment." Dave Pierre of the MRC has claimed that the Wikipedia article on the Media Research Center is slanted against their organization. [3]"

If anyone checks out newsbusters, which has recently been removed from wickipedia (fear of unflattering comments?(facts), you will find that any time anyone criticizes the neocon philosophy of the site, the blogger is banned. Neocons have a tendency to spin any fact about our present administration to the way they want it to sound. A prime example is Fox news. This organization hates the term neoconservative, and so now recently since the label has come into vogue with much of the country, the term might soon be also deleted from wickipedia. I worry about the constant intimidation of journalists from this very right wing organization that won't be happy until they have full control of the media the way Russia did in the past and still does.

They wrote the book on banning users who post comments with opposing views. They are also classic spin artists with a total disregard for honesty.

"My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here’s full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney’s complaints. In the Goldberg article’s history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)" This is from Brent Bozell in Newsbusters threatening intimidation of anyone that puts out facts they don't want us to see!

now these neocons want to intimidate the blogosphere with lawsuits and they whine about the liberal media. they wont be happy until they totally control all info like did in communist russis!

This entire entry should read - Like media matters but without the factual content, the MRC was formed to prove that Rosie O'donnel leans to the left, and that Jerry Falwell was a kind old soul. Any conservative who reads this site should be offended that the left has an effective report like Media Matters and the right has this joke of a website. 68.12.224.100 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"HonestAndFair", you seem to fall prey to the same type of thinking that MRC itself is based upon: assuming that just because a statement or report is critical of them or otherwise reflects negatively upon their positions, it must be bias. This type of thinking ignores an essential point: sometimes an accurate reporting of the facts will reflect negatively on a person, group, and/or ideological position. That's not a sign of bias, it's a sign of that person, group, and/or ideological position being wrong. — Red XIV (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Per Rhino7628's request, I am discussing on talk before reverting this edit by that user (even though they did not feel compelled to discuss on talk before making the original change). I'm reverting one more time (actually someone else has done it already) because the intro as rewritten by Rhino is no good. If that user wants to move the label "conservative" out of the first sentence so be it. But the rewritten version reads like an advert for the group (and also trails off before finishing the thought). Background info about conservative leaders believing the media has a liberal bias does not belong in the intro. Comments like "young determined conservatives" and "acclaimed" (though the thought is not finished there) are not NPOV and do not belong here. The idea that the MRC does "scientific research" is absurd (just as the idea that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting does scientific research would be absurd--these are media watchdog groups who watch the media). Anyhow another user has reverted already but here's an explanation to Rhino for what it's worth.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Since you have made it clear that you are going to oppose any suggestion by myself or anyone else on these boards whose opinion differs from yours, I'm going to rely on you to suggest a compromise. Please suggest.  I am awaiting your reply.  If you have not compromise to suggest, then please stop reverting my edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wildly mischaracterizing my view. I explained above why your changes do not work. You are just as capable of suggesting a compromise as I am--this is not my burden. You are the only person pushing this right now and several other people (not just me) are reverting you. The intro as you have rewritten it is just bad writing (again, you don't finish your sentence) and not NPOV so I am reverting it again. I believe you have also now violated WP:3RR. Thanks for coming to the talk page though, whereas before you were demanding that everyone else discuss on talk whilst you reverted as much as you pleased.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I have tried once, twice, multiple times to give you the chance to sound objective, but you obviously cannot. This is no longer worth my time.  Enjoy your one-sided views in peace.  You have the option to prove to me otherwise by editing the intro., but we all know that will never happen.  Peace out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino7628 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro should note its status as a "501(c)(3) non-profit organization". 151.203.224.233 (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Jax

Rachel Maddow Lesbian
Text that has been deleted by TheRedPeacock on the ground of WP:RS

 * However, over the network's decision to add Rachel Maddow as primetime host, Tim Graham appeared on the Fox News Channel morning show Fox and Friends to criticize the decision, calling Maddow "this lesbian Air America radio host".

I believe this material should be re-added to the article, and anyone clicking the link can clearly see that the information is reliable. MMFA is partisan in the editorializing and whom they chose to cover, but the clips and quotes they take are WP:RS. We shouldn't rely on MMFA to characterize the MRC, but it is appropriate to use MMFA as a source for a quotation used in the article. Also user:theredpeacock templated me with a NPOV warning, so he might also have a NPOV concern, although he has not articulated his concern over that on this page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters not a reliable source?
This is quite interesting. One User:Chris Chittleborough has been deleting a reference to this article by Media Matters for America, "MRC studies that "prove" media's "liberal bias" collapse under scrutiny." CC has said about MMFA: "none of their attacks on conservatives are encyclopedic," and "MMFA is a propaganda project, not a Reliable Source." So why does MMFA have to go but not FAIR? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like drive-by removal of information that CC doesn't like. As the source is used for a differing viewpoint, and not a sourced statement of fact, I don't see any reason to remove it based on WP:RS. Dayewalker (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It's repeated, systematic removal of "information" that does not belong in the article by Wikipedia's rules.
 * Remember that the everything MRC does — including almost every post at Newsbusters — harms the basic mission of MMFA. There are statements by WikiNotable conservative bloggers describing MMFA as a malicious, dishonest propaganda operation. Would it be OK for me to put their viewpoint in the article about MMFA? Then why is it OK to privilege MMFA in this article? (The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE.)
 * Maybe the (rather outdated) attacks from FAIR should be removed as well. I haven't looked closely at them. Cheers, CWC 10:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Both FAIR and MMfA material should be removed. From WP:RS:  "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."--Drrll (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See also section
I said above that I don't think Media Matters for America can be used as a source or a viewpoint in this article. However, I think they and other US media watchdog groups (notably FAIR) should be listed in the "See also" section, and I've just added them. Does anyone disagree? Perhaps more importantly, are there any other groups we should add? (PR Watch was already there, and quite rightly too.) Cheers, CWC 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that. Accuracy in Media should also be added.--Drrll (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've added it. I see we now have all 5 groups listed here (PR Watch being part of Center for Media and Democracy). Cheers, CWC 08:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference section edit
Not sure who, when or why, but the traditional "References" section was labeled as "Notes" and citations to assumedly uncited content were included there. I have removed those to the "See Also" section and re-ordered the sections to have the immediately after the article conclusion as is, I think, the Wikipedia norm? JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservative
Since I found no evidence of them referring to themselves as conservative I have removed that description of them in the opening sentence. Recognizing that at least one other source believes they are conservative I have added that to the lead with the aknowledgement that they do not self identify as conservative. I have said only that "some" believe they are conservative due to only one source being available. I feel these changes are completely fair, but if you must debate them feel free to comment below.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added nine sources, all from the past year, and could have added another nine hundred. Few organizations call themselves "conservative" or "liberal", regardless of how well those labels fit.   Will Beback    talk    04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please link to the articles that you found?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I can't - the archive is behind a firewall. Many libraries provide free access to their patrons. However in each of these cases the sources referred to the "conservative Media Research Center".   Will Beback    talk    04:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * While the other sources I added were all from the past 12 months, the characterization dates back at least to 1987, 23 years ago. Here's the excerpt:
 * "It has been a very sexy story in a dull campaign," said L. Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center. "But my guess is that it's going to disappear until or unless Hart actually claims a victory."
 * Helpful Attention and Unflattering Jokes Mark the Press's Reaction to Hart ANDREW ROSENTHAL, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Dec 21, 1987. pg. D.12
 * Like I say, there are hundreds of similar sources.   Will Beback    talk    04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You can probably just cut that down to 3 or 4 sources since you're overcrowding the lead, but try to make at least 2 of them accessible online(which shouldn't be hard to do if they're called that everywhere). Other than that I'm fine with everything here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post piece is probably available online- they tend to keep their stuff online for a long time. Feel free to search for them and add them if you think that's necessary. I'll consolidate the refs.   Will Beback    talk    04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a neat trick of yours. I don't really know how to enter in a link from the Washington Post article however(I'm a little lost in your citation) but it's probably fine anyway. I was just told before that I needed to cite references you can see online.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't take credit for it. Template:cite news. Some of these newspapers have archives that allow you to pay $5 or some similar fee to see an old article. The New York Times has an archive that goes back to the 1800s. The also make some available for free. However it is not strictly necessary to use sources that can be linked. Books, for example, are fine to use, even if Google Books hasn't gotten to them yet. However as a matter of etiquette and practicality, editors usually provide excerpts of hard-to-find materials on request.   Will Beback    talk    06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is conservative, it is called conservative, and it itself says it is conservative. No sane person can honestly dispute that is should simply be labeled conservative. The organization itself claims to be conservertive - a tool for the conservative movement: http://mrc.org/about/ This reference was removed with an edit summary that falsely said that it did not support the label 'conservative'. This type of ridiculous, disruptive, childish and petty editing is a real danger to the Wikipedia project. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, what quote from the page(which I am getting tired of re-looking at trying to see if I've missed something) does the organization call itself conservative or a "tool of the conservative movement"?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * What I saw on that page is that MRC was founded by conservatives for conservatives. Anyway, is this still a dispute? We have literally hundreds of sources that call it "conservative" and so far no one has suggested any other characterization or disputed they are conservative. It seems like a settled point, but if someone has a new source or evidence that would be interesting.   Will Beback    talk    02:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I disagree agree with proposal that we declare a group a conservative or liberal group based on what others call them. It has always been the policy of Wikipedia(as far as I know) that we label groups what they refer to themselves as. It's perfectly fine to let it be known what everybody views them as, but it's a slippery slope if we start labeling groups partisan just because you can have sources other than them alleging them as partisan. For instance we could just outright label Fox and MSNBC a conservative and liberal news channel with plenty of sources to back it up, but it's not what they refer to themselves as, so I don't want to start this practice of labeling groups based on what others see them as. To take this further I could note that could label Mel Gibson an anti-Semitic. I don't think anybody would disagree with that, and there are plenty of sources to back it up, but if he doesn't refer to himself as an anti-Semitic then would shouldn't either.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

conservative (part 2)
per the above discussion, its silly not to note that MRC is a conservative organization.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Per my original argument. It is the standard practice of Wikipedia to refer to organizations by what they refer to as themselves. Many sources call Fox and MSNBC conservative and liberal, but we do not refer to them as that because they do not self-refer to themselves as that. In a non-political sense, Mel Gibson doesn't refer to himself as being an anti-Semitic yet plenty of sources do, per our standard practice then we do not refer to Mel Gibson as an anti-Semitic but instead report that other sources do.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We would not refer to the Nazi party as a "loving organization" if they referred to themselves that way. That's silly.  We don't parrot self-published descriptions, this comes up all the time in BLPs.  Glenn Beck is described a a conservative, for example, regardless of his personal descriptions.  Here, reliable sources repeatedly describe MRC as a conservative organization (e.g., Christian Science Monitor just yesterday), so its disingenuous to remove.  What's your MRC connection?--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Glenn Beck does describe himself as a conservative, but I'm glad you brought up that point. Bill O'Reilly doesn't consider himself as conservative and his article doesn't refer to him as conservative either. Try finding me an example however where we don't refer to an organization as they describe themselves or say something like they self describe themselves as "insert self-describing material".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you find me a rule that says "it is the standard practice of Wikipedia to refer to organizations by what they refer to as themselves." Moveon.org's "about us" page doesn't use the word "liberal", but its wiki article does.  And please answer my prior question.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then Moveon.org's page should be changed and I would be willing to go there and support that. As for your "prior question" do you mean this? What's your MRC connection? To be honest I didn't even notice that for some reason, but now that you mention it don't you think that is a little paranoid/ and or offensive to suggest that someone's argument is not based on logic but rather some personal POV? You have still not answered my questions.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, the MRC about us page uses the word "conservative" 7 times.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Media Matters uses the word conservative plenty of times. What is your point?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re your comment about my question, I am not assuming bad faith, I am simply asking a question.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 20:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"What's your MRC connection?" is not just a question. It is a statement that I have a connection. Quit lying to everyone.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To purpose of the question is to get you to say either that you have a connection or you don't. Your history of edits caused me some concern.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * And now you take word "conservative" out of the article without showing any wikipedia policy supporting your edit? This is disturbing.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's evaluate your claims.

 * 1) I want to remove the word conservative from their article. Then why do I support this sentence in the lead paragraph? "MRC is widely called "conservative"."
 * 2) I have a troubling edit history? Like these two edits?,.
 * Do you have any more baseless smears to level against me?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a silly guideline to identify groups by how they self-identify rather than by reliable sources, but in this case, the MRC does self-identify as conservative, as well as reliable sources identifying them as conservative. Drrll (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But they don't self identify.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I believe your claim on that, but it doesn't really matter, because we have no guideline that requires us to use a group's self-identification to describe it.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just mention that it does not self-identify as conservative? Anything else on top of that I am fine with.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MRC's own website uses that description for google searches!! Look at this page, Bret Bozell's bio at MRC, the metadata used (which is what pops up in your search results when you search google for ("media research center" and conservative) as the 2nd hit, is: "Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media." That is MRC's self description used for google!!  News reports have noted that self-description in the past.e.g.,,  (behind a pay wall, but it says group describes itself with that quote).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if they used to describe themselves as conservative and they haven't outright stated a change then I'm fine with referring to them as conservative.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Description of founding either very misleading OR pure trivia
I've got a real problem with this pair of sentences.
 * <B>Bozell and a group of other young conservatives founded the MRC on October 1, 1987, with only themselves, a black-and-white television set, and rented computer at their headquarters. Their initial budget was at US$339,000.</B>

The <U>1st</U> sentence characterizes MRC as starting on a shoestring budget, just a few (non-salaried?) guys and some outdated and rented equipment. <BR>But the <U>2nd</U> sentence belies that. It implies that for some reason, even with lots of funding, they <U>chose</U> to open shop with "only...", which makes it sort of nostalgic trivia (encyclopedic in terms of providing exhaustive information, but not encyclopedic, since it's not a properly characterizing summary). <BR>— Mwr0 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy between description of Media Matters and the MRC.
The introduction of the Media Matters for America article states that it "is a politically progressive media watchdog group". Why does the same introduction not exist for MRC? I have adjusted the introductory sentence of the MRC article to mirror the style of the MMfA article. Krjcheck (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What happens in one article has no bearing on what happens in another. Edits should be made on individual merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

NewsBusters
Given the descriptive subtitle ("exposing Liberal Media bias"), does this mean that they ignore conservative media bias? 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Media Research Center. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C973551%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C973551%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128190044/http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV - no criticism in the lead
Someone want to fix this? Doug Weller talk 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try by following infobox template guidelines and updating the "mission" per the source. (Alas....) The article/lede does need to reconcile the 2 mission statements and give a NPOV lede as you point out.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm - I only added 'american' 'nonprofit' as the two more prominent things out of the cite. Thats consistent with Charity Navigator.  But I'm not seeing a lot in Google or prominently so ...  Media Bias Factcheck doesn't seem thrilled with them and Sourcewatch mentions some criticism... nothing worth headlines or obviously DUE.  I think leave it at 'politically conservative' and the words they have or mission statement is clear enough on what it is and there just are no seperate things of much note.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Confused That depends whether your applied definition for “...of much note” matches what's-laid-out not in WP:NOTABLE but WP:LEAD. Are you somehow implying that external criticism is the daily-business with every single “politically conservative” pressure-group that exists? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media Research Center. 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/20090315015903/http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL380.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/hl380.cfm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Media Research Center. 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/20090125051345/http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/mediawatch/welcome.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/mediawatch/welcome.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317124054/http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasalert/archive.aspx to http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasalert/archive.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619161123/http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/noyes/noyesbio.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/noyes/noyesbio.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815010821/http://newsbusters.org/people/political-figures/george-soros to http://newsbusters.org/people/political-figures/george-soros
 * Added tag to http://www.eyeblast.tv/site/about
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516235809/http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2002/sum/exec20020509.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2002/sum/exec20020509.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704125813/http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2001/sum/kyoto01.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2001/sum/kyoto01.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.timeswatch.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On the climate change passage in "Viewpoints" section, specifically
To "@Snooganssnoogans, "Calton" and every other harmonious account( not necessarily an editor) who might come across this: Can either of you bother to explain your contentions exhaustively? I did my Best[ to rationalise my contribution] in the limited constraints allowed me to. But to be frank, given my prior accumulated experience on[ English] Wikipedia®, all the patterns were followed upon so I saw this one coming that my edit will be inexplicably reverted by a familiar senior( i.e. one with greater WP:UAL) but disappointed to see that the former has engaged in absolutely-unjust reversion via WP:TWINKLE without even bothering for a single letter. 'So I had already planned to create a talk-page discussion[ once my anticipations were borne-out]. But then they had to send me a fully-boilerplate warning-shot'' filled with intimidating phraseology. So please, will either of you try your Best to explain yourself, or in this courtroom..''' —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Edit Note: Fixed the factual-error about the application of WP:TW. Got it confused with other cases. Some[ unilateral] WP:CLEANUP for formatting, as well. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No comment on anything except to point out that all accounts or IP addresses are editors. Doug Weller  talk 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Sorry? Is that some-sort of "correction"? I'm afraid to say there is lack of sufficient context for me to infer whether you're "correcting" me[ so that my terminology may apply more broadly].( Unless you expect me to deduce it, which might as well be prejudicial — given this is not the universe of "Sherlock Holmes".) Or was that not even directly-addressed to me but it's some idiosyncratic practice you engage in, and the alignment is perhaps more for the formatting-reasons than to denote a ‘reply’?( No judgment, seriously.) —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit Note: Fixed the typo[ causing accidental-palilogy]. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be about the difference between two formulations: versus
 * frequently criticizes media coverage on the science of climate change (which suggests that the science is a real thing, as it is)
 * frequently criticizes media coverage favoring the science of climate change (which might suggest, incorrectly, that media coverage is taking sides in an un-settled scientific debate).

The first formulation is clearly superior. However, having read the references, I wonder if there's a better one that more clearly describes what is actually being done, perhaps "frequently criticizes media reports for discussing the relevance of climate change to current extreme weather events"? Hunc (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, with additional-reply: First of all, Thanks for your initiative.
 * And to clarify, the addition of verb ‘favouring’ was merely to denote that the subject clearly cherry-picks ONLY that media-coverage to criticise, which does reflect the scientific-consensus on the Accelerated Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming. Or are we to pretend that the RW media proudly engaged in such editorial-worldview doesn't cover stories/topics related to climate crisis or because their positions are antithetical to the scientific-consensus( obviously whilst engaging in pretentious-obtuseness over semantics in a bad-faith haranguing), they don't constitute as ‘media coverage’ altogether because thay're not "real press"?( To wit, the RW has reported on erratic weather changes and keeps doing so, but ONLY to twist-&-turn and deny it through their mental-gymnastics that it has anything correlative to human-activities.) Because that would be taking Scientism( or more dispassionately, authority bias) to the extreme and last time I checked, Wikipedia®'s neutral editing policy( i.e. mostly-misinterpreted WP:NPOV) didn't advocate for glossing over established/mainstream institutions' amplification of pseudoscience. Otherwise, we would would've to scrub over every single article which contained citations to contemporaneous press-sources with favorable coverage to scientific racism — even though it was indisputably a scientific-consensus well until the early preceding-century all Thanks to socio-politically clouded HUMANS who happened to dominate the field of sciences at the time — as well, no? And hence, before answering your query about the change — let's get this over with: Does this clarification suffice? Or shall I..? –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit Note: Fixed the link to the "Scientific racism" wiki-entry. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's as clear as it's going to get, thank you. We now have a comment that accurately reflects what the source says. Hunc (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Yep! I have seen that the closest left-to-right ordered citation is merely an AP® [news]wire reporting to the likes of "DJTJ" mocking CNN®'s Mr Anderson Cooper whereas the subject apparently continuing their classical narrative of the "studio-actors being politicos" and "field reporters being ( what's-that-word? Errmmm.. Ha!) "crisis aCToRs"." So yeah, for me: the wording is clearly better than the one which might lead any potential press-friendly visitor to object on discounting the role of RW press in such stories.
 * But let we be clear: I was merely challenging your presupposed-conclusion that I was referring to the domain of scientific-consensus and thusly, judging which one is "superior" revision. I won't compel you to judge in the light of absorbing that information, "whose is better": But from my experience on this platform, I've to confirm that you sufficiently got my point. Isn't it the least I could expect? –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I have sufficiently got your point. Hunc (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Culture and Media Institute into Media Research Center
Culture and Media Institute fails WP:NCORP for a standalone article and should be merged into Media Research Center (MRC). The article is sourced with primary or non-RS sources: from its own website, from its 'parent company' MRC (which is a generally unreliable source per RSP), or from The Washington Times which is only marginally reliable on RSP.

Culture and Media Institute doesn't appear to be a separate organization from MRC. It's domain name cultureandmediainstitute.org now is redirecting to the NewsBusters' website, another project of MRC's. A search on newsbusters.org for "Culture and Media Institute" doesn't bring up anything to indicate it is a separate organization from NewsBusters or MRC, and the earliest use of the term calls it "MRC's Culture and Media Institute". References to "Culture and Media Institute" on newsbusters.org ended seven years ago. This seems to indicate that MRC has 'retired' the CMI name/project and rolled it into NewsBusters.

Per WP:NPRODUCT, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Neither article is so large that a merging of content would make the target article 'unwieldy'. Also, since MRC is considered generally unreliable within Wikipedia, it would be best to put this content and any necessary mrc.org citations into the Media Research Center article where "[t]he source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions," per WP:GUNREL. Platonk (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merge. The current CMI article will fit neatly as a section in MRC without making the article excessively long. CMI lacks sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. A redirect will get readers to the proper location, and having it in the larger MRC article will provide useful context for CMI's activities. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:BB.  WP:BLAR.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed misleading and POV info about "sponsoring" Heartland conference
At first glance, this seems merely extraneous: "In 2017, MRC sponsored a conference by the Heartland Institute, a climate change denial organization known for its effort to cast doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change."

Trivial and heavy-handed, not to mention tautological. But the truth is worse: it also misrepresents the sole source, which states only (in paragraph 27 of 39) that: "Several organizations that have received funding from the Mercer foundation helped sponsor the Heartland conference, including the Media Research Center, the Heritage Foundation and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a small group based in Bellevue, Wash…" (and an archive of the linked page reveals 9 listed sponsors, with no indication of their contributions).

Why does our article rather suspiciously neglect to mention the reason WaPo included the MRC at all : that both MRC and Heartland are funded by the Mercers? Almost certainly because it's entirely unsurprising that the Mercer-funded MRC would be listed as a sponsor of the Mercer-funded Heartland Institute, and because the Mercer family's funding is already well-covered in the article.

Frankly, that stinks: Wikipedia makes it seem as if MRC is bankrolling "a climate change denial organization known for its effort to cast doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change" (seriously?)—yet misrepresents the real relationship by studiously omitting the obvious connection (and the sole reason the cited source mentions MRC at all). I've removed what can only be described as pointless trivia, especially as it's inclusion was an ham-fisted attempt to tar the MRC, in a manner unbefitting an encylopedia. I think—and sincerely hope—we can do better. ElleTheBelle 22:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 * My above-described edit was reverted by a user who has repeatedly reverted my editing without explanation, then failed to respond on Talk pages or otherwise follow up per WP:REV guidelines. After being asked for an explanation regarding yet another unexplained edit, the user reverted with the following explanation: "Restore RS content. on the talk page, the editor claims that it's obvious that the MRC would sponsor a Heartland conference. it's not clearly obvious. it informs readers of the close relationship between mrc and heartland."
 * That's a completely bogus encapsulation of my above summary. What I wrote was that:
 * "a climate change denial organization known for its effort to cast doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change" is tautalogical and thus redundant—is there another sort of "climate change denial organization", whatever that may be?
 * The source may be reliable, but Wiki fails to accurately represent the source, which says, in effect: Several Mercer-funded organizations, among them MRC, helped sponsor the conference of another Mercer-funded organization, the Heartland Institute, which is known for its skeptical views of some climate science.
 * The RS says that: Along with several other Mercer-funded orgs, MRC was a funder of a single Heartland conference.
 * In response, the editor who reverted claims the reverted Wiki article "informs readers of the close relationship between mrc and heartland"—except that, if anything, it does the precise opposite. It hides the real "close relationship", which is Mercer funding, and mentions no "close relationship" between the organizations. Instead, it it simply says that MRC "sponsored" a Heartland conference, then goes on to redundantly tar Heartland. This tells us next to nothing about MRC, and if anything obscures the actual close relationship.
 * Either the editor who keeps reverting me hasn't read the article or the RS, or he's unable to comprehend what the latter actually says. My belief, based on the fact that the only "close relationship" mentioned (Mercer financing) is omitted from the Wiki article, is that this unchronologically placed and tendentious omission and misrepresentation of what the RS actually says, is simply an attempt to imply "guilt by association" by linking a media-watchdog group to a climate-skeptic group.
 * Indeed, the Wiki paragraph is a perfect example of the very worst sort of blatantly POV WP:OR: By flatly misrepresenting and omitting the relevant parts from a cherry-picked RS, the Wiki article falsely implies that the RS suggests a link between Heartland and MRC (climate denialism—which it doesn't), to advance an OR thesis unsupported by the RS—that MRC are "climate denialists"—when in fact the RS clearly states only one link: their funding. MRC is only mentioned as one of "several organizations that have received funding from the Mercer foundation helped sponsor [a single] Heartland conference". And Heartland doesn't even belong in this article—unless as a list of other Mercer-funded orgs in the funding section.
 * But I'll AGF, and will accurately report on what the article actually says—and leave it to others to decide if it merits inclusion.
 * Thanks in advance for all GF input! ElleTheBelle 04:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I have nothing against saying that MRC and Heartland both get funding from Mercer. What your edit did was to remove any and all mention of the relationship between MRC and Heartland. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "climate change denial" descriptor in Special:Diff/1081103980, since it was redundant to "known for its effort to cast doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change". However, the sentence is supported by a reliable source and is due in the article. If entity A funds entity B, and entity A funds entity C, that does not imply that entity B funds entity C. The fact that entity B has funded entity C is a separate statement that is not redundant to the other statements. Therefore, the removal of the entire sentence at Special:Diff/1078895435 was inappropriate. —  Newslinger  talk   10:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Media Research Center


text:
Talk:Ground-level ozone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nnokeudo, Alexa.zabaske.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Introduction
I have deleted "key" from "Ozone (O3) is a key constituent of the troposphere". Since the vast majority of tropospheric ozone is manmade it doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ground level and atmospheric
There should be a much clearer separation between ground level ozone and atmospheric ozone. 216.90.172.158 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Measurements specifically of ground-level ozone require in-situ monitoring with 2004 technology." This sentence needs clarification, what is meant by "2004" technology?
 * This has now been fixed

منىولاىوملاونلانتهخزمنزنىNHSavage|NHSavage]] 08:40, 6 March 2006 my b'day (UTC)

Perhaps something should be said about NO2 being produced in car engines as well and so the reaction can carry on from the step where NO2 is produced without any of the previous steps occurring. (I know what I have said is not clear that is why I have not edited) --Max Randor 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC) متىنتالبؤتر

Needs improvement
I believe the first three sections of this page could be significantly improved. An example is this paragraph:

"Photochemical and chemical reactions involving it drive many of the chemical processes that occur in the atmosphere by day and by night. At abnormally high concentrations brought about by human activities (largely incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, etc.), it is a pollutant, and a constituent of smog. Many highly energetic reactions produce it, ranging from combustion to photocopying. Often laser printers will have a smell of ozone[citation needed], which in high concentrations is toxic. Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent readily reacting with other chemical compounds to make many possibly toxic oxides."

It makes many unreferenced claims like "brought about by human activities (largely incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, etc." while depending on the situation this could be true NOx, one of the regulated criteria pollutants that is a ozone per-cursor, is a product of nearly complete combustion. The paragraph then says this: "Many highly energetic reactions produce it, ranging from combustion to photocopying" what is "it"? Is "it" photochemicals, chemical reactions, ozone? If "it" is ozone this statement is wrong, combustion does not directly produce ozone.

I would also question the need for this article, the ozone page contains much of the same information, is more accurate, and from my perspective more clearly written.

KingofPotatoes — Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can propose this by making use of Template:MergeTo and Template:MergeFrom NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tropospheric ozone. 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/20091211065544/http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050909162153/http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82790.pdf to http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82790.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527131558/http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf to http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropospheric ozone. 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/20050909162152/http://www.who.dk/document/e79097.pdf to http://www.who.dk/document/e79097.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ground-level ozone