Talk:Conservative Review

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Founding

Hi, new to wikipedia so I apologize for any breach to protocol for which I am unaware. But made edits to this page because the previous version was inaccurate. Please review the source information, and I can also speak definitively to the changes as I work for the company. The changes I made didnt change any opinions listed on the Wikipedia page but instead corrected inaccuracies on the timeline, the organizational structure, as well as the product offering. (user talk:gastonmooney)

Founded by a group of Washington conservative operatives (including Freedom Works' Deneen Borelli, Daniel Horowitz, formerly of the Madison Project, and former congressional staffers Gaston Mooney and Rachel Semmel) the Review has already built credibility with its intended audience: The ratings are integrated with the conservative website Brietbart.com, appearing automatically next to any elected official's name.

http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-conservative-review-dings-rubio-paul-first-presidential-report-card-1905625

For future reference. ~ MD Otley (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The group, called Conservative Review and launched in late September, is issuing the first of a series of its “To Catch A Parasite” reports today ...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/20/conservative-review-targets-seamy-conservative-political-orgs/

Timing and another product to look for. ~ MD Otley (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why their scorecard is harsher, they say on their website, is because it “grades members of Congress on the top 50 votes over the past six years.” The purpose behind it–and the other parts of their site, which will aggregate news from conservative and other sources as well have its own editorial staff–is to put the key votes, statements, actions, and everything else lawmakers are constantly graded on into perspective and context that’s often lost in Washington.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/09/28/conservative-political-operatives-form-new-conservative-review-mega-scorecard-member-rating-system/

Lots of other tidbits on org and what makes them different. ~ MD Otley (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CRTV

Anyone object to updating this compamy’s Article to reflect its currecnt syruxture? Prelogger (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to these changes? Before restructuring an article in this way, it must be moved. A useful how-to guide can be found at WP:MOVE. That said, the article title should generally reflect how the subject of the article is commonly referred to among reliable sources. Is Conservative Review now commonly known as CRTV, or is this really just a legal restructuring? One can make a rough assessment of this by running searches on Google News, which suggest that more news stories have been referring to Conservative Review in the last year than to CRTV. (Many Google News results are for unreliable sources so that makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions.) Perhaps more importantly, setting aside any legal restructuring, when sources refer to Conservative Review or CRTV, are they even referring to the same thing? The sources I saw that referred to CRTV seemed to be referring to the TV station, whereas the sources I saw that referred to Conservative Review were by and large referring to the website/blog. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CRTV LLC owns Conservative Review. The review part is a component part of CRTV LLC: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:a6mxdg.2.3

A move seems warranted, I will look into it Prelogger (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem hyper-focused on corporate structure (who owns what). Try focusing instead on how the independent reliable secondary sources treat these things (how they're described by the media). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The independent reliable sources covering the Steyn case are calling them CRTV, as did the Judge, as now does the NYSCEF. Prelogger (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Review August 5 2018

Hi, have been reading the discussion on the talk page. The missing context that Dr. Fleischman and Snooganssnoogans dont have is that CRTV LLC has four different products, one a website of articles and a scorecard called Conservative Review, a previous over-the-top video subscription service called LevinTV, which was later folded into the third product CRTV, an over-the-top video subscription service, and a variety of podcasts.

CRTV and Conservative Review are separate brands and different product offerings with different goals. The article as it stands currently conflates the two and I have to think leads to a self-reinforcing fallacy when reporters check wikipedia for background information only further propagating misinformation.

The current article states Mark Levin founded Conservative Review. That is not accurate. Mark Levin was the editor-in-cheif and signed on in 2015, a year after the CR site was launched. LevinTV was launched in March of 2016 by CRTV and the subscription service was later expanded into a CRTV branded subscription service with LevinTV becoming one of the shows.

This page would be more accurate if it was titled CRTV, described CRTV LLC, then referenced CRTV subscription service/hosts/product offering and relevant information and then detailed Conservative Review in a separate section. Also I apologize if I have broken any protocols as I am very new to Wikipedia but signed up because of becoming frustrated with inaccurate information on this page. Gaston Mooney

No Controversy Section?

The TV series, while still young, has already been caught in major breaches of professional interest For example, the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJJuo42woE

They are being presented in this article as a news station, which seems to violate NPOV, and the controversial nature of their station is being whitewashed in this article.104.255.16.247 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed, in addition to no consensus as to what would be done with the disambiguation page or what disambiguator would be applied to the proposed title were a consensus in favor of a change to exist. Dekimasuよ! 20:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Review → CRTV – Both names used in past, now only one. Recognized as such in court and in media Prelogger (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'CRTV' is not available for this use because there is currently a DAB page at CRTV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Request based on a faulty premise. There are lots and lots of very recent reliable sources talking about the Conservative Review rather than CRTV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first 6 of those results (7 was a lengthy transcript so I stopped reading) all call it CRTV. Only one mentioned “Conservative Review” independently in the intro, and they go on to call it CRTV through the rest of the article. Prelogger (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was the wrong link; it was a list of news sources that used both names. I fixed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting, have to point out: of these corrected sources 3 out of the first 4 all still say "CRTV" and only say "Conservative Review" as shorthand for CRTV in stories about CRTV. Prelogger (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support they call themselves CRTV, the courts call them CRTV, and the media calls them CRTV now. We should call them CRTV. Prelogger (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiably false on the media front (which is what matters, per WP:COMMONNAME). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. And about that most commonly used name: the media refers to them as CRTV Prelogger (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here...your job is to show that the reliable media uses "CRTV" more than it uses "Conservative Review." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you attempted to prove that reliable media use “Conservative Review” more than they use “CRTV” 5/6 of your provided sources used “CRTV”. After changing the search criteria 3/4 still use “CRTV” Prelogger (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and most of the sources that use CRTV also use Conservative Review. What's your point? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that actually quantifiably true? In the above stories the media has a clear common name. Prelogger (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable that the "TV" bit doesn't seem to be part of their expanded name. Confusing for readers. Tony (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as shown by Prelogger a preponderance of RS use "CRTV." I'm convinced. – Lionel^(talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article needs to differentiate content relating to the website and that relating to the TV channel. – Lionel^(talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what is being discussed here. Are you debating whether the name of this article should be "CRTV" or Conservative Review? If the request is to change CR into CRTV, then I oppose it. CRTV is AFAIK an arm of the Conservative Review, and the Conservative Review is far more well-known than "CRTV". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Snooganssnoogans that's the requested move. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I oppose the request. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Review is actually an arm of CRTV, it just got more coverage early on. Prelogger (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to be honest I don't understand the premise of this request. As far as I've ever been able to tell, Conservative Review is a lonstanding organization that fairly recently started a new TV project called CRTV. As part of that project they created a new LLC called CRTV LLC... so what? CRTV is not the same thing as Conservative Review. Can anyone point me to a reliable source that says that these are the same organization? Can anyone point me to somewhere at conservativereview.com where the organization said it's changed its name? Simply pointing to sources that talk about CRTV instead of Conservative Review is pointless. It's like saying that NRATV has been in the news a lot lately, so National Rifle Association should be moved to NRATV. Am I missing something? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is all very bizarre. That's why I was so confused about the request. In no way whatsoever is CRTV more notable than the Conservative Review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the other way around, CRTV is the longstanding organization that started a new project called Conservative Review: https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_token=8136454FEBDB368EF52A51C418982FAE106E465C71BEB940D3393250F60E7BB292B295E764E867D8705B90706D40C63E&p_nameid=22FC7D079133BF12&p_corpid=BD104A3F85FEA276&p_captcha=15391&p_captcha_check=8136454FEBDB368EF52A51C418982FAE106E465C71BEB940D3393250F60E7BB29CC08B73922A2177F701AFFDE7682813&p_entity_name=%43%52%54%56&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 Prelogger (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate filings mean next to nothing. Sources like this one spell it out pretty clearly. Conservative Review has been around since 2014. Conservative Review launched CRTV in December 2016. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger with Blaze

Levin's Conservative Review and Beck's Blaze TV have merged.[1]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fake news

@My very best wishes: the phrase "fake news" is only mentioned in The Verge, which says: "But it's not 'fake news', and it shows just how confounding talking about misinformation has gotten." Your wording seems inaccurate. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Review new logo

I am fairly new to using the wikimedia commons image uploader. But Conservative Review has a new logo, so I would like to update the infobox. Is anyone able to help?

Image found at the bottom of this page: https://www.conservativereview.com/ Mckaylagrace (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mckaylagrace:

Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: thanks so much! Mckaylagrace (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Would you possibly be able to do the same for the Blaze Media wiki and TheBlaze Radio Network wiki? I noticed that all of these logos are outdated. If not, would you mind walking me through the process so that my uploads don't get deleted? Mckaylagrace (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mckaylagrace: Unless they're too simple for copyright (i.e., simple letters and shapes), logos have to go on English Wikipedia as fair use. You can fill out the description by copying the text from here: Template:Logo rationale/doc. That's what I did with File:Blaze Media.jpg. I don't have a logo for The Blaze Radio; do you? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Thanks so much! I actually found a Blaze Radio logo that was already uploaded. So all I had to do was place it in the entry. Thanks for all your help Mckaylagrace (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]