Talk:Michael Savage/Archive 3

message: I don't want to touch the article until I get some feedback.  Would it be appropriate to mention the fact that his son's energy drink company has, in the past, acted as a sponsor for the Girls Gone Wild videos?  This is an example of the hypocrisy that Michael Savage is sometimes accused of, and I am not sure where in the article it should be included (if at all).
:How does what Michael's son does constitute hypocrisy on Michael's part? 69.181.156.67 13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an example of hypocrisy because Michael does not own Rockstar.Shadax 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you feel the hypocrisy would be that Savage would have a problem with the Girls Gone Wild videos?  He might argue that they are another example of the degredation of our society, but I do not think it is an example of his hypocrisy.  I am not even sure he would have a problem with the videos.  He would probably have a few choice words for the producers and participants, though.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rockstar Energy Drink

message: *The Media Matters Organization is an organization centered on a political ideology, and therefore violates the neutrality of the article. --SirAndrew1 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked their website and they say they are "progressive". I don't think they're a fringe wbesite.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fringe or no fringe, it is still ideologically oriented. --SirAndrew1 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In case you don't know, "Progressive" is a codeword for fringe leftists in American politics. 2nd Piston Honda 07:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had a look at Media Matters i really cant see the problem. Mission statement aside, they do seem source and cite everything 
they've said he said. Hitmen for the gay mafia or not. 203.161.8.229 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then people are more than welcome to go to the primary sources or LEGITIMATE secondary sources to find information. Not a politically oriented site. --SirAndrew1 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 2nd Piston Honda, your statement alone validates the inclusion of the Media Matters link.  Please read the progressivism article here  Shabeki 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What makes Media Matters illegitimate?  Because they point out all of the right-wing bias in the corporate-owned "mainstream" media, using actual FACTS to support their case?  BobCubTAC 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Progressive" sources are allowed on Wikipedia. So are conservative sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure about that.  This was my point earlier about George Soros.  Bill O'Rielly was an "un-allowed" source due, not only to bias, but also that his allegations were not verifiable (i.e. "Soros is attempting to take over the US political system").  I am not saying that this necessarily applies to Media Matters, but I feel strongly (especially in BLPs) that we can not simply include information, just because we have a source.  A source that says Michael Savage wishes to exterminate all Muslims is make the kind of synthesis that exposes WP to risk.  A quote from Mr. Savage's show does not.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the objection to using a site for transcripts and recordings of Savage. Do we think they are hiring an actor to impersonate Savage? Are they fudging the transcripts? If not, then they appear to be reliable. If Bill O'Reilly's website hosted clips of Dennis Kucinich saying something I wouldn't object to linking to it as a source for those comments (so long as the material is relevant, etc.).  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the point is there is no objection to using transcripts of Michael's show.  It is the subjective analysis done by Media Matters, after the fact, where the trouble lies.  That being said, I have no particular problem with Media Matters when they quote Michael.  The problem is taking a bit of his schtick out of context and then using it to make some polemic point.  I think BLP requires us to be careful to portray him neutrally and use what he says on his radio show in context.  Now David Gilson is another point, but I'll go there later.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Media Matters 

message: What's the number to get on Savage's program? The number is not available on his website. -Amit
1-800-449-8255 69.181.156.67 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to call-in

message: Isn't this article too long?  Should it be broken up in to some sub-sections (like a sub-article on his stated beliefs)?  As it is, the article is difficult to digest and seems to grow with each new thing he says on the radio.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the non-biographical info should probably be split out. Maybe "Political views of Michael Savage"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose Views expressed by Michael Savage to avoid the "personal" vs. "political" views argument.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good choice.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: I would like to move this article towards GA nomination.  What do we need to do to improve this article?
Suggestions:
* Create sub-articles to reduce the size of the article to a manageable size.
* The trivia section needs to be integrated into the article or removed.
* POV issues need to be cleaned up and tag removed.
:Okay, we have a good start.  I think the Credits, criticisms, controversies, and financial support for causes section could be cleaned up a little or maybe split off into a sub-article.  Additionally, I have summarized his career as a commentator and created a more detailed sub-article on the The Savage Nation Radio Program and his time at MSNBC.  I am just about ready to nominate it for GA status.  Any objections or suggestions?  Ursasapien (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What do we need to improve this article?

message: Savage is listed in the bottom template as an "Independent" candidate in the 2004 election, although there is no mention in the article, no scource and I do not remember him actually a candidate. - Libertyville | Talk 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he is listed as a potential independent candidate for the 2008 election.  He had intimated that he would run on his radio show and, as far as I know, he has not officially withdrawn or said that he is not running at this point.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate 

message: This really doesn't belong here. Anyone with a modicum of neutrality left in them about this man should be able to see that including this passage in Savage's wikipedia entry is just a sorry attempt to further a tired and false slander on him by people that wish to discredit him.  The ACTUAL letter does not have any sexual overtones in it. 
"One such letter describes an encounter with a black man, interpreted by some as sexual in nature.[11] Savage has denied that the letter had homosexual overtones, claiming that it is part of a "smear campaign" by "gay fascists."[11]"
These two sentences are also very poorly written.  One such letter?  This is the first time any letter is mentioned.  Does it read like this because it is copied word for word?71.35.155.14 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the result of a year of wiki-editing by various warring factions.  We have included the actual text of the letter and even deleted the information outright.  Personally, I think it is obscure and the text of the letter does not help illuminate the meaning at all.  The question is what are these "finger tricks" he is speaking of, and even more than that, does it matter.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely too obscure to include here.  Google Michael Savage and his Wiki article is the first result after his own website.  He has repeatedly commented on Wiki's slanted article on him and has even vaguely threatened legal action.  Recounting all the smear campaigns against him is not Wikipedia's purpose or place, and this insinuation of his being a closet homosexual because he once wrote the words "finger tricks" in a letter to a beat poet is too close to slander.71.35.155.14 01:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly obscure, it's mentioned in nearly every single media account I've read about Savage and is adequately sourced. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found it in none of the media accounts I have read, but I think we are looking at different sources with different slants.  Regardless, what is obscure is the meaning of the text (even if you get past the issue of proving that he authored it).  I could find adequate sources that George W. Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard "was found unfit for flight status after failing to obey an order to submit to a physical examination."  I suppose that my point is the authenticity of the letter and the meaning of the letter is clearly ambiguous, so I think we ought to err on the side of caution.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was sourced material "temporarily" removed?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought was to determine the authenticity, meaning, and relevance of the documents in question on this talk page, before exposing the WikiMedia foundation to liability.  It can easily be added back, but I think it is unecessary and potentially harmful.  Having sources is not a defense to libel.  I think WP:BLP demands that we bend over backwards to authenticate information.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our sources for this article include GQ and New York Daily News, not some letters or postcards. We can easily verify what those articles say. Is there a dispute about them? As for libel, has Savage sued GQ or the New York Daily News? If not, why would he sue someone who simply repeats what those publications have printed? We should certainly be careful with any biography of a living person, but I don't see how this material is a problem nor do I see any requirement in BLP that we personally authenticate documents. Any personal efforts we make to obtain or interpret these documents would not help this article because findings based on our own research are prohibited by WP:OR. What we can do is to report on any comments the subject has published about the matter.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Mr. Savage would not sue WikiMedia, just because he has not yet sued GQ or the New York Daily News.  I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  I also do not see this information as crucial to this article and I think it makes it more POV.  I feel undue weight is given to this portion of the article.  Without the inclusion of the letters, there is already ample information about his change in attitude/beliefs.  Let's say that I found a couple of articles referencing letters Bill Clinton had written to Gennifer Flowers detailing where he would like to stick a camera.  Is this necessary for the article on Bill Clinton?  I think not, given the portion that it covers in his life.  A simple mention of the relationship is enough.  GQ has been known to do parody and I think we should be careful about including this information.  I am really interested in getting this article to GA and I do not think this is the way to do it.  Perhaps we should have Jimbo Wales review the article when he has the time.  I know he has taken an interest in this article in the past.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we don't need to quote from the correspondence. While "Wikipedia is not censored", it doesn't need salacious details either. We can't rely on our guesses about the subject's likelihood to sue as the basis for our editing decisions.  Let's rely instead on the same Wikipedia policies we use for articles on everyone else. I'm open to rewriting and condensing the material, but omitting it entirely would be censorship and would diminish the biography. It isn't simply a matter of showing that his views were different in the past. Important incidents in a subject's life should be included, and a gauge of what's important is what's been reported. Can someone who's familiar with this stuff propose a fresh draft?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, the Gennifer Flowers article does include some rather graphic detail. I'm not sure if that's the standard we should meet, but it has been offered as an example.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When the "salacious details" are the subject of significant media coverage, then our coverage is incomplete if we omit them.  We needed dwell on them, of course, but we can't ignore them either. Discussing the relationship without the correspondence, which itself has been a focus of that media coverage, would also make our coverage incomplete.  We can dispense with quoting it if that is what is necessary to forge a consensus, but omitting it is not an option, in my opinion.  To touch on some other past comments, first, let's leave the law to the lawyers.  If we stick to reliable sources and WP policies, we needn't come up with other imaginary scenarios to worry about.  Second, speaking of reliable sources, the GQ article isn't "parody", it is a legitimate news article by an experienced journalist, and the fact that they may include humor pieces in issues of that magazine is not grounds to keep removing this legitimate source from the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "significant media coverage"?  I had not heard of these allegations until I came to the Wikipedia article and I have read a lot about this guy.  My other thought is that this article, like all articles needs to strive for neutrality, which is achieved by balance.  Look at Adolph Hitler's article, especially the sexuality section.  I think this is really balanced, not leaving anything out, but giving the different viewpoints due weight.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in general with your thoughts on neutrality and balance, but I don't see how that is served by leaving out this relevant and sourced info. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the best way to achieve neutrality and balance, using Adolph Hitler's article as an example, is to do the research and talk about his heterosexual relationships, indications that he may be/have been homosexual (which is how I read the information you want included), and then some statement (already included) that he denies being homosexual, he has never confirmed that he is heterosexual, and he may be largely asexual now.  Of course we would have to do the research and be able to cite sources for all this.  I don't see the urgency to include this material.  It comes from sources very antagonistic to Michael and it seems little effort has been made to balance it with sources that favor him.  There are no angry mastodons that will trample us if we leave this out for a time until we can find some material to balance it.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, too, Hitler's sexuality. Otherwise, Ursasapien's suggestion is pretty good. I encourage that editor to add the information as it's found. Meanwhile, let's include what we've got.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, when we think of balance and weight we should consider the whole of Wikipedia's material on this subject. We have three articles about him (the bio, the "views" and the "career"), one on his current show, and three on his books.  This article is focused on the actual events of the subject's life rather than his career, writings, show, or beliefs. So although this topic is only a fractional part of the subject's entire life and notability, a section in this article is only a fraction of our coverage of him. Another point is that the subject apparently has been outspoken on many issues that I suppose are related to this material. To the degree that he comments on the behavior of others on certain topics his own history becomes relevant as well. If I may use another example, we don't shy away from saying that St. Augustine was a bad man when he was young, but it was his later life that made him notable and which matter most.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "gay letter." 

message: The tag has been removed--I made several edits to reduce POV including the removal of the tangential 'gay letter' section. Antonrojo 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want the POV tag back up [personal attack removed] insist on the inclusion of the "GAY LETTER."71.35.155.14 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple inclusion of sourced material isn't POV, though our treatment of it could be. Can you propose how we can cover the letter with a neutral point of view?   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now how on earth would we recount a smear campaign with neutrality?  Use some logic, please.  Savage, as a longtime acquaintance of Ginsberg who should know, has claimed that Ginsberg was a pedophile.  How bout we include that in Ginsberg's entry, hmmm?  Of course we wouldn't.  Recounting smear campaigns against someone is not wikipedia's place, and I have to question the motives of those of you who are fighting endlessly to include this GAY LETTER section.71.35.155.14 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. I can't tell if you are saying that the letter is fake or real. What sources are you relying on? As for Allen Ginsberg he was a member of NAMBLA. Do we say so? Of course we do. Why would we hide it? Is saying he was a NAMBLA member a "smear campaign"? No, it's being honest about the subject. If this letter is real why would we hide it? It's been reported on in major sources such as Salon. We haven't had anyone assert that the letter is forged or fake, so if you have such evidence please share it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Correction. I see that the subject himself says he may have written Ginsburg, but that he believes there is forgery involved in this purported correspondence. The situation may ease as the most controversial material may be omitted per Ursasapien's plan.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My issue, with POV, is this section clearly implies that Michael experimented with homosexuality during this time in his life.  However, that is not the implication in the original source (at least SF Weekly).  The article portrays a young man, enamored with beat poets, who played up to them but was fully heterosexual at that time.  In fact, that article would seem to discount the entire "Shift in philosophy" section in some ways.  It seems that Michael was always driven, idealistic, and somewhat hungry for money and fame.  The only change appears to be in how he would attain this.  Instead of trying to "suck-up" to the counter culture, he "became his father" and an iconoclast of the backlash to the counter-culture.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should avoid implying anything. We're on the right track here. First, there doesn't appear to be any objection to omitting the, um, "a-hole" text. Second, a complicated handshake isn't automatically, or even commonly, homoerotic. That detail appears vanishingly minor anyway. The Ginsburg stuff is much more relevant. It's not our job to judge a life, but a theme in this part obviously appears to be that he socialized with a crowd that he later rejected. That's a common theme in the biographies of commentators, politicans, religious leaders, and others. If any of the articles about him are true, the subject clearly has experimented with an unusual variety of constructs, disciplines, and careers along his path. And I'm sure he's still evolving. There's room for all.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: I moved several sections, including some of the article about his stint at MSNBC to a sub-article.  I did this to make the article more readable.  I think it would be better to have a more streamlined article, but I am open to suggestions.  Additionally, I think we need to be careful about the balance of this article.  Having a balance of negative and positive information, while not giving undue weight to either side, helps to make this article more NPOV.  By shifting some information to sub-articles, I think it helps the balance of this main article as well as the sub-articles.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this was removed?

message: Michael's father is described as "gruff and profane" and is said to have "had a chip on his shoulder and was always mad at the world."  To me, this describes Michael to a tee.  I think the fact that his father "was tough on Michael, [and] there was nothing Michael could ever do to please him," is important information and we already have sources.  His first wife also has a lot to say about Michael's personality.  Shouldn't we have more information about his life before talk radio?  Wouldn't this make for a better, more explanatory biography?  Again, to me, this gives a better picture into who Michael is than the whole "gay letter" thing.
:There's room for both. We don't need to choose one over the other. Add it all. We've got room.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life whitewashed?

message: "The dissenting vote was by indicted San Francisco Supervisor Ed Jew, who is presently facing trial on nine felony counts of perjury, false statements and voter fraud, and the focus of an FBI investigation."  72.194.122.14 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No POV Here, Eh?

message: I think it be better to have the actual vote of the SF board listed instead of - "The resolution was one vote short of being passed unanimously by the Board." - I think this is a biased statement that can be biased either way, if the vote was 2-1 it makes a big difference then if it was 99-1, why not just put up what the vote was if you are going to mention it at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.3.247 (talk) 22:57, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
:If you think the "vote count" (i.e. 5-1 or whatever it was) then add it.  IMO this is a relatively minor detail of this person's biography and is only relevant because it is recent.  I strongly discourage the listing of the names of the SF Supervisors or any descriptive comments about the individual supervisors.  Ursasapien (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Sups Vote