Talk:Frank Luntz

Discussion of Orwellian Language

Not only is the following literary review out of place in a biographical article, but the review itself violates Wikipedia's NPOV as it ascribes an opinion to a deceased author.

It seems unlikely that Orwell would have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied. The loose definition of the term and the often poor correlation between the real-life situations people describe as Orwellian and his own dystopian fiction leave the use of the adjective at best inexact and frequently politically inaccurate. In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derides the use of cliché and dying metaphors, which "even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent" and goes on to say "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

In many of his essays and letters Orwell criticised words with formally precise definitions being used badly and the vague slide in meaning for many of these words. He was a fierce critic of Fascism but he would freely mock the promiscuous use of the word:

I don't know if the author of this passage was quoting a book by Frank Luntz verbatim or summarizing a passage from it, but Luntz's opinion's of the term "Orwellian" should only be discussed here in purely descriptive, past tense language as opinion's belonging to Luntz.Waxsin (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV problem

This is one of the more divisive figures in American politics today, and this article casts him a completely positive light. Even the criticism is quite weak. There is no mention of the more accurate criticisms that he purposely obscures the meaning of phrases in order to frame them in the most positive way for his viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfrei (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I like some of the changes that have taken place since I posted this complaint, esp. by A.T.S. in Texas, and if no one has any problems with it, I would like to take off the NPOV marker.Ryanfrei (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ryanfrei. This BLP isn't biased in favor of Luntz.--FeralOink (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Death Tax mention/coinage

One of Frank Luntz most famous PR acheivements is reframing the term "estate tax" as "death tax." Surely this needs to be mentioned here. Can someone with more knowledge of the topic please add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusl (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Under "Use of language," added a paragraph and an extended quotation concerning Luntz's role in promoting the phrase "death tax" and other coinages. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the language in the page under Luntz' claim of having invented the phrase "death tax" after a recent interview came out on NPR with Yale Law School's Michael Graetz for his book Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight Over Taxing Inherited Wealth. Specifically, "in the 1940s, Graetz says that opponents started labeling it the "death tax" in a bid to gain wider support for the repeal movement." Since Luntz was born in 1962, it seems unlikely that he created the phrase. I did leave the language about him possibly popularizing the phrase, but this might be questionable also.

How We Got From Estate Tax To 'Death Tax' by Wright Bryan, National Public Radio December 15, 2010 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=132031116

.

The Luntz Experience

I was a recent particpant in a presidential debate focus group run by Luntz and I can tell you with all honesty that it was totally manipulated and a fraud. It served no purpose whatsoever in judging the candidates because only the ones who said what Frank liked were promoted while people like me were censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.138.56 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I was also a participant at one of his focus group sessions about eleven-twelve years ago in Delaware when the guy was a nobody. I could not believe what crap it was. It was like Jerry Springer-lite. The topic was education reform and while I actually agreed with his point politically, it was really clear he had no interest in an objective survey. Oxford gave this guy a doctorate? Gave Rachel Maddow one too? What the hell anyways..? --Drunkencorgimaster (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew Frank at Oxford, and to be honest we were all a bit surprised that they DID give him his doctorate. He never seemed to actually do any work, spending most of his time politicking...but somehow he actually managed to submit a thesis (apparently entirely researched and written during a visit to the US) and get a degree. Someone should maybe get a look at his thesis in the Bodleian Library -- perhaps the title and subject should be included in the article? Also, it may be worth including that he was at Trinity College. There is a page listing notable (ie wiki-included) people who attended Oxford U, but Luntz isn't on it, and I couldn't figure out how to edit the page to include the cross-reference. --Veryfluffy (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Your comments are very interesting to say the least. For the record, I actually kinda like Maddow, she just does not strike me as the oxbridge type. But hey, that's my fault for stereotyping. --Drunkencorgimaster (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1

We have a problem.How do we get to the facts? The best measure of Doctor Luntz is his own words. The archives of Frontline and Now contain interviews with the good doctor. In my research I made a strange discovery. My desk was covered with the transcript of an interview with Joseph Goebbels. When I opened Doctor Luntz's interview I could no longer tell who was speaking without looking at the top of the page. I'm serious, do it some time. You cannot tell the difference. Ron Giles

• The guy might be a loser, but to compare him to a Nazi is a little harsh..actually, the way he distorts polls and creates propaganda, OK, Nazi works with me....

People please stop ruining wiki for the rest of us. If you want to rant do to it with your friends i was hoping to get some info from this page, but now I really cant thanks a whole bunch The Isiah 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm... huh?? @_@ The reason you can't get any info from this page is because it was discovered to have been plagiarized and was therefore removed from Wikipedia. The only appropriate topics of conversation are on how to construct a new article from scratch without repeating old mistakes. -Kasreyn 09:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The first part of this article is from the Luntz.com bio of Dr. Luntz. The second part is just copied from SourceWatch. Is there anything novel to this that people can add?

Well, I could add how he's the foremost marketer and spin-doctor in the Republican effort to reframe American political debate... but since that's a highly controversial and partisan issue, I'm not sure how best to state it without starting a revert war. Wikipedia is already too politicized, I don't want to make it worse. He has been highly influential in national politics in recent years, though, and certainly is more than just a garden variety pollster. He was allegedly involved in writing the language of the so-called "Contract with America" of Gingrich fame. He was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research in 1997 for polling work he did. (I can provide a cite for that, btw, if needed). He is less famous for lengthy notes (often over 100 pages) which are disseminated to campaigning Republicans on recommended verbiage and rhetoric to employ for best political effect. Luntz is certainly not solely responsible for recent Republican gains, but he does deserve some of the credit. What information is conveyed in a candidate's speech is often not as important as what words are used to convey it. Connotation and word association play a large role in how people emotionally react to what they hear. It's a field that Republicans are light-years ahead of Democrats in. -Kasreyn 08:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was too hasty in making my last revert, and wrote "rv copyvio again", assuming that the anonymous user had again inserted the copied Luntz bio. Instead, s/he had inserted an irrelevant discussion of gays in the military. Neither is appropriate for the article. RadicalSubversiv E 06:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to present a very positive image of Frank Luntz. I go to a fairly liberal school, and have heard more bad than good about the man. Also, it seems that in the past people have attempted to add information about some of the darker aspects of the man, and all that remains is a single sentence at the very bottom of the article, practically mentioning off-hand that this stellar individual was accused by the AAPOR for violating standards of ethics. I'll admit, i don't know too much about frank luntz, but I feel asthough the presentation I'm being given is fairly biased. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if he had a hand in editing his article. 134.173.121.223 02:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: girlfriend claim and "unbelievable"

It appears that many would-be editors of this article feel strongly that Luntz's defense was "unbelievable". Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal soapbox. We are not here to report on what we think. If you can find a link from back then, of someone from Penn saying quote "We couldn't believe what Frank said" or the like, then we can include the claim. Otherwise the claim violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, not to mention failing to present a Neutral Point of View and I must continue to remove it. Ask any admin, I'm certain they'll agree with me.

Do I personally find Luntz's claim "unbelievable"? Yes. But so what?! - I wasn't there, and furthermore this encyclopedia isn't about my personal opinion, or yours. Respectfully, Kasreyn 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I removed the girlfriend reference. I was at Penn and had personal dealings with Frank and assure you the guy DIDN'T have a girlfriend even though he used this as his excuse for violating UA campaign practices at the time.

Fine by me. The excuse was unsourced anyway and would probably eventually have been culled as Original Research. -Kasreyn 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Scumbag since his days at Penn

This guy has been a scumbag since his days at Penn. The guy "rigged" the results of a 1984 freshman UA vote, counting the votes behind closed doors BY HIMSELF and he hasn't looked back since, doing the same with his "polling". He should be taken out and shot, IMHO. TH 3/23/06

Are you for real? You know this is Wikipedia and not a forum, right? JettaMann 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence here

Rather than remove, requesting verifcation of the assertions made above in "Scumbag" post

Mattjans 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)mattjans

Article got nuked

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Frank_Luntz

I guess we'll try again?? It must be nice to be a NEW admin....Tom 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was this WHOLE PAGE NUKED?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.82.127 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

In reply to both 71.252.82.127 and Threeafterthree, the article was deleted because it had extensive copyrighted material; it was plagiarized. Wikipedia is very forgiving of many faults, but there is absolutely no tolerance or leeway allowed for copyright violations. The WikiMedia Foundation is not rich and cannot afford to be sued and forced to pay damages. Kasreyn 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rv useful edits

Please stop reverting my edits. They are sourced now. The page is a description of a TV program, which is why you see nothing on the page. You'll have to get off the internet to see his interview, at 3 minutes 50 seconds in from the beginning (among other places). Please stop reverting, threeafterthree, or this page will always be a stub. Thank you. Brianski 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On NPR 01/09/06

Maybe someone should review this broadcast and edit the phrase "When offered the chance to redefine "Orwellian," Luntz, flummoxed, is unable to provide an answer." In the interview, he redefines "Orwellian" as the opposite of the meaning to which it is generally understood, i.e. that it means clearly and unsubjectively written, such as the style of writing promoted by Orwell himself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.81.193 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 January 2007

You read my mind. I put a sentence in the paragraph, quoting Luntz. For FWIW, the exchange begins at about 4:45 or 5:00 into the interview.--HughGRex 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some really good quotes from that program. Terry Gross was so polite and Luntz was hypocrital -he contradicted himself more than once and Gross' questions and demeanor helped reveal what an idiot this guy really is. I was led to believe during the interview that Luntz himself realized what a fool he is, and I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. -Teetotaler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

About the hypocrisy, self-contradictory stuff on NPR, I listened to the broadcast, and while I'm personally pretty far left and I don't like this guy for what he stands for, I don't like the "weasel-worded" paragraph on "He goes on to contradict himself, etc." First, I don't think the contradiction is spelled out in a concise, convincing way, and second, such a statement looks to me like original research—a wikipedian connected the dots to find the hypocrisy, and we're not really supposed to be doing that. If we can't have a sharp, concise quote from Gross or someone out in the media supporting an opposing view we ought to strike a lot of the paragraph. Further, to me the contradiction is not that he's not being clear, but that if he applied the same process from "exploration" to "Orwellian," there's no chance he'd be able to redefine "Orwellian" apart from newspeak. Anyway . . . Dvmlny 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Luntz normally conducts research polls to reframe politically loaded words or to change their loading. It literally takes months of research to do this for just a few words. But to accuse Luntz of not being able to reframe "Orwellian" on a TV show during an interview is clearly intended to defame him. The man may not be a slick, polished, quick on his feet interview subject, but he does have a talent for finding catch phrases that influence how people receive a message. Although I don't agree with the political leaning of his current customers, I've learned quite a bit from reading his books. Let's steer the article towards his skills/talents and away from a meaningless flummox moment during some interview. That whole section needs to be deleted.Kgrr 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

POV Nomination

I've nominated the "Use of language" for a POV check. The rest of the article seems pretty fact-based and neutral, the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of this section are ok. But the 3rd paragraph (added after 05:50, January 10, 2007 by HughGRex) presents a problem. Its first sentence reads:

However, within a few minutes he contradicts himself when discussing "energy exploration" (oil drilling).

I'd like to emphasize that I was not the editor who added the POV-OR phrasing quoted above. It was added by anon 63.197.255.72 in this edit. (Mobius's phrasing is ambiguous and could be read as naming me as the editor who added that phrase.)--HughGRex 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That and extended exchange with NPR host are, to me, unnecessary.—Mobius 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

agreeKgrr 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Second the Nomination

Agreed that this should be reviewed for POV. Examples of anti-Luntz leaning language include...

"On C-SPAN's "Afterwords" program on January 29, 2007, Luntz again attempted to illustrate the value of his "deep sea energy exploration" euphemism saying..." 'Attempt' should be removed. One defends or not...attempt assumes that he didn't. Whether it was convincing is a point of view.

"However, within a few minutes he contradicts himself when discussing "energy exploration" (oil drilling). His research on the matter involved showing people a picture of current oil drilling and asking if in the picture it "looks like exploration or drilling." " This sounds like clarification, not contradiction of self. What's the metric for contradiction? POV

Many references to his conservative attachments which taken as a whole go beyond simple description, particularly since any analysis of his book or other research work are not listed.

No listing of his research company http://www.luntz.com/ or any non-political work he does.

Mattjans 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)mattjans

The article needs a quite a bit of balance. The pollster and communications professional's article has become a coatrack for his current involvement with the Republican party. The article should be about the man and his talents with polling people and using the results of the polls to alter language so that people receive the message. Note for example how the section about his yearly briefing book is placed before his main talent - use of language. But that section seems to be mostly about criticizing his re-frame of oil drilling -> energy exploration and not having his facts straight. I'm not sure that entire sections should be required to discuss each re-frame.

The article does not mention that his company will work with any number of clients as evidenced by several interviews of Frank Luntz (Bill Maher with Huffington and Poundstone) and (Frontline PBS) that I've seen and having read his book "Words that Work". Although he does a lot of work re-framing political arguments for the Republicans, he's quite willing to sell his services to either side willing to pay for his services. The copyright violated versions of the shows have been posted on YouTube.

It may be very difficult to get a client list since many companies want to keep their PR and marketing campaigns as part of their "secret sauce". A quick search of the Internet shows that Luntz seems to have at leaast two dozen fortune 500 companies as clients. These are possibly communications, health care and energy companies. Just researching the man instead of hanging his laundry up on a coatrack will tell you these things.Kgrr 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

Echoing previous comments - 4th and 5th paragraphs in "Use of language" section make unsourced/verified assertions. In particular the 5th which quotes something from MMS (whatever that is). Pending some discussion on this topic I plan on removing the offending language.—Mobius 08:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have marked many of the places with {{fact}} tags. Rather than finding sources for the material, the unsubstantiated claims should probably just be deleted to stop the article from becoming more of a coatrack.Kgrr 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

This Luntz guy is a cunt. What is written in this entry portrays a man who had the tools available (through his unique position as a an adviser and political strategist) to deceive voters and discredit the established research of hundreds of career scientists around the world. Now, he was not alone since the media swallowed his propaganda hook, line and sinker and ignored the hundreds of scientists around the world. His words about believing in it now and "at the time" with the available data he made the right decision is ludicrous. Don't let him get away with it. He is a master of lying to people and will trick anyone of you again. Don't be fooled into defending him on NPOV grounds. An analysis of his words and actions at the time, along with his motive and intent to deceive the public are on the record. Still, if the average American is so apathetic or ignorant as to vote and be swayed by this lying, then what can be done if they breed like rabbits?-ZERO00

I know Frank from Penn. The stories I could tell you about him then would blow you away. He is on Hannity/Combs tonight, can't wait. --Tom 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, not for general discussion of the subject of the article. If you love the guy or hate him, go start a blog. But please don't ruin Wikipedia for everyone else. --JHP 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"ruin Wikipedia for everyone else"? Give me a break, what a load of crap, please! --Tom 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I used poor wording. Looking back, I can't believe I actually said "ruin Wikipedia for everyone else". My point is, whether one thinks Frank Luntz is a "cunt" or not really doesn't belong on Wikipedia talk pages. --JHP 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey JHP, NO problem! Sorry I said "what a load of crap". You are RIGHT that the talk page should really not get off into discussing the subject of a bio personally, but should stick to the FACTS at hand. Just because I knew Frank from my Penn days means zippo. Anyways, water WAY under the bridge at this point :) Cheers! --Tom 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Luntz Memo

I noticed that while there is an external link to the "Luntz Memo" on the main page, it's not mentioned at all in the article. That's a little odd -- a came across a mention of the memo in this Globe and Mail article, which referred to it as the "now-infamous 2003 memo." It's essentially a guide for how Republicans should phrase environmental discussions, especially when it involved global warming. I have little interest in this Luntz wiki, but I thought I ought to point this out. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Summer cleaning

I removed alot of the family unsourced material. Birthdates for parents is not needed. Also, if father is as notable as mentioned, mayne he should have his own article(no I do not want to write it, thank you very much)? --Tom 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Look Here

This is my first attempt to contribute so bear with me.

Diane Rehms interviewed Mr. Luntz on WAMU. WAMU is an NPR affiliate in Washington, D.C.

The interview is available in the archives: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/02/01.php#12645

Frank seems to own up to the "death tax" phrase in the interview. So if I knew how I would fix the first citation needed in the Use of Language section, I would.

Ms. Rehms takes Mr. Luntz to task several times for evading questions.

IMO, the last caller to the show categorically rebuts Mr. Luntz's arguement for calling it a death tax. Luntz is saved by the bell.

I find the above reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels educational. I liked it better when the follow up pointed out Goebbells was a Nazi.

RufusBugleWeed 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Worked for Clinton?

I saw Frank Luntz on TV and they mentioned he worked for Bill CLinton. Is this true? If so this should be included because the article focuses on his work for George Bush. JettaMann 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Winter cleaning

Ding, dong, cleaning service. This article seems to be bloating with unsourced material again. Can sources be used going forward? Thanks, --Tom 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the youtube citation and material. If we can find a RS that might be different. Thanks, --Tom 13:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm - sorry. I have nothing against you removing the youtube link - but the text and citation (of P&T) is reliable. We can discuss if it has weight enough to be here, though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a RS secondary source for the Penn and Teller material? Just citing a show and date isn't really enough it seems for this type of criticism. Anyways, --Tom 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I am not really disputing the material/truth per say, its more that it reads as original research or synthesis(sp) taken from a program. We should RS that say "XZY does/did this" ect--Tom 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes i have a reliable source: "Penn&Teller: Bullshit - Numbers" Season 4 Episode 9, May 2006. The show itself is a reliable source to the show itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats the problem in itself. Can you provide a transcipt of the show? Did they actually say "he uses numbers in order to give validity to his own views"? or is that somebodies interuptation of what they were saying. The best thing to do is to defer to secondary sources that comment on the show and independently verifiy the material that is being put into this article, especially per BLP. Thanks, --Tom 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You can watch the show to verify it if you want. WP doesn't require that reliable sources are available online - and a lot of them aren't... books, films etc. The youtube video makes it possible for you to verify it personally, even if we cannot link to it for copyright reasons. So what is the complaint? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If youtube was a RS then you could watch it and see for yourself what was said as that episode is on it. A problem is that RS's don't like to report negatively on their own people. Lots of other sources claim (with video evidence) that Luntz lectures the poll groups before they vote to sway opinion and that some people are appearing in more than one "randomly selected" group. Wayne (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He can watch it anyways ;-) - but i agree with your deletion of the youtube link, as it is an obvious copyvio. I've reinserted the critique with proper citation. As mentioned in my edit-summary, it is debatable though, whether its notable enough to be mentioned though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material being added

An IP keeps adding large block of unsourced, original resaerch sounding material to the article which I keep reverting. IP, if you can provide sources here, they can be reviewed here and the community can decide if the material is worthy of inclusion. Anyways, --Tom 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That may well be - but without references to back these additions up - they are out per WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lede section

Should it be "lede" or "lead" section? I thought it was lead but I keep seeing lede?? Anyways, I have removed the material about Luntz shaping talking points for the repubs since it seems to be sythnesis of the cited source. Can the lead be crafted here and then added? Thanks in advance, --Tom 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Toupee

Should his toupee be referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.140.21 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't have an opinion about this guy, but the editors certainly appear to. While some of the article is neutral, the editors clearly take pains to set up and then contradict Mr. Luntz. Some of the comments on the talk page clearly display a level of vitriol that seems inappropriate. Perhaps the original article was too positive, but the pendulum has clearly swung too far the other way. By all means point out controversies, but this is not the appropriate forum for a one-sided dissection of the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.132.86 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe make some changes then? --Tom (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific, from what i can see every addition (that wasn't reverted) since February has been positive or neutral. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines on Neutral Point Of View: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." Further, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."

How can this be reconciled with the following passage in this article, where the editor takes it upon him/herself to set up a quote from the subject and then evaluate it?

"On C-SPAN's After Words program on January 29, 2007, Luntz again attempted to illustrate the value of his "deep sea energy exploration" euphemism saying, "'Drilling' suggests that oil is pouring into the ocean. In Katrina, not a single drop of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico from the rigs themselves. That's why deep sea exploration is a more appropriate term." [5] This contention is shown to be false by the Minerals Management Service report which found that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs."

Can this be read in any way other than the editor making an argument that the subject is lying/wrong? It seems to me that this is injecting Wikipedia into the argument, rather than simply describing it. This is not the only example of NPOV concerns in this article, but it is representative of the issue. -69.125.177.30 (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction to his on-air Fox statement of Feb. 26, 2010

While introducing a panel on the results of Obama's joint meeting with Democrats and Republican leaders, Mr. Luntz said that the Philadelphia hospital was the first in america. WRONG. The first hospital was built in the 1611 Citie of Henricus in Virginia. It was called Mount Malady, or Mount Malado. It could house 40 sick or injured men, sleeping them two-to-a-bed. This early hospital was a vst improvement over the crowded, filthy English hospitals of the time.

Correction to his on-air Fox statement of Feb. 26, 2010

While introducing a panel on the results of Obama's joint meeting with Democrats and Republican leaders, Mr. Luntz said that the Philadelphia hospital was the first in america. WRONG. The first hospital was built in the 1611 Citie of Henricus in Virginia. It was called Mount Malady, or Mount Malado. It could house 40 sick or injured men, sleeping them two-to-a-bed. This early hospital was a vst improvement over the crowded, filthy English hospitals of the time.

Correction to his on-air Fox statement of Feb. 26, 2010

While introducing a panel on the results of Obama's joint meeting with Democrats and Republican leaders, Mr. Luntz said that the Philadelphia hospital was the first in america. WRONG. The first hospital was built in the 1611 Citie of Henricus in Virginia. It was called Mount Malady, or Mount Malado. It could house 40 sick or injured men, sleeping them two-to-a-bed. This early hospital was a vst improvement over the crowded, filthy English hospitals of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.45.175 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
For one, you don't have to post it three times. For another, you have mischaracterized Luntz' statement. He said that the Pennsylvania Hospital was the first hospital that Benjamin Franklin had established. That statement is correct. However, Pennsylvania Hospital bills itself as the Nation's First Hospital. You might want to take issue with Pennsylvania Hospital.--65.202.227.123 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)mjd
Livedash (http://www.livedash.com/transcript/hannity/64/FNC/Thursday_February_25_2010/158334/) quotes Luntz on Fox (Hannity) stating: "We came to philadelphia for a reason this is the home of the first hospital created by ben franklin more than 200 years ago." This statement is completely correct. What is incorrect? The OP's claim that Luntz stated Pennsylvania Hospital was the first hospital in America is incorrect. Lunts didn't claim that. That a claim was made for something called "Philadelphia Hospital" is incorrect, no one said that and there is no hospital named "Philadelphia Hospital". Furthermore, Mount Malady was the first *English* hospital in the New World - not in America. Construction of the first hospital in the New World was completed in 1519 in Santo Domingo. Hernan Cortez founded two separate hospitals in the New World - and died in 1547, over 60 years before Mount Malady. Hotel-Dieu de Québec was founded in 1639 in Quebec by the Augustinians and is still in operation. Mount Malady ceased operation as a hospital LONG before the birth of the nation in which it's rebuilt structure now resides, so Pennsylvania Hospital's claim to be the *Nation's* First Hospital is also quite honest and correct. When one also realizes that Luntz' claim was clearly made on 25 February and not 26 February, as originally claimed (see the posting time/date of the original post and reference to health care summit - the OP couldn't have been referring to a 26 February segment or one earlier than 25 February even if such a segment took place) the only part of the original claim that seems to hold any water wrt/Luntz whatsoever is that Frank Luntz appeared on Fox even if the claim for the date of appearance was incorrect.
In light of this evidence, I strongly recommend that the owner/editor of this page remove the two earlier copies of this subtopic and take no further action on it.
I also recommend in light of this and other poorly supported criticisms (as detailed in the following subtopic) that the main page be critically read for unfounded/unsupported criticisms of Luntz and that all such found be removed --96.255.159.197 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)mjd

Poorly referenced citicism - should either be fixed or removed

Frank Luntz is correctly quoted as saying:
"In Katrina, not a single drop of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico from the rigs themselves."
It is then stated that his "contention is shown to be false by the Minerals Management Service report which found that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs."
This is remarkably bad logic. Frank Luntz was clear to limit his statement to rigs only and only during Katrina and someone asserts he is wrong by making a statement regarding platforms, rigs, and pipelines combined and for hurricanes Katrina and Rita combined. That fails the simplest of logical tests. In reviewing the report the only further narrowing of the data seem to be a clear statement that for Katrina *only* ~5500 barrels of petroleum products of all kinds were spilled from platforms and rigs combined. As far as I could tell from my admittedly brief assessment of the report there is no indication of how much oil was spilled from rig *only* during Katrina *only*. If that number is in this report or is available frmo another source then that number should be quoted and not this number that only indirectly responds to the original statement. I'll be the first to say that the evidence as presented might seem to seggest that Luntz' statement is false, but there's a big difference between *might* and *actually does*. If his statement can't be shown as false then there should be no discussion of it and I request this discussion be removed.--65.202.227.176 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)mjd
The Main Page has been updated since this issue has been reported. Please follow Wikipedia policies immediately: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"--96.255.159.197 (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)mjd
Per suggestion I removed the paragraph referred to. I was hoping that whoever placed the original material there would either provide a logically consistent reference that supports the original argument or remove the material themselves. If the original poster can provide documented support for their position please repost the material.--96.255.159.197 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)mjd

Too funny!!! On 2 April 2010, in a speech at Celgard, LLC, in Charlotte, NC, President Obama stated:

It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn't come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore. Transcript here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/02/obamas_remarks_on_jobs_in_charlotte_105031.html

Does the OP think that President Obama is also lying?--96.255.159.197 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)mjd

Bad Link

The External Link "Frank Luntz Interview" (http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1414) does not resolve to an actual link of an interview with Frank Luntz but is not found and resolves to the CBC main page. Unless this can be corrected the link should be removed.
--96.255.159.197 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)mjd

Re: Global warming

Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.

Not true at all. By the time Luntz made that comment, climate science had solidified its consensus for more than a decade. Naomi Oreskes calls Luntz out on this. It's not just a false statement, it deliberately ignores the scientific consensus that was in place when Luntz made his recommendation. The dates don't lie. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gingrich GOPAC memo

The "Information Clearing House" article being used as a citation to support Luntz's involvement in that memo does not mention Luntz's name at all. Therefore, per WP:BLP, since that assertion is disputed and is not supported by a reliable source, it should not be put back into the article unless such a source can be found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I reinserted the deleted passage and added the missing source. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

'Accolades'

None of the accolades listed in this section are sourced. While unsourced positive content is less of a problem than unsourced negative content, if sources can't be found for them, they should be removed. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed this as unsourced. --Mollskman (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Really Oxford, UK?

In an interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFYM5GOyL0 (first 40s) he says "Oxford - Mississippi" where there is also an university(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Mississippi). Maybe this was a joke, maybe not. So any proof he got a PhD from Oxford, UK? Nabrufa (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Leaked tape from the University of Pennsylvania

I removed the subsection "Leaked tape from the University of Pennsylvania" under "Criticism" with the comment: "Removed Penn leak from Criticism. The notability of the story is in Luntz's views, not in the reaction against them."

9711CA reverted my change with the comment: "These are documented facts found in credible sources. Irrespective of subjective opinion, the are no less objective truths report in multiple sources."

9711CA, we can have a discussion about the notability of this section, but the fact that statements are "objectively true" or "reported in multiple credible sources" doesn't automatically make them worthy of inclusion. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, information cannot be included solely for being true; a subject must be treated with appropriate weight. As I wrote in my comment, it's Luntz's views themselves that are noteworthy, rather than a couple of opinions by conservative commentators. Washington D.C. is a massive echo chamber. If we included the (verifiably true) reactions by everyone about everything then every page in the Politics WikiProject would be 10 times as long. As editors it's our job not only to seek out the truth but to separate the wheat from the chaff. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This was included as a subsection of "Criticism." This was a news story which was covered very well by both conservative and liberal news sources. Luntz was literally criticized, and criticized by many sources even of opposing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talk • contribs) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of political facts are covered by both conservative and liberal news sources and still aren't sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. How many and which sources are we talking about? And what was being reported, Luntz's views, the American Spectator's reaction, or the Penn scholarship? --Nstrauss (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

POV and advert tags

Does anyone agree that the article should have POV and advert tags, as DGG added? Olorinish (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bulk of the article is written rather more like an advert or puff piece than like an encyclopedia article. (The lead is particularly bad.) And the "Criticism" section is written like an advert taken out by people who don't like him. So the answer to your question is, sure, why not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly DGG should be encouraged to weigh in and explain why he/she believes the article is biased and reads like an advert. I personally don't feel that the article is biased (either the criticism section or the rest of it), but I do think the criticism could be better integrated into the rest of the article in line with WP:CRITICISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

the extensive quotations throughout are the main reason why it reads as promotional, supplemented by the full paragraphs for all the polls he has taken, supplemented by the list of all the magazines in which he has published. Confusing minor with major achievements is a common promotional technique--NPOV articles focus on the important. (The tag uses "advertisement" as shorthand for various related styles of writing--a more precise wording would be good, but it will be hard to agree on changing such a widely used tag.) As for POV, like many articles on controversial subjects, the basic POV is supplemented by a strong POV on the opposite side--that is not neutrality. (I have in mind particularly the long paragraph about the UP tapes, which seems to me trivial. The American Spectator is blaming him for being willing to criticize the far right--it's worth a mention, not two long quotations,) DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that I look at some of these sections in greater detail, I agree that there are too many Luntz quotes and worse, way too many unattributed Luntz quotes. (There should be zero unattributed quotes.) I don't think these make the article biased overall but they do require clean-up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OMG!!!! This is both terrible and hilarious, DGG! The talk page is making me giggle, e.g. "He's such a cunt", Goebbels comparison, University of Oxford in Mississippi v. UK, the toupee! The article itself is brutal. I have thought liberals under the Obama Administration excelled at changing or co-opting words, e,g, disruption, sharing economy, self-branding and pay it forward (formerly known as indentured servitude), but Mr. Luntz is the master. Still, this BLP is kind of...appalling!--FeralOink (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the advert tag (but kept the POV tag). I don't see anything in the article that "sounds like advertisements." (See Template:advert.) From the discussion above this really sounds like a balance, quotefarm, and attribution issue. All of which are important, but calling them "advertising" is a distraction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability

This article is flagged for sounding like a press release or an advertisement, and I agree. Luntz is primarily notable for his tenure with the W. administration, and his involvement in shaping the "death tax" messaging. His Warhol moment needs to be more prominent than whatever he's doing lately. That is, after all, how history works. — MaxEnt 20:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources suggesting that's what he's known for? My research indicates otherwise. In fact I think he's better known for his work with Gingrich in the 90s. He also has a successful non-political corporate practice. Here are some representative bios: [1], [2] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dissertation

Can someone find out the title of Frank Luntz's dissertation at Oxford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.54.202 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Candidates, Consultants, and Modern Campaign Technology" http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/f/g40bsg/oxfaleph011311797 Johannes der Taucher (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Israel Project in lead section

Luntz's involvement in the Israel Project was recently added to the article. Shortly thereafter Santasa99 added it to the lead section. I reverted per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Santasa99 then re-reverted with the comment: "Fortunately, per WP:UNDUE & WP:LEAD, edit is more then sufficiently notable for lead as well as for section, even separate article exist on the issue & it's linked duly."

I have no doubt that this subject is sufficiently notable for the article, but why it deserves mention in the lead while none of Luntz's other (very notable) projects are included there is not at all apparent. (And it's incorrect that Luntz's contribution to the Israel Project has its own article. It has a single paragraph supported by a single secondary source.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would keep it out of the lede, otherwise you need to include a lot of other stuff as well, which wouldn't be optimal for the lede. --Malerooster (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

First, Dr.Fleischman's deletion and consequent objection obviously isn't intended in "good faith", since he already implying something only he see - where exactly he see my claim about article on Luntz and his involvement in Israel Project ?!? I said that article exists on "the issue", which means article on Israel Project and its affiliated ventures, among which is Luntz's "Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary" !

Secondly, Malerooster should change the lead, or as he said, even completely remove these info on Israel Project from the lead, only if he's willing to rewrite this important information in a separate new section in this article. Otherwise his argument that leaving this edit in the lead would forced us to add many more information is bogus and pretty transparently fallacious reasoning. The lead of this article already contains few other similar information, so adding this one doesn't force anyone adding anything else ! Besides, who is to decide what should or should not be part of the lead, and like in this case, how many specific examples and information should be put in the lead !? On top of that, this particular information (Luntz involvement in Israel Project and authoring of "Dictionary) is extremely important and very much notable, but it's even more interesting, since it provoked worldwide controversy, and response from very notable news organizations, NGO's, and organizations following different kind of activities in and around media, freedom of press, etc.

Third, Dr.Fleischman's claim that this issue in the Israel Project article is covered JUST in section-passage, and referenced with JUST one reference is also very much absurd and untrue - first, what else he expect, section is quite enough; second, it's untrue that there's just one reference in that section, there's at least two, but probably three: Newsweek, Israel Project, and Independent, but just Google it and you can choose from multitudes of articles and reports from mainstream media to relevant organizations, since issue is still highly controversial and invoke huge attention all around.

Bottom line is that nobody should engage in an attempt to marginalize or even hide this Luntz's study, which resulted in publication of "Global Language Dictionary" for Israeli government, although project itself was intended to be absolutely secrete, with every page labelled with "Not for distribution or publication". But what can you do, it's no secret, not anymore, it's out there, Newsweek was among first to brake this to the public, following with many other media outlets worldwide. You can even download entire booklet from Israel Project website !--Santasa99 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please make your best effort to assume good faith. No one is trying to marginalize or hide the content. No one is proposing removing this material from the article. I can't speak for MaleRooster but my goal is simply to abide by WP policies and guidelines and make the article as good as possible. When we raise one of Luntz's projects to a much higher level of prominence than all of his other work (as you did) the overall tone of the article is thrown way out of balance. Remember that the question here isn't whether the Israel Project was notable, the question is whether Luntz's involvement was so much more notable than all of his other work that it deserves exclusive mention in a 2-paragraph summary of his life and career. If you think it does, this is your chance to make your case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr Fleischman, please DO speak for me since you articulated pretty nicely what I feel as well. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First you deleted my edit, with simple reasoning, but extremely insufficient one - "not notable" enough. Meanwhile, your stance has since changed, you appended some arguments - and that's good - mine too, as I said, and you completely disregarded that part, I'm not against moving it from the lead to new section, where other engagements and works are mentioned. Actually I will move it myself, as soon as possible. (However, I'm really puzzled that you decided to completely omit important fact that I actually agreed, in my first reply, to move edit from the lead to section !? Which takes me to "good/bad faith" issue - when person twist, spin, omit, or completely pull things (words, sentences or meaning of what other person supposedly have said) out of thin air, that pretty much constitute action contrary to WP:AGF.)

Trouble with Wikipedia, among many troubles which poison this encyclopedia, is in its contributors who are bringing in their emotions and feelings with them, not to mention national, ethnic, cultural, religious, and in particular political and ideological prejudices - basically, Malerooster, when one shares feeling with another contributor on some issue, that doesn't mean that they are more right or right at all. Same goes for shared opinion. --Santasa99 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the material you added to the lead already in the body? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I came to this page trying to find a link to a copy of the Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary. I think it should be linked directly. Based on its coverage in major WP:RSs, it's definitely noteworthy. I even think it belongs in the lead. --Nbauman (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a clearinghouse for primary source material. There is no basis for including the 2009 Global Language Dictionary in our article. If readers want to read it they can Google for it. It came up as the first hit in my search.
• As explained above, the question isn't whether it's sufficiently notable for inclusion, but whether it's so much more notable than all of Luntz's other work that it deserves special mention in the lead section. I don't see any basis for this in the reliable sources.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I think the Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary meets WP:ELYES:

What can normally be linked. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Can you cite a Wikipedia guideline to the contrary? --Nbauman (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ELPOV: "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views."
• WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included. ..." (applies depending on what you intend to link to)
• WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."

But, to be perfectly honest, I don't care much about the external links. I care much more about the lead section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the actual Frank Luntz Memo from 2002?

It only embarrasses Wikipedia to leave out the ONE document for which Luntz is most famous

The PDF file is widely taught on college campuses, and was key to changing language for decades. Try https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/45/LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf

Does Wikipedia really want to exclude this one page from the 16 page briefing document?

Also some text mention is on the waybackmachine - it smells like there may have been a campaign to remove the text of this very influential document. Time to grow up on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpauli (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality

Creating a section for posterity on recent interest by editors (such as @Feran:) on Luntz's sexuality. According to this 2014 Atlantic profile, Luntz explicitly said he was straight. However, this 2017 Logo TV article makes a passing mention that he is gay. Looking to aggregate more information/discourse here before adding anything to the article about his sexuality (if that's even necessary as he appears to be a private man?) — BriefEdits (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)