Talk:Michael Savage/Archive 1

message: Does it seem like he's racist to all non-white people specifically black and Latino people? Recently his "rap" song made it seem like all black people were idiots.Runescape rocks 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to add such claims, vandalizing the article is not a good way to go about it.  Please do not add nonsense again in the future.  And for your information, the article already has text indicating that Savage has been called a racist.  You could have at least done a text search.  Kasreyn 07:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist?

message: Michael Savage was born an immigrant's son in the Bronx. There are endless stories about his childhood, so I won't bother even trying to tell them. That's all I can think of.
"Ferlinghetti views Weiner's reincarnation as Michael Savage as 'total opportunism,' the crowning achievement of someone who was 'always looking to make a fast buck' and 'always trying to think up new schemes to get famous.' "
because it wasn't sourced
-mrdthree
:OK, sounds good. —Kenyon (t·c) 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio

message: Actually, I remember him starting on KGO radio as a substitute host, before getting his own show on KSFO.
Savage made his debut on March 21, 1994. I can't prove that, but he did celebrate twelve years in radio on March 21, 2006. He has also stated that March 21, 1994 was his debut date and that he was a fill-in for the "overnight" "hate whitey" "hate America" guy. He is clearly referring to Ray Taliaferro, who has been the overnight host on KGO for years. Maybe somebody can find an article on this. Politician818 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio

message: I could have sworn that I heard him talk about how he had a Ph.D. in anthropology. What the hell?
Can you supply citations for him being a noted epidemiology and nutrition expert? -- The Anome
:Google for - "Michael Savage" epidemiology - brings up:
:http://www.radioprogramrecorder.com/Savage/SavageGuide.htm
:Quote: He has Master's degree in medical botany and one in medical anthropology as well as a Ph.D. in Epidemiology and Nutrition Science.
:Evercat 13:33 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
He took the introductory graduate level epidemiology course (one semester) at UC Berkeley at the same time that I did.  He went on to take an interdisciplinary Ph.D. with professors from epidemiology and nutrition science on his committee, but that's a far cry from being a "noted epidemiology expert."  I believe that the research from his Berkeley Ph.D. consisted of his plant collecting trips to either Tonga or Fiji. I'm sure that you could order copies of his dissertation somewhere.   
This seems to be a bit Anti-POV. I'd try and fix it myself, but I don't like the guy either.  Cvaneg 20:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: *Why is the last quote dated January 32, 2001? That's three years before the tsunami. Was it a different tsunami? Saopaulo1
:There is no such thing as January 32. It was a mistake. It is from this past tsunami.  ALKIVAR™ 10:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsunami quotes

message: I've put together a timeline of claims of coining the term Islamofascism: User:Chalst/islamofascism.  Michael Savage has repeatedly claimed to have coined the term. When did he first use it? I have a partly documented usage from Oct. 2002, but I guess that he used the term earlier. Is anyone able to tell me when first?  Thanks ---- Charles Stewart 13:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was used over a decade earlier by Malise Ruthven (in an article published in The Independent of 8 September 1990.  --Dannyno 14:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim to have coined Islamofascism

message: I could not find any solid proof that "Islamofascism" was coined by Christopher Hitchens. To quote the reference: "which was coined, I believe, by Christopher Hitchens"  Speculation does not belong in a Wikipedia article.
I also could not find any proof that "compassionate conservatism" was coined by Marvin Olasky. The earliest article which I could find relating the two was dated 2000. Savage coined the term in 1994.
69.42.5.52 01:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to Christopher Hitchens or his publications? Or that of Marvin Olasky? I would check those links out, so please help me out people! This is common in the talk radio industry to adopt catch phrases and words to describe a political issue or debate. --Mike D 26 10:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV edits April 28, 2005 

message: There is a problem with this statement:
"Their lead guitarist Kirk Hammett has called into Savage's show to say 'We support what you're doing,' and James Hetfield, Metallica's lead singer, reportedly despises liberals [6]."
Neither of those has been confirmed independently. I actually heard the show the day when Hammett called in to say that he supports what Savage is doing. The call was very awkward, and the total length was maybe thirty seconds at most. Later Savage conceded that he didn't really know that that was even Kirk Hammett.
More than likely it was just a Metallica fan listening to the show making a prank call. Although I'll personally admit that it did sound quite a bit like Kirk Hammett, given the awkwarndess of the call and the "surprise" nature of it, I would hold it with a bit of speculation. Someone may consider deleting it.
24.75.129.14 5 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
I personally think that the members of Metallica are against war. If you hear their early songs such as "One," you will see that they are against war and how it affects people. Lars Ulrich did in fact speak out against the war, so I doubt they support what Savage is doing. Look up some old Metallica lyrics dealing with war. You will see that they are pretty much opposed to it. As for Rammstein, the vocalist has stated that they do not have political beliefs, though they seem to lean left. Look at the lyrics to the song "Amerika," and you will see that they are kinda poking fun at America and American culture. I think this should be looked into.
***CLARIFICATION: While all that may very well be true, James Hetfield has voiced conservative beliefs, such as being anti-gun control and pro-life. I know for a definite fact that Lars Ulrich and Kirk Hammett are very liberal, but the jury is still out on Hetfield. Just because he wrote anti-war lyrics fifteen to twenty years ago doesn't mean anything today. Hetfield has expressed numerous times that he's changed dramatically over the years, and he has also said how much he and Ulrich differ on many issues and philosophies. In fact, so much so that Lars and James are infamous for their neverending heated arguments that almost broke up Metallica for good. These arguments, surprisingly, have little to do with music but simply life in general. This fact is well documented in the documentaries A Year and a Half in the Life of Metallica and Some Kind of Monster.
: From what I know on pop musicians and their political leanings, Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi and Steven Tyler are highly appealing to some neo-Conservative fans. However, these music artists claimed themselves as liberals until recently on some Newsweek articles. I wish to collect enough verifiable articles, but Newsweek web site requires me to sign for a account that's not free. So far, Mike Savage has interviewed only with the Metallica band on their right-wing/neo-conservative fan base. --Mike D 26 11:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallica conservative leanings? 

message: Thanks to whomever added in the bumper music track ID's. I've been trying to identify those tracks for a while.
Mixx941 22:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bumper Music

message: Hi. Some reviewer on Amazon says that Michael Weiner is the grandson of Norbert Weiner. It seems incorrect, since I can't see Norbert's descendants being that nuts. He had two daughters, so the name Weiner should have been erased by marriage; but he does look awfully similar. Does anyone know?
:::If you are going to discuss people with Germanic surnames, you will have to pay diligent attent to the position of the "e"s and the "i"s. Norbert Wiener's name is derived from the city of Wien (Vienna) in Austria. Michael Weiner's name is derived from the alcoholic beverage that is made from grapes.Lestrade 18:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norbert Wiener? 

message: Removed word "homoerotic" from phrase "one of those letters describes a homoerotic encounter with a young Fijian man" I read the link to the letter and felt the label of homoerotic was far-reaching. In many cultures outside the United States and the western world men hold hands, such as in Africa and Polynesia. It is not considered homosexual behavior, hence the term "When in Rome do as the Romans do."
Perhaps that's what is getting Savage into trouble (image of McDowell as Caligula needed here). MotherFunctor 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homoerotic?

message: I created this section to stop the deletion war which I was not a part of.  The controversial paragraph mentioning Allen Ginsberg belonged in an uncreated criticism section but was in Biography and Education.  It was clearly out of place and so I created the controversy section and that is where it now is.  The paragraph should be safer from deletion being put there.
Ironman55 23:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the disputed paragraph because it belongs in the proper chronological section of his biography and I disagree that it was out of place there.  We shouldn't move it because of anon vandalism nor should we dump anything that could be percieved as negative about a subject of an article into one section near the bottom. Other than the Ferlinghetti quote, I don't see that paragraph as negative or controversial, but I guess Savage partisans can't bear the thought that he might be gay.  Gamaliel 06:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The "meet the fockers"  movie is tongue-in-cheek humor, but qualifies as  politically incorrect to some who object to this type of humor. So has the political humor of Mike Savage and in many radio segments, he plays the "Jew" based on some anti-Semitic canards he may been familiar with. Repeatedly, Savage attacks Nazism and fascism as unfit ideologies and he's certainly not the only one. He wrote on his opposition to the far-right and connections with fascism in his autobiography. Savage warns the "danger" of Socialism could bring forth a repeat of the rise and advent of the Nazis. Other conservative commentators from Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck to Bill O'Reilly have compared Nazism with socialism, in which Savage and his colleagues highly opposed, and gone as far to trace the roots of National Socialism to occultism, paganism and the believe in "space brothers" or UFOs, the high usage of drugs in the personal lives of prominent Nazis and environmentalism gone to the extremes. Again, with historic research and documentation, the conservative radio agenda dispises not glorifies Nazism. It's like to call a Liberal or socialist a "Communist" or "soviet agent", also are disparaging terms and politically an attack motive. Controversial, but at times I am convinced, the point Mike Savage made is he's not an anti-Semite, not a Nazi admirer and not a fascist in practice, as much he calls Nazism a whole array of names on his radio show. He justifies his claims of Socialism and Nazism, with his own words: "I think, therefore, I cannot be a Socialist".  --Mike D 26 11:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: On May 4, 2005, Savage stated that he believed Laura Bush was the only chance for the Republican Party if Hillary Clinton ran for president.
He just said tonight on his show that Hillary has lost her standing chance with the Democratic party and that John Kerry will likely be the greater contender for the primaries.  I also heard him say shortly thereafter that there is presently no Republican candidate that would be able to defeat him because Kerry has learned from his 2004 mistakes.  Salva 03:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on Savage's 2008 predictions 

message: I removed:
On the October 10th, 2005 broadcast of his show, Savage spoke to a caller, "Tom from San Diego," and became venomously angry when the caller claimed that Savage was "the biggest hypocrite in the world" because he had never actually been in the military. After some back-and-forth, Savage ultimately yelled "Give me your address and phone-number so I can come fight with you!" The caller simply replied by telling Savage that he was "all talk." Savage then booted him from the show and said that Tom was never to be accepted again onto the Savage Nation talk show.
Which appeared at the end of the MSNBC section.  Obviously this makes no sense for the outburst to be under that MSNBC heading and really doesn't fit into the article currently unless someone wants to create a section highlighting various outbursts by Mr. Savage. Matt Yohe 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 10th, 2005 

message: "including Anti-Semitism, which is surprising due to his Jewish parentage"
I have been listening to Michael Savage for some time now and now where is he ever anti-semetic, if you refer to Jewish people. If anything Savage talks about Jews being a superior chosen race, so I'm going to take this statement out until someone comes up with more proof.Silverbackman0076 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There ya go. FYI, in case I am wrong, you're probably going to be seen as meatpuppet of Silverback due to your political beliefs and user name. Karmafist 03:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-semitism?

message: "On the January 19, 2006 broadcast of his radio show, he called for the internment of roughly 380,000 American citizens for the length of the war on terrorism, comparing the action to measures taken by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. He included Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and all non citizen Muslims in his list of those to arrest." This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He said we should go to every mosque and ask if there are any non-americans there and see if they're suspicious, and only then should we put them in internment camps. The number provided (380,000) was when he was comparing how many were interned in WWII and used the population growth as a model for what that number should be today. It was in no way a definitive statement on how many he thinks should be interned, and therefore is not even important enough to mention. Lastly, i don't think he called for Hillary, Howard Dean etc. to be interned, and even if he did, he always makes exaggerational statements to be half humorous, half truth. This section needs to be fixed. -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a revert here 

message: I'm removing the tags because there appears to be no active editing or discussion regarding these matters. Such tags are not intented to remain on articles indefinately. Gamaliel 18:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whynot upload the letter to wikipedia and add a thumbnail?  ---J.Smith 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Michael Savage Sucks" page is not a neutral site and should not be relied upon for factual information. However, the letter is something that has been reported on by multiple news outlets. The New York Daily News article linked to in the very next sentence discusses it. I added another link to the NYDN to make it explicit. The Michael Savage Sucks page is only linked to because it provides an image of the letter, and for no other reason. I'd much prefer another site, and I'd gladly replace it if someone can find another image of the letter to link to. People can look at the letter themselves and make up their own mind, and so I feel that linking to this non-neutral site for that purpose is preferable to not having the image available for readers at all. Gamaliel 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, it is not correct to say the "naked photo claim has no citation." Multiple facts in the paragraph are taken from the Salon article, so the cite was added to the end of the paragraph. I've added a redundant citation at the end of every single sentence that employs information from the article.  This is ugly and clumsy in my opinion, but apparently it is necessary. Gamaliel 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article tags 

message: As for Metallica not liking Bush, neither does this guy (Savage). I heard him the other day saying it was a "sign of Fascist regime" that Donald Rumsfeld is able to "shut up his critics"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.146 (talk • contribs) 
:New comments at the bottom of the page please ---J.S (t|c) 05:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a straw pull active right now. Talk:Michael_Savage_%28commentator%29/strawpull  Please leave your comments so we can resolve this ridiculous edit war. ---J.Smith 20:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by 155.97.15.146

message: I've hit my limit for today, and so has Politician818. Kasreyn 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I should have taken the time and effort to only revert your content changes. Your stylistic changes were, for the most part, improvements.  Kasreyn 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR Rule 

message: According to the "no original research" rule of Wikipedia, which I just looked up, organizations like GLAAD, Salon.com, etc. on the far left or organizations on the far right are not reputable. Therefore, quoting Savage and using them as a source violates Wikipedia's rules, and I intend to delete those quotes. What if Salon.com said, "Savage is gay"? Politician818 02:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record Salon.com is fairly reliable-- I trust them to report the facts accurately but with an unbalanced presentaiton, like any small news outlet. They are not far left, pacifica radio is far left. If you want to edit Michael Savage's Bio you are obligated to at least read the articles that inform it. Its pretty clear you havent.  If you have issues with the credibility of the NYT your standards of 'reputable' need to be re-examined. Part of this process involves actually reading what you are criticizing. This means read the only sources I know of that explain who savage is and was.
*Newsmax promotional Bio
*Fan bio
*Salon.com bio
*san jose mercury bio
Once you can name three poems by allen ginsberg then maybe you can delete some more junk.Mrdthree 07:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree, but Politician818 did bring something valid to my attention:  I personally trust salon as a source, but the article overuses it.  I'll try to find varied sources for the same quotes in order to avoid the appearance of giving undue weight to Salon.  Kasreyn 07:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of intent to delete quotes

message: After doing some looking, I've found a few problems and corrected them.  I've removed an extra copy of a salon.com link within a paragraph.  I don't see why we need two links to the article in one paragraph when there are already 5 or 6 to it in the article.
I've also added a citation needed tag, and replaced the nydailynews source with a tag.  The nydailynews story was "according to Radar Magazine", which on first glance, doesn't look very reputable to me:   Kasreyn 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote parts of the bio back sometime ago and most of the facts rest on the Salon.com article (even the stuff you tagged).  I guess you could rewrite the bio with a theme of presonal and financial growth, adding a paragraph on his current success. Myy two cents is I dont doubt what salon.com reported people said.Mrdthree 07:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working as we speak, trying to find non-salon sources.  I'm also finding lots of unsourced material needing work.  Kasreyn 07:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point.  I'll try to keep that in mind from now on.  In general, my main concern is that a legitimate complaint could have been raised that the  article was overly reliant on a single citation.  While the Salon article in question was definitely exhaustive in detail, and no matter what one believes about Salon's reliability, it's clearly not appropriate to base the entire article (nearly) on one source.  It makes me wish I'd noticed that earlier.  It's kind of embarassing that I've been watching this article for (iirc) a month or two and never caught that.  ^_^;;  Kasreyn 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, I didn't the nydailynews secondary source because I couldn't find the radaronline story.  It was removed because radaronline has a very, very disreputable appearance and I don't feel comfortable using it, even indirectly, on a serious encyclopedia.  Would you object to my again removing this source?  I have no intentions of removing the quote, & am still searching for a better source than radar news.  Kasreyn 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get the sources ready. Radio transcripts are available from the Michael Savage show. In fact this is the opportunity to contact the radio network, ask for some of the transcripts on his most ultimate radio segments and edit it down to what can fit on the Mike Savage article. If any request was politely rejected, then go on the web and search for Mike Savage quotes, news interviews and the like to use in Wikipedia. We want to improve the article and make sense on what the article discusses on not only the career, but what Michael Savage stands for. Another reason is to clarify and correct popular misconceptions of Savage on what he said or believes in (i.e. proof that he's not an anti-Semite and not entirely a Bush supporter). --Mike D 26 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing cleanup 

message: After a brief and unexpected Wikibreak, I'm going to try to make a few more improvements.  I've removed a redundant line and added a cite needed tag to the universalist claim.  Kasreyn 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back 

message: This section seems to add nothing of value.  It details two claims by Savage about Wikipedia.  Neither is sourced.  Neither even seems notable to me.  Mentioning Wikipedia isn't really a notable action, even though this happens to be Wikipedia - that doesn't matter.  How is Savage mentioning Wikipedia notable in the context of an article on Savage?  I'm tempted to remove this entire section.  Kasreyn 01:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections and Popular Culture sections in all Wikipedia articles have no value. They are allowed to remain so that the "medicated" generations can find something of interest in accordance with their capabilities.Lestrade 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: May31st, 2006, on the Michael Savage Show. Savage called into question the manner in which Sen. John Murtha(D) was awarded multiple medals during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.
Michael whiner called John Murtha <quote,unquote> "A dirty, yellow Rat"
Michael Savage never really delves into his own activities during the Vietnam war which is strange for a "super patriot". The reason he doesn't is pretty obvious, the Vietnam war didn't happen for Savage. The "super patriot" was probably too busy inhaling mind altering substances with some of the most rampant far left figures of that era.
I'd bet i'm not too far from the truth.
John Murtha (DEMOCRAT) is a Patriot. From his own experiences he understands full well that WAR can corrupt, even with the fullest of sincere intentions. Dirty, Yellow Rats like Michael Savage have never spent an hour in the thick of combat eyewitnessing the true horrors of all the worst that humanity can throw at each other.
Michael Savage (Super Patriot) is two a penny on the air.
If he were President (he claims he'd be better at the job than anyone in America, because he is the voice of America) you would find yourself living in a Totalitarian Hellhole because he is lower than a snakes belly!
User: Dean1970, Thur,June1,2006
Dean, how is this rant by you relevant to the article? But if you want to go there, John Murtha is not a patriot. He's a piece of garbage for condemning those eight Marines before a trial. He's already decided that they're guilty. No patriot would ever do that. BTW, it's coming out now that Murtha was never in harm's way in 'Nam. America would not be totalitarian under a President Savage, BTW. Totalitarian nations ban guns. Savage is pro gun. Again, Murtha never saw fire. He's a lying scumbag. Murtha will never be president. Never. But hopefully Savage will be president. If he were to run, he'd win. The Democrats couldn't call him an "idiot" like they do with Bush. Dean, nice grammar.Politician818 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Savage and the Vietnam war

message: William, thanks for your compliment on my recent edits, but I have to disagree on this one.  Media Matters self-identifies as progressive.  To call them "liberal" is a subjective decision which qualifies as original research.  There are quite a few articles on conservatives where I have seen the term "neo-conservative" added, and then removed.  It was removed because the person in question self-identified as "conservative" and no reliable source described them as "neo-conservative".  I would be willing to remove the liberal/progressive altogether and refer to them as a "media watchdog group".  Why do you feel MM should be called liberal?  Cheers, Kasreyn 01:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Kasreyn, it looks like my explaination in the edit summary was cut off (I have a bad habit of accidentally hitting the "return" key instead of the "shift" key when using my laptop).  Anyway, I'm not adamant on this one, but I believe that terms like "liberal", "conservative", "neo-conservative", "progressive", etc aren't subjective and all have accepted definitions and can be applied in most cases without the need for sources.  (As a very loose analogy, we can say "the sky is blue" without sourcing it, I believe we can say an organization that espouses liberal opinions is a liberal organization).  "Media Matters" is an obvious liberal organization, and recently there has been an attempt by various liberal groups to co-opt the term "progressive" to identify themselves with the historical, more positive progressive philosophy.  Basically, my objection is that the "Media Matters" attempt to re-label themselves is nothing more than transparent spin on their part in order to legitimize their opinions as more mainstream.  To use their spin would seem to advocate it.  And, generally, I too would be willing to remove the label altogether, but in this case (IMHO) I think it is necessary in order to keep the quotes in context.  I don't like getting into controversial/political articles on WP, but I do try to make every article the best it can be and conform to WP norms.  It's my philosophy here to call a spade a spade regardless of what the spade prefers to call itself.--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Kasreyn on this one.  I feel that generally groups should be identified in the way they self-identify unless there is a compelling reason not to, like if the Aryan Nations started calling themselves "libertarian".  Is anyone really being hoodwinked here with the liberal/progressive thing?  Assuming I agreed with your assessment on the matter, that isn't to my mind a compelling enough reason to substitute our own judgement for the self-identification of the organization itself. Gamaliel 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'm not adamant on this one and I'll try to not to back myself into a corner but a couple things to think about: 1) to me, this is just as obvious, though not as egregious, as your example of the Aryan Nations, 2) I don't think this is a "judgement" call, "liberal" is a definable, quantifiable adjective; MM's opinions are either "liberal" or "not liberal" 3) if my logic (or attempts at logic) don't convince anybody, how about a preponderance of reliable sources...do the majority of notable, reliable sources (or any, for that matter) refer to MM as "progressive" (in the traditional sense)?  Again, I try to stay away from these types of articles (in general); I'm not approaching this with an ideological agenda and I'm not trying to be argumentative, just want to maintain accuracy and integrity of the article.--WilliamThweatt 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I generally think in principle, groups should be allowed to define themselves instead of having the news media do it for them, a preponderance of reliable sources from different parts of the political spectrum might make the case. However, I still don't see what the fuss is about in this particular case. Gamaliel 12:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: William, I have to disagree on one point, and I would have done so sooner if I had read your remark sooner:  liberal, just like conservative, is a subjective label which cannot be properly understood out of context.  For example, in many European nations, a political party espousing the opinions and policies of the United States' Democratic Party would be called "conservative".  Calling something "left wing" or "right wing" or "liberal" or "conservative" depends entirely on a subjective decision as to what the "center" is.  It also depends on another subjective decision, to frame the field of possible political viewpoints as a one-dimensional construct, accepting as valid only a position on a left-to-right scale.  Finally, there is the subjective decision to use terminology that is local to one country (America) rather than terminology that would be more understandable to a world audience.  Liberal can refer to economically liberal (Republican Party - sort of) or socially liberal (Democratic Party).  Conservative can refer to economically conservative (Democratic Party - sort of) or socially conservative (Republican).  There isn't a single objective thing about calling MM "liberal".  However, there is one, and only one, concrete and objective thing about calling them "progressive" - it is what they call themselves.  Respectfully, Kasreyn 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasreyn, I'm happy to respectfully agree to disagree on this point.  I will concede that in both a philosophical and temporal sense, these terms are relative.  The spectrum of political beliefs is a continuum and where a stance on an issue fits into that spectrum is relative to the extremes of the spectrum in that particular era.  However, being relative doesn't necessarily equate to being subjective.  In the US, there is are clear-cut, diametricly opposed distinctions between "liberal" and "conservative" world views and they are easily defined.  Consequently, it is easy to objectively say that "view A" is a liberal view (again when speaking in the context of US politics) and "view B" is a consevative view.  To put it in a logic sentence:  In US politics, X, Y and Z is a liberal view.  Media Matters espouses X, Y and Z.  Therefore, Media Matters is a liberal group.--WilliamThweatt 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well William, what about my suggestion of using "media watchdog group" instead?  Why is it important to note that MM is progressive or liberal?  Kasreyn 01:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I'm not adamant about the situation in this article, it's more or less an academic execise to me.  But I did touch on this briefly above.  I think it's necessary to have the label to keep the views of Media Matters in context.  We, who are trained in politics, may recognize exactly what Media Matters is, but not every reader of this article will; without a (legitimate) label, they may assume Media Matters is representative of mainstream thought.  Although the situation was slightly different, I believe Kasreyn, herself, recently made a similar argument in the Ann Coulter talk page here (I just happened to have been watching that page as well).--WilliamThweatt 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this means I must concede the point, then.  Well put.  Thank you for being so polite in demonstrating my error.  Kasreyn 01:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with William on Mediamatters' spin.  Mediamatters self-identifies as "progressive" because mainstream America "self-identifies" liberals as hypocrites.  That being said, I agree with Gamaliel, that the article should describe them as they describe themselves since nobody is stupid enough to believe they aren't liberal.  (Where's a picture of lipstick on a pig when you need one?) Lawyer2b 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't think you need to couch your arguments in such a pointedly sarcastic way, you've essentially grasped the situation well.  Kasreyn 04:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Media Matters 

message: deleted "child...now a man..." quote and citation... the quote wasn't about his shift in views on marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.150 (talk • contribs) 
deleted again. Mrdthree 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: inserted (again).  I rewrote it slightly.  The comment is obviously a reference to his change in views on all things, with specific mention of "herbal medicine", which, in his previous books under "Weiner", he claimed marijuana to be.  The quote is relevant and properly cited.  Just because Savage doesn't mention "marijuana" specifically in his quote, doesn't mean the quote doesn't cover his views on it.  You have to read that whole section of the interview to get the context.  Please don't delete it again until you attempt to justify its removal with more than one sentence.--WilliamThweatt 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I heard both comments on air. IT is improperly cited in that it is taken out of context. His reasons for being against marijuana are that its a gateway drug whose health damage exceeds its benefits. His statement I wasy a boy now I am a man realted to his being liberal.Delete in section. Can be reinserted in bio section reagrding being a liberal.Mrdthree 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marijuana

message: Lately I've been busy on the Jesse Jackson article on Wikipedia trying to put in a ridiculous quote of his into the article, yet I've been repeatedly told that that violates NPOV, even though the quote is cited. Yet from reading this article on Savage, I see that the liberals have had a field day in printing negative stuff about Savage. A few weeks ago when I tried to take some of the stuff out, I was told, "Tough. If it's cited, there's nothing that you can do about it." I think that all of you guys who put negative stuff into this article should be helping me get that particular quote into the Jesse Jackson article, or can only negative stuff about conservatives be written on Wikipedia?Politician818 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  You're right on that one.  Kasreyn 05:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, economic liberalism means shrinking the government; it means getting the government out of the economy.  It means laissez-faire.  It means Ronald Reagan.  At least, that's my understanding of it.  From what I can see, the party that is in favor of reducing governmental regulation of the marketplace is the Republican Party, making them the more economically liberal.  If "economically conservative" is an apt antonym, then the Democrats are economically conservative.  Cheers, Kasreyn 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is asinine. You are mixing and matching the various meanings and definitions of the word. It takes on different and frequently opposite meanings depending on its context.--Bhirsch 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain?  Kasreyn 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly. Although I would if I thought you genuinely didn't know. Don't you have anything better to do than troll wp discussion pages? If I am mistaken, I apologize and advise you to brush up on political history (particularly Locke). Bhirsch 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I accept your apology.  You've said nothing yet that would lead me to change my belief of what the terminology means.  Kasreyn 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing two highly contextual terms in totally different contexts. Liberalism used to be associated with laissez faire. Today in the US, it represents laissez faire opposition. It used to represent an anti-socialistic stance. Today in the US, it represents a socialistic stance. The contemporary definition of conservative more closely matches the classical definition of liberal than does the current definition of liberal. In a broader sense, liberal just signifies opposition to the status quo. At any rate, equating Locke/Voltaire/Jefferson liberalism to a bunch of soft communists is, as I said, asinine. Bhirsch 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't see how the myopic misperceptions of Americans are particularly relevant (and I speak as an American, mind you).  Just because the U.S. decides the sky is yellow and the sun is blue doesn't make it so.  I also don't see how liberalism is "opposition to the status quo", since the status quo in a country can be policies which are liberal (in which case, conservatism would be the "opposition to the status quo").  Or, to be more precise, two given policies on the same issue can be compared, and it can be axiomatically determined which is the more liberal without needing to be aware of which supports the status quo; the liberality or conservativeness of a policy is inherent and not determined by such external factors.  It's true that certain organizations in America have performed a very effective reframing maneuver, and have convinced many Americans that liberalism == socialism, but this certainly doesn't change the reality which most of the rest of the world still appreciates.  It's also true that popular American conceptions of political philosophy are very crude and one-dimensional, and fail to consider multiple dimensions.  Instead, many Americans mistakenly believe that the two main parties' arbitrarily chosen platforms somehow represent purified philosophical absolutes, or that they are diametrically opposed at all points.  This is entirely preposterous.  In a sense, my only point is that "contemporary definitions" of political thought add nothing new to political philosophy except confusion.  There is nothing about "contemporary definitions" (ie. misunderstandings and deliberate distortions) of political thought which adds anything to the debate; they do not include new thoughts, but merely apply labels to old thoughts with the purpose of introducing structural bias into the discussion.  Therefore it is superior to use classical definitions which are widely agreed-upon, rather than employing the narrow, politically motivated misdefinitions of a single country.  Wikipedia is for the entire world, after all.  Kasreyn 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tracked sown some quotes to balance the tone of the article.Mrdthree 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: GIven that the vast majority of content relates to critics who complain about his point of view, it is necessary to include points of view that explain his appeal. He may yell about his dick to some GQ reporter but he has appeal. Just like George Carlin or Bill Maher, he is an independent minded individualist. Mrdthree 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect, it's not really a difference of opinion...  economic liberalism and conservatism are what they are.  The fact that the Democrats (ideally, which I why I said "sort of") are economically conservative and socially liberal, while the Republicans are (again, ideally) economically liberal and socially conservative, is widely understood.  What has happened, though, is that they have convinced most Americans that anything done by a Republican or advocated by a Republican must be "conservative", and anything done or advocated by a Democrat must be "liberal".  This is not true.  There exist political parties in the world which are both economically and socially conservative, or both economically and socially liberal.  The two major parties in America like to present themselves as fair representatives of two "sides" of the political field, but in reality politics has more dimensions than just one, and the American parties are fairly close together when compared to some other political movements in the world and in history.  It is only our lack of distance and perspective that makes them appear so different from each other.  Best wishes, Kasreyn 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would Michael Savage, a part-time herbal medicine specialist, be called a hypocrite on his opposition to Marijuana? Will a staunch conservative radio show host has sometimes opposed president Bush on many issues? And how can a man called "anti-liberal" has constantly "think outside the box" to make some radical right-wing points? Mike Savage is an individual, not a follower of the conservative movement, he wants to make his points and speak his mind on what goes on in the nation and the world. The argument on who's or what's a "liberal", "conservative" or "moderate" will not be fully understood as long the sides bicker and argue, such as how forceful the liberal activists were on American life (i.e. political correct mores) and how "weak" the conservatives are in handling social problems by the government staying out of it (i.e. public social services). If you don't agree with Mike Savage, then change the radio dial and listen to someone else. I happen to stand for moderate Democrat causes, though more liberal on social causes, and cautious on how much the government can interfere in personal lifes. Does that make me a Republican or inside a "neo-Con"? Not really. I don't identify with those like Dennis Miller, once reported to be a flaming liberal, and not on the side of Ann Coulter with her radical right commentary said to defamed or insulted her opponents. How can we label Mike Savage "ultra-conservative", but he never entered the realm of Neo-Fascists, racists and authoritarians that may share his views? Savage carries on a mainstream political audience of the Republican party, then he may alienate the very party base he usually supported. I'm amazed he felt his parents' political opinions are misguided and the "Communist-Socialist-liberal" connection he speaks on his radio show is far-fetched. It's his opinion and I don't believe Michael Savage hates his parents. He loves them and appreciated for how they raised him.--Mike D 26 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocrisy on Wikipedia?

message: I honestly don't see how that website is worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article. There's a good chance that Savage's "letter" is a forgery. This website is not to be confused with the New York Times. Just by reading the name of the website, one can tell that it has it in for Savage.Politician818 08:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with this.  MSS cannot be considered unbiased with regard to Savage.  At the very least, if they are used as a source, they must be clearly identified as being an organization opposed to Savage wherever cited.  Kasreyn 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MichaelSavageSucks.com a Reputable Source?

message: I will be cleaning up the grammar in this article in the next few days. I hope that no one takes issue with that. Better grammar will help Wikipedia become more reputable.Politician818 08:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: I've learned from my experience with the Jesse Jackson article that not every quote that a person has made is evidently worthy of being in a Wikipedia article, even if the quote is cited. Not all quotes are "newsworthy," I guess. It seems to me that this article is quite heavy in quotes, not all of which are newsworthy or needed, although many are properly cited. Savage's quote about taking a look at his genitals to see if he's a Jew is not newsworthy (as honestly, as a Savage fan, I've never heard about that quote, and I haven't heard the media making a big deal about it). That quote is also quite offensive. I feel like vomiting whenever I come across it. (Please don't think that my bias as a fan of Savage means that I'm against all the quotes. Just for example, what he said on his MSNBC show is obviously noteworthy.) It also seems to me that if someone who was apolitical and didn't know who Savage was were to read this article, he'd think that the beginning of the article was quoteheavy, as if written by people concerned more with quoting Savage saying negative things or quoting people saying negative things about him than with writing an encyclopedia article. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. Most encyclopedias will take an unbiased look at famous people without all the obscure quotes.Politician818 08:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason why they're notable is that, when he was younger, Weiner, if not gay himself, was at least tolerant of them (Ginsberg is really about as gay as you can get, you know), whereas today he expresses hostility and contempt for them.  That sort of extreme shift in attitudes is very noteworthy.  Kasreyn 09:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are all these quotes needed?

message: 67.160.229.147 continues to revert to reinsert his POV on Weiner.  I would suggest that 3RR be enforced strictly with regard to this.  I have no love for Mr. Weiner but this sort of revert warring is totally inappropriate and can't be tolerated.  Kasreyn 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'm not sure if the anonymous user has technically violated 3RR (he seems to purposefully miss it by just minutes) but I have reported him here.  Comments by other editors might influence the reviewing admin to take action.--WilliamThweatt 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt he's even reading his talk page, but you might want to notify him there in any case.  Kasreyn 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:67.160.229.147|67.160.229.147]] and [[WP:3RR]] 

message: I've always admired Wikipedia for providing accurate, neutral information in their articles. However this article is a disgrace.  Whatever your views about Micheal Savage are,  keep whatever you write strictly unbiased and factual.  It's fine to throw in a few controversies in the controversy section, but keep it limited and unbiased.  This article obviously has a strong liberal bias against Savage and that is just as unacceptable as a conservative bias in his favor.  This whole article needs some serious reworking to get it up to PAR with Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalheadkid (talk • contribs) 
:NPOV is not the same thing as neutral--there are people out there whom the balance of opinion is negative, and an NPOV article should reflect that.  No one is guaranteed a mostly positive article--or even a 50 percent positive article. Nareek 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One may feel Michael Savage has gone extreme in some political views, but one should follow the rules and don't let POV get in the way. I don't listen to his radio program, but got to know Michael Savage through his fame and notoriety. Then I wouldn't call him names or defame his personality, because I never fully agree with him. The article highlights his life and career, so we should leave at that. --Mike D 26 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is one of the worst articles on the whole of wikipedia.  I'm ashamed at how so many of us can have our judgement clouded by emotion. Jmcshane 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased, Unprofessional Article

message: Michael Weiner wants the Sedition Act reintroduced, to lock up anyone who happens to disagree with the Neo-Con (a cocktail of Fascism and Marxist Lenninism) agenda.
Would Michael Weiner interpret, say, RockStar69.com as doing anything to facilitate and further a popular culture of Anti-American bias to undermine the war on terror regarding their monetary and unmitigated support for Rock bands who have leftist leanings. 
The rock band Anti-Flag (part of the Taste of Chaos tour which Rockstar proudly promotes) has on its website and album cover a depiction of the Whitehouse, with hundreds of graves marked with white crosses and the words above the image in thick red letters "For Blood and Empire".
Doctor Savage really ought to think about all the teenagers who attend these concerts sponsored by Rockstar, their young and innocent minds being subverted by the Anti-American brainwashing that he claims to despise. 
btw, Sedition Act 1918 was after Lincolns time, I can only assume the 1918 act (w/o proper research) was an attempt to repel the Soviet Russian/Communist sympathizers attempt to penetrate various departments of the U.S Government and U.S media. 
Under the Sedition Act "The Russell Tribunal" would have been under scrutiny. The irony is infinite! 
Dean1970 July20th, 2006. (100% non-npov)
:Wikipedia Article Talk Pages are for discussions relevant to the improvement of the article.  Please limit your comments to constructive discussion.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal agenda.  I notice the bulk (if not all) of your contributions have been on the talk pages.  Wikipedia is not a blog either.  Your constructive, NPOV, additions to articles is encouraged and welcomed, but this sort of rant is not.--WilliamThweatt 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedition Act 1918 

message: I placed a cleanup marker where the article states
"I'm not going to deal with the salacious issues that these faggots come up with... If I know a gay, suddenly everyone's gay? It's disgusting!
Notice there is not a quotation mark at the end of the statement. It is unclear whether the article is paraphrasing or the author simply forgot the final quotation mark. -Trega123 12:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup: Incomplete Quote 

message: Excuse this newbie if I am doing something wrong here but I have to point out that there are contradictory quotations in this article about killing 100 million Muslims. I happened to be listening that day and I don't remember him saying the word "peaceful" in that sentence, so I believe the second version of the quote is most likely the accurate one. I was shocked he was advocating genocide.
I think this should be checked and updated so people realize that this guy is a dangerous jackass.
24.80.172.102 08:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Savage Genocide Quote

message: What in the world is an old world lower-east-side finger tuck?Yeago 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think we want to know. Gamaliel                ~
"Finger tuck" IMHO refers to the fascinating hand-shaking choreography that urban non-whites use with one and other to demonstrate their common origns and thus mutual credibility.  For example, starts with a hand-shake, followed by a repositioning of the hands for another grip, and so on.    70.107.119.221 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe he misread "finger tuck" as something that could be typed with a key adjacent to "t"...  Kasreyn 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please explain to me... 

message: Why is there a citation tag after "He founded The Paul Revere Society to protect these aspects of American society." ??  It's well known Michael Savage founded this group, and its stated goals are clearly visible on the site's webpage. --NEMT 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not just add a citation for the appropriate page of the website?  The Paul Revere Society is not as well known as you think it is and not all of us have heard of it or are familiar with its workings and goals. Gamaliel 03:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: werd.Yeago 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The official site seems to be down at the moment (or maybe just coded poorly).  I don't see why citation is necessary, this isn't a contraversial or implausible claim - Savage talks about the PRS on his program frequently, and has it mentioned in most of his books and official site.  What exactly requires citation, the fact that Savage founded it, or the fact that it was founded "to protect these aspects [borders, language culture] of American society?" --NEMT 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you resistant to citing this information?  Citations are not just for controversial or implausible facts.  You evidently have some knowledge of this organization, so why not share that with the reader?  Add some information or a citation.  Gamaliel 05:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the relevant information is already included in the paragraph itself.  By the standard you are applying here, every article should have exponentially more citations.  We both know why you're pushing for the inclusion of the fact tag, by the way. --NEMT 06:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh heh. It really isn't a very controversial statement. The citation flag is the abused bastard child of Wikipedia. Its pretty straightforward.Yeago 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the information in the article is a vague unverified assertion and the reader has no idea where to go for more information.  You are familiar with this organization, so why are you resistant to sharing information that you have with the reader? Gamaliel 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind, I should have looked at the article first.  Thank you for adding a citation. Gamaliel 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, should I add references to his publishers' web sites to prove he wrote all those books? --NEMT 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, collaborating with you is going to be fun! Gamaliel 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Revere Society

message: I have decided to delete then entire trivia section, while also inserting some of the
information into the appropriate areas. This entire section is useless. It seems like a 
half-baked last minute fart-in-the-air-conditioning to me. If someone feels that it is has a 
specific use, I have posted the text here:
*On his February 10, 2006 show, he proclaimed that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is "full of crap" and that most of his entry is untrue. [citation needed] The subject was brought up because of a recent report that aides to politicians have been tweaking their bosses' bios to make them come across more favorably. During his show on May 24, 2006, Savage stated that he believes those who edit Wikipedia have finally gotten it somewhat right. He would later recant this statement.[citation needed]. On his July 28, 2006 show, Savage once again pointed out inaccuracies in his Wikipedia article. Savage cites the fact that it says he was born in Brooklyn AND the Bronx in the "Biography and Education" section. Savage also pointed out that the article states that his program was licensed under Clear Channel, which it never was. On September 7, 2006 when talking about libel, and how famous people can't sue for defamation or untruths, he once again claimed that his Wikipedia article was full of inaccuracies. On September 15, Savage once again slipped in that his bio on wikipedia is full of inaccuracies. He was angry that the article did not include his personal contribution of $5000 to the "Boys at Camp Pendleton".The article has since been updated. 
*Savage once criticized the Mortal Kombat series of video games, despite having previously used a sound clip of the game's villain Goro bellowing with rage to return from a commercial break. Given the generic nature of the sound, it was unlikely that Savage was aware of this, and the initial use of that clip has been attributed to an intern fooling around with the audio library. 
*Russell Goldencloud Weiner, Savage's son, is the founder and CEO of Rockstar, Inc., the manufacturer and marketer of Rockstar energy drink. 
*In 1998, Russ ran for a seat in the California legislature (State Assembly, District 6) on the platform of being a card-carrying Paul Revere Society member. Footage of the televised debate shows him pulling out the membership card, holding it up high, and speaking at length about his membership in the society.[36] 
*Michael Savage's fill-in guest hosts include former U.S. congressman "B-1" Bob Dornan, Rick Roberts, Peter Weisback and Douglas Urbanski (movie producer/manager of actor Gary Oldman.)
Color me invisible 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer that we keep Weiner's comments on Wikipedia (assuming we can source them).  To one of his fans visiting us for the first time, it would seem quite fishy that it is not mentioned.  I would say that in the context of a Wikipedia article on a celebrity, that celebrity's stated opinions about the quality of his own WP bio article are definitely noteworthy.  Ie., our readers probably deserve to know that the subject feels we haven't done him justice.  Kasreyn 05:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Trivia 

message: I forget but I feel like when I used to type michael savage it came here. Mrdthree 03:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Was this article moved?

message: I think a mere mention of this product is worthy of a few lines considering Michael Savage is involved in the business. I also believe it unsporting of the Michael Savage fan-base to admit that even their powers of P.R spin are incapable of rose-tinting a section that would include FACTS about this company being involved with the pornography industry to sell its image and product. (hmmmmm, could Michael Savages' claim that this page is full of crap be a freudian slip?)
Dean1970 28 September 2006
I think its reasonable to put a See Also link to Russ Weiners page or if Rockstar has a page. But I think you are totally right that his sons ties to the pornography industry are deserving of a mention. More of an irony than a hypocrisy though. Mrdthree 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockstar Energy Drink 

message: I think Savage has repeatedly stated that he does not believe Islam is simliar to christianity and judaism.  This would seem to refute the "religion is a wheel" claim in the views on religion section.  Can anyone provide any evidence to support or refute this statement? If not, I propose deletion of at least this one sentence form that section. Jmcshane 05:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on religion

message: Why does this article state that Savage is syndicated by Clear Channel? He's syndicated by Talk Radio Network (TRN). He even mentioned this Wikipedia error on his show last month. His flagship station is a Clear Channel station, but that's not the same thing.Politician818 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savage's syndicate 

message: One central theme for The Savage Nation seems to be how "the hollywood vermin" as Savage puts it are undermining values in a society where coarseness is becoming more and more acceptable. It would seem strange then, that Savage would choose Douglas Urbanski to fill in for him, Urbanski is the 1998 BAFTA Awards winner for Best British Film Nil by Mouth, a movie credited with containing the word "F@ck" a record 470 times and the word "C@nt" 96 times. A record that stood until 2005. Anyone see the irony here?
Also, I added info to the Rockstar Energy Drink page about this Savage family company being linked to the pornography Industry via Penthouse magazine, a company that has printed full nude photos of underage girls in the past (nowadays known as Child Porn). The irony, or hypocrisy here is that Savage regulary lambasts the porno industry, he refers to Comcast as Cumcast, he should visit RockStar69.com.
Dean1970 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand in hosts for The Savage Nation & Pornography Industry connections 

message: Michael savage has recently started to use the term "Krystal Methodist" or "Crystal Methodist" as a slang for....I don't know quite what.
On further research of the Savage family business Rockstar Energy Drink and their links to the pornography industry in which they collaborated with Penthouse Magazine and porn star Jamie Lynn for a 2006 SuperBowl party it appears that Jamie Lynn has starred in pornography flicks suchas "First Offence 14", "Pussy Foot'n 13" and "Krystal Method". Has Savage ever explained the origins of the term?
Dean1970 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krystal Methodist