Talk:Mike Malloy

message: The usual limit for quotes here is five, with excess going to our sister-project, Wikiquotes. In this instance, the number of nicknames and catchphrases is excessive. Why don't we cut each down to a few examples? -Will Beback 20:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, I'm going to trim down the list to five each. -Will Beback 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm coming to this discussion late, but I think the excessive quotes serve a good purpose here because they are quite characteristic of the show, and convey its flavor. I'd prefer bringing them back. Debivort 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a verifiable source for them? -Will Beback 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've heard all of them personally on the show, though that may not count. The broadcasts are archived at . Debivort 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we limit them to five? We do that for Mark Levin, for example. -Will Beback 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article and the corresponding one about Malloy's "show" are some of the finest examples of whitewashing I have ever seen on this so-called encyclopedia, and man that is really saying something.  Every single quote has been excised; evidently Malloy's few (and that is being generous) fans don't want any quotes concerning his obnoxious views, including his Trutherism and his frequent wishes that conservatives would die, to be seen.  Exhibit #73849593497458129567034824 in the case of "Wikipedia has no credibility, at all, on issues that are even remotely political".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive quotes

message: I'd like to move the stuff about the show over to its own page.
:Or maybe merge the two articles? Piercetp 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate The Mike Malloy Show? 

message: I have asked Mike to provide an image with known copyright status for inclusion.  BenBurch 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Should we move these sections to The Mike Malloy Show where they may be more appropriate? This would effectively remove most of the content that violates what can be in a Wikipedian biography. What say you? Pumpkin Pi 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Talk show hosts get two articles: a personal one, and one for their show. I am assuming that the catch phrases and nicknames are leftovers from the days prior to the existence of The Mike Malloy Show article. --Asbl 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll move it after we figure out the implications of the apparent removal of Mike from AAR (see below). Thanks. Pumpkin Pi 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Catch Phrases & nicknames

message: According to this post by Malloy's wife/producer and his own website, he is no longer with AAR as of 8/30/06. --Fightingirish 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a surprise... it seems like the network showed him the backdoor overnight. I'm streaming Randi Rhodes right now that he's supposed to be filling in on, and its Thom Hartman instead of him. Let's see if an official Press Release is given out from AAR before we edit the article. While the evidence is strong, it would be nice to double check from another source first. Pumpkin Pi 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never Mind, Mike's homepage confirms the termination.  Bring on the editing... Pumpkin Pi 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, we'll stay tuned to see what happens next. If there is no formal Press Release, Peter Werbe may have something to say about the matter this evening. Pumpkin Pi 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SON OF A *****!!!!  I was about to pay for Air America's premium service.  Sure as hell won't now!Spazzz 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malloy fired from Air America

message: I added a section on the rebrodcasting of best of episodes dating back to 2003 on HORN. Some have said that once HORN gets its finances straight that they may hire Malloy for a live show. Does anyone have any concrete information on this? Ben? Pumpkin Pi 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries about the log-in, I do the same thing. Anyways, you're absolutely right, as of now everything is purely speculative about Malloy's future. On his message board , word is that he will be doing an interview similar to the one with Harrison later this week to update us on the latest information. Untill then, cheers. Pumpkin Pi 02:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Head On Radio Network

message: I'm making a section on this based on the information here: 
Feel free to edit Pumpkin Pi 03:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nova M Radio

message: What is the best way to catalogue this? To my knowledge the former AAR affiliates in at least Seattle, San Diego and Florida have released statements similar to this one: . I'm sure I'm missing some, and Malloy has stated that he has set up a dialogue with about a dozen stations around the country. Thus, how should we document this? Should we list the affiliates as they start to carry the show, or just edit the current broad statement, "It remains to be seen whether Malloy's former affiliates will carry the program"? Pumpkin Pi 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nova M Radio Affiliates 

message: Is an audio clip sufficient sourcing?  BenBurch 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting Nicknames 

message: So, what do you all think of the citation and clean up templates at the top of the page. I wonder if they are there to discredit the article, with an air of legitimacy. Do you all think they are needed? Is the article really that bad? Is it really missing sources? 
On a personal note, I have this image of users running around adding these tags to pages, without doing the work needed to fix the articles to their standards, and maybe just doing it to boost their edit count, and I think to myself, what if they had just spent that time trying to fix the article, rather than passing that work off to other editors while leaving a distracting banner across the article top. Maybe I have gotten to cynical. Thoughts?? Debivort 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: "Due to intellectual capacity and emotional issues, he did not obtain a degree"
That is spectacularly NPOV.  The entire first part of that sentence should be removed.  69.232.47.222 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was part of a bunch of POV vandalism. I couldn't revert it earlier as I was up against the 3revert rule. Fixed now though. de Bivort 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Debivort, please explain why you removed the 9/11 conspiracy quote from the article.  I put it back in for now.  Thank you.  Kgromann (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malloy says tons of inflammatory things on a nightly basis. This particular one is not special. Giving it a whole quote is undue weight and a violation of wp:npov. The sentiments conveyed by the section you added are already conveyed in the style section. I would suggest keeping the narrative general, citing up the style section, and not giving undue focus to any single quote.  de Bivort 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's still undue weight, you need to provide a source for why this quote in particular, is notable.  de Bivort 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Did you read the section on undue weight? You should probably also read the section on sourcing. The pertinent point is that wikipedia needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. What you've given is a primary source. As for the overall sourcing - yes, this article is flimsy with respect to sources. Both the positive and negative points about malloy should be expanded and cited properly. But, I don't care to do that personally, so instead I've been making sure that any additions to the article match policy.  de Bivort 04:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Give us all a break.  The notion that Malloy's quotes on the mass-murder of Americans on 9/11 are not worthy of comment is absolutely asinine.  You are not fooling anyone, so please, quit acting as if you didn't remove them because they make Malloy look bad.  Using your undue weight criterion, no quotes from Malloy concerning his political views should be included, because they evidently don't stand out enough.  It is obvious such a position is total garbage and is taken in this case for the express purpose of whitewashing Malloy's obnoxious views.   Claiming that an assertion from Malloy that the president of the United States is complicitious in the terror attacks on 9/11 is not noteworthy is garbage, plain and simple.  Almost as much garbage as the assertion that secondary sources are superior to primary ones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over 9/11 conspiracy 

message: The article was an uncited BLP nightmare, I have trimmed it back, if anyone is interested in the topic, please only add content that is cited to wikipedia reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources , reliable citations 

message: Malloy is a liberal shock jock - this is his bread and butter. To call out this particular quote about seal team six going after seal team six, with a controversy section, is discouraged by WP:NOCRIT (which indicates that criticism sections should be integrated into the rest of the article) and WP:BLP (which says we should be really careful about libel, though that seems not to be too much of a concern in this particular case), and WP:UNDUE (he says things like this all the time). What would make sense is an reliable source that talks about his general pattern of inflammatory speech.  de Bivort 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that Malloy's brand is to be controversial, I think that he has said several things that have received additional attention and thus warrant mention. The call for the SEAL team to assassinate George Bush is one; he and his wife's mocking of Bobby Jindal is another. Trilemma (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about working up a section on his "style" which avoids calling out particular incidents (I mean really, none of the commentary on these episodes has gone beyond "my goodness, look what he said now!" as far as I have seen, and also WP:UNDUE) but summarizes at a high level the aggressive nature of his show?  de Bivort 00:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Calling for the assassination of a president is not a "bread and butter" type remark.  It is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in Mediaite, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Fox News, and CNN (think of how many other stories about Malloy has had that high of a profile coverage).  To compare, the Rush Limbaugh BLP has six subsections about controversial remarks.  It may not deserve its own section, but it definitely deserves mention as a subsection. If there are other remarks of his that received reliable source coverage, they can be added as well. Drrll (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess you don't listen to Malloy if you think that comment was particularly unusual. What was unusual is that it made it onto the drudge report and garnered all this attention. What's going on at other articles is immaterial - the policies listed above are clear in how they apply to this particular case. Why don't you follow my above suggestion and work up a paragraph on his style generally, thereby avoiding the problem of WP:UNDUE which is happening now. You can use the very references you mention, which I'll note aren't part of the current edit.  de Bivort 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworked the text somewhat. However if only one minor source criticized the comment then it might not be notable enough to mention in this article.   Will Beback  talk   20:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent job Will - it relates the same content, but much more neutrally. I am comfortable with it now, especially if Drr11 can provide one of those reliable sources. On a side note, how do we decide if this should live here or at The Mike Malloy Show?  de Bivort 20:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems logical to have it in the show article since the comment was made on the show.   Will Beback  talk   21:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Loonymonkey, you now have a pattern of assuming bad faith in other editors and unilaterally pushing your edits. I suggest you change your style or you may be banned from editing articles. Trilemma (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pretty sure Loonymonkey was just being bold, rather than assuming bad faith. Moreover, I find his points compelling. A single blog post, is not a RS in a BLP context. Drrll has said, without substantiation that there are RSs on this, in places like the washingtonpost, etc. If this is the case, it might very well find a home in this article, or the one on his show. Until then I'm going to remove/revert it.  de Bivort 17:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you think AGF means, but I haven't suggested anything of the sort in my comments.  As for this "pattern," I would direct you to WP:AOBF. Back to the point at hand, BLP violations get removed immediately, that's policy, and it's up to you, as the editor seeking to restore the material, to justify the inclusion.  Simply re-adding the material (while attacking other editors and ignoring the concerns raised on talk) is disruptive.  Why don't you start by providing some reliable sources for this, and then we can discuss the notability issue.  But without an RS, there's nothing to discuss.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth remembering that the subject is a radio personality whose job is to make inflammatory remarks.   Will Beback  talk   21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare Malloy's page to Rush Limbaugh's, which details several controversial remarks he has made. Then to G Gordon Liddy's. There is a pretty clear pattern of documenting particularly controversial things that a radio personality has said. Malloy's call for the execution of an ex president, and his racist mockery of a sitting governor, certainly qualify. Trilemma (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never edited those articles, but I imagine that anything that gets added would have to be both reliably sourced and notable.  I don't think an editor would get very far trying to insert criticism of Limbaugh because they personally considered it important, even though it only appeared on some blog.  The issue isn't whether reliably-sourced, notable controversies should be included in a biography, it's the fact that this material does not qualify.  As stated previously, we can discuss the notability issue if reliable sources exist, but in the absence of any reliable sources, there isn't really anything to discuss.  It would be a violation of policy to include it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources were already referenced by I will list some here.Trilemma (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been previously mentioned, opinion pieces and blog posts are not reliable source for BLPs. And "realclearpolitics" isn't a reliable source for anything. A small quantity of opinion pieces that appeared in the same half news-cycle doesn't substitute for reliable sources. This is just another case of a day's worth of blog chatter not really warranting inclusion in a biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several non-opinion sources that mention this:  The LA Times, The Washington Times, Fox News, and CNN.  This is in addition to the noteworthy opinion piece in The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I've moved the material to the radio show article, since that's what it concerns.   Will Beback  talk   04:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you think of any other item about Malloy that has garnered this much news coverage and coverage in opinion pieces?  There really should be only one standard for BLPs of radio talk show hosts. If we're going to take this material out of the Malloy BLP, then we need to take the controversial statements out of the Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy BLPs.  Any objection? Drrll (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objection to what? To including this opinion in the biography? Yes, there are lots of objections, stated above. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection to actually following the same standard by removing the controversial statements out of the Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy BLPs (or conversely, to adding the Malloy material back if we are to keep the controversial statements in the other BLPs.) Drrll (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said earlier, I don't follow those articles and I don't really know (or care) which statements you're talking about.  You should probably take it up on those talk pages if there are problems with sourcing, notability, etc.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are you guys still arguing? There seems to be plenty of reliable sources talking about this comment, and the section now resides at the article about his radio show.  de Bivort 23:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this item has received more reliable source coverage than anything else about Malloy, it deserves placement in this article instead. Drrll (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: @Arzel There's no need to make this about ideology. The process has worked here. A controversial statement was added to a BLP, then removed pending RSs. They were provided and the was text restored (albeit in a more neutral form and on the article about the radio show). If you think that the corresponding sections on the conservative articles are not following policy - go deal with them there.  de Bivort 03:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: @Drr11. I'm not sure what rules should be invoked to decide where this should go. I assume we can both agree that it should appear here or there, but not in both articles. Since the Colbert I King article, which to me seems the most reliable, topical and more than just a passing comment, is about this controversy specifically, rather than about Malloy's general behavior, it seems like it should go in the other article. Also, its insertion there seems to have passed without any objection, so maybe it has found its rightful home.  de Bivort 03:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The one point I would disagree with is your statement that reliable sources have been provided for this.  They haven't.  Again, opinion pieces and blogs are not reliable sources, especially in BLPs.  And realclearpolitics is never a reliable source. Nonetheless, this seems to be a circular argument at this point, so it's best to let the dead horse be.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I can't find anything here that would disqualify the colbert I king piece. Could you explain your thinking?  de Bivort 06:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It's an opinion piece (as evidenced by the word "opinion" in the URL and the giant graphic at the top of the page stating that it's opinion).  Editorials and opinion pieces are reliable sources only for statements as to the opinions of their authors but not statements of fact.  See WP:NEWSORG for further explanation of this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So - would it not then be appropriate to phrase the addition as "Colbert I King of the Washington Post criticized the comment Malloy made with respect to the assassination ... " ? Or is the issue in your mind that we need a reliable source to cite the fact of his even having said it at all, in which case the WashPo editorial can't be used to cite a fact. That would seem pretty silly to me since whether or not he said it is pretty indisputable. Because if the latter isn't a problem (whether or not he said it), then the editorial seems like the opinion of a recognized expert and we can cite it as such.  de Bivort 09:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we have no information about the quote itself or the context.  There's a single quote that got tossed around between a few of these critics that day (almost certainly none of whom actually heard the program and just got the quote from each other).  As we've seen too often (practically on a weekly basis now, it seems) it's far too easy to pull a quote out of context to tweak its meaning and then run with it.  As for the "recognized expert" part, what is he a recognized expert at exactly?  Giving opinions?  Well, yeah, that's his job, but then it's the job of every commentator which would render that phrase meaningless. The phrase is used to distinguish people who have (or lack) expertise in an area of knowledge that they are commenting on.  It doesn't refer to whether someone is an "expert" at the act of commenting itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text: As mentioned several times above, there are non-opinion reliable sources that mention this. This straight news report discusses it, as does this straight news article from the blog editor of the LA Times (WP:IRS gives equal weight to blogs of reliable sources), as does this straight news article.  In addition, media reporter Howard Kurtz mentioned it on his CNN media analysis show Reliable Sources. Drrll (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not still not getting the difference between commentary/opinion and hard news.  If it says "Political Commentary" at the top of the page as in the L.A. Times piece, then it's, well....political commentary.  As for Fox and the Times, they are often, but not always, reliable sources.  One of the problems is that they do have a specific partisan slant, so they fill a lot of time and ink just batting around whatever was on Drudgereport that day.  But unless it's a real story, big enough story to get picked up by the larger media, it's rarely very notable.  Getting mentioned in some offhand piece from the day's partisan blog chatter doesn't come close to making this notable to a biography (and yes, I would say the same thing about their counterparts at MSNBC repeating stories from Huffingtonpost).  The fact that there are brief mentions all within the same news cycle and then it is not mentioned again indicates that this doesn't have any kind of lasting notability.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the LA Times article actually says "POLITICAL COMMENTARY FROM ANDREW MALCOLM" at the top, but that particular article is actually written by Tony Pierce, blog editor of the LAT.  Note also the tone of the article is not very opinion-like. As for the Fox News source, the segment comes from the the straight news show Special Report with Bret Baier, reported in a news segment by the very neutral Baier.  The Washington Times does have more of a point of view, yes, but that doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source (otherwise the much more respected New Yorker and NYT would be disqualified) and it comes in the context of reporting, not opinion.  Fox News, the LA Times, The Washington Post, and CNN certainly qualify as major media.  And it wasn't all mentioned in the same news cycle--the Washington Times & LAT articles were on May 4; the Fox News segment was on May 5; the Washington Post column was on May 7; and the CNN segment was on May 8.  As to there being only brief mentions, why would they be lengthy when the subject is the relatively unknown Mike Malloy? On the other hand, I haven't found anything else about Mike Malloy approaching this level of coverage in reliable sources. BTW, thanks for the correction in The Mike Malloy Show.  I used the verbatim words from the source, but didn't get it grammatically correct. Drrll (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy section / seal team six 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Malloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614060452/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2003/05/13/malloy/index_np.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2003/05/13/malloy/index_np.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080918122644/http://www.bushflash.com/14.html to http://www.bushflash.com/14.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mike’s website says he and Kathy are still married; why does it say they divorced in 2020? Jhojnack (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse