Talk:Bernie Ward/Archive 1

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I have toned down Ward's comments regarding the Jewish faith, and added them under the subtitle "Controversial Comments" or such. (Apparently, one person toned it down, and then another deleted these references.)
Saying that Judaism was "inferior to Christianity" was felt to be anti-Semetic in many Jewish quarters, but I didn't use the term anti-Semetic - the reader can draw their own conclusions.
Comparing Muslim Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists is also very controversial. (CF aren't killing thousands of people, they just wear ugly clothes.)
I have seen some smaller editorial comments where editors felt that quoting Ward didn't accurately portray a 'complex person' or position. Indeed, these comments do reflect his off-the-cuff, abrasive style.
I do agree with many of your previous comments toning down some sections. However, it also seems as if someone is really trying to sanitize his biography, taking away most controversial comments or references. Since I need to cite sources, I can't add some of his more controversial comments, as they haven't been covered in the liberal Bay Area (he's on the Left). Cheerio.
----
(fyi, these days the SF bay area isn't liberal. it's about centrist, based on long term historical average.)
Bush claims to represent TVC Christians, and as commander in chief of the USA's armed forces, one could claim he's killed thousands. Meanwhile, Islamic Fundamentalists claim they are defending their religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations. 
abuse toward callers is part of the talk radio/entertainment shock-jockism. 'sh(l)ock talk' has been the winning formula popularized since the late 80's. eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr, 'the savage weiner' (a bernieism for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)), Laura Schlesinger, Howard Stern, Don Imus,,,, . 
A"controversial comments" section is appropriate (albeit perpetually messy) for these type of entertainers. 'controversy' is the core of their commercial appeal. 2z2z 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added back 'Controversial Comments' section, as well as founding TeamPussy  

message: OK, this article has been quite trashed for a while. Not just the bias, but the incorrect use of WikiMarkup is pretty sad. While I'm trying to edit the article to improve the existing content, I did remove some text from the "GodTalk" section that was pretty biased in it's current form, and unsourced. We have to be very careful with articles on living persons, and I'll not be reserved on deleting obviously troublesome non-compliant text. (People, please sign your comments) Cheers! --NightMonkey 07:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: wikipedia page claims Grace Hopper is likely originator, and that wording is probably the version of wording that bernie uses. ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#_note-4 2z2z 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  easier to ask .. get permission (introductory paragraphs) 

message: 'catholic league catalyst' pages (wikiped out-links 14/15 and 16) are currently 404's or something like that2z2z 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the Internet Archive to pull up the now-gone web-pages for referencing.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  two linked pages moved or gone 

message: I tried to do a little work but this artilce looks like its in pretty bad shape as far as unsourced material goes. Can any additions be added with sources going forward?Anyways, thanks, --Tom 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of for the most part. I'm going to continue to monitor and edit this page as I have time to do so.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a link to a primary source (an actual copy of the federal indictment  http://abclocal.go.com/three/kgo/bernie_ward_indictment.pdf but you removed it, citing advertising amd undue weight reasons. I disagree with your reasoning, but would like to hear other opinions before reinserting the link.  We need to be careful here of course, but I would think primary sources should be available for those who wish to view them.SeaphotoTalk 04:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never stated that the URL was "advertising." In my edit summary, I cited that it was essentially duplication of existing sources, but after further review, it would also violate verifiability -- since the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources, per WP:RS. Having the link could also add undue weight and potentially influence the reader's decision -- especially since it is all but used as a source.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point of view, but disagree. The document is public record, easily verified, and was indeed published by a third party. I don't understand how it's inclusion would give "undue weight" - he has been indicted, and that is simply a fact. As far as influencing a readers decision on the matter, how is that relevant? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law, and there is a substantial portion of the article devoted to Bernie Ward's good works. To be fair, I will wait to see other editor's opinions on the matter before restoring the link.SeaphotoTalk 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, to be honest, that's not really a third-party source. It's just a local news station storing a copy of the indictment on their servers, which is different than if they had actually written an article based upon that. But I'll wait until we can get more feedback on this -- I'm interested in other's viewpoints. I'll also finish cleaning up the rest of the article tomorrow as well -- removing links and converting them into sources, and the like.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why are you camping this article and revert-warring, seicer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk • contribs)  14:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  BLP vios. necessitate immediate removal, per policy. From BLP, "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." There is no question that there is a dedicated group of POV-pushers who are attempting to derail the page.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that's fine. the police report is all over the place and is being served from many locations. shame on you for maintianing active support for this animal. 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good for you. This is an encyclopedia. Not a blog. Not a personal web-site. Not for your personal agenda or endavours. It's quite sad that you can't present your work in a balanced and neutral viewpoint, and resort instead of not assuming good faith in other editors by labeling them as pedophile-supporters.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  you clearly accept that he is a pedophile, and you are camping and editwarring to prevent the article from clearly reflecting that he is a pedophile. if the shoe fits...15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, BLP vios. take precedence. If you wholly disagree, that's fine. But to label others as pedophile supporters is nothing short of personal attacks and will be treated as such.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i never did call you a pedophile-supporter. that's a conclusion you jumped to entirely on your own. i'm certain you support ward for other reasons and are merely inapropriately maintaining his reputation here. i suppose misrepresenting me and vandalizing my talk page is WP:NPA in a way simply stating facts about an individual is not in any way conceivable a BLP violation.15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Per WP:V, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. A police report is wholly one-sided, and we need a newspaper article to verify the claims in the police report, and to hear a counterbalance from Bernie Ward (or attorney).  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit and unsourced material

message: # You were cut-and-pasting press releases and violating copyright from this web-site.
# You were referencing blogs, which are not acceptable reliable sources per policy.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent cut/pastes 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
Λua∫Wise (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think I should have went ahead and requested a peer review instead of a GA-request, but this should give a few pointers.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taken care of two items, by adding a FU image of Bernie Ward to the infobox, and by renaming two section headers per WP:NPOV.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: For what it's worth he plans to plead guilty.  I suggest we wait until he actually does, and see exactly what he pleads to as part of the plea bargain.  At that point we can report it.  A guilty plea is an admission so we can say he actually did it, or at least admitted to it, and then the prosecution defense theories, evidence, trial dates, etc., become rather unimportant (though the way he was caught, involving the Internet chat partner, is relevant enough to keep IMO).  Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't exactly plead guilty as expected but all side announced a plea deal / admission.  Under the circumstances maybe we should change the euphemistic headline "legal troubles" to something more to the point, e.g. "child pornography charges".  I'm proposing it instead of doing it because I don't want to start any disagreements.Wikidemo (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. For example, the Gary Glitter article - which has been vetted by multiple edit wars - doesn't use a euphemism when discussing his child pornography and other convictions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points - with the conviction on one count of the charges, I went ahead and changed the heading from Legal Trouble to Child Pornography Conviction. SeaphotoTalk 03:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [personal attack removed - Wikidemo (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, please don't engage in personal attacks against editors, it is never productive.  In my case, you might want to read my comments on this page before making assumptions about my POV, as I have removed attacks against Mr. Ward along with POV pushes from his supporters, all in an attempt to keep the article fairly neutral.  Of course, if you feel that the article can be improved, you are more than welcome to edit it yourself, as long as you cite references.SeaphotoTalk 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I added one important point from the SF Chronicle article on the plea hearing: that Ward specifically admitted to transmitting child porn images "up to 150 times". That's in Bob Egelko's full article this morning (May 9) in the Chronicle. Makes it clear that this was not some one-time thing or "research", as Ward's defenders keep insisting. -BDLiddicoa (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [personal attacks removed - feel free to add in a civil, constructive tone] Regarding the attacks I removed, a guilty plea is an admission of guilt and is functionally equivalent to a conviction.  When a public figure admits to child pornography charges, and after that criminal conviction is widely covered by the press, the criminal is in no place to sue anybody for defamation relating to those charges.  There's no WP:BLP violation there, although we do want to keep the article factual, encyclopedic, etc.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikidemo, I think you made the right call. There should be some reference to the claims of the earlier assaults; it definitely has bearing on this case, but the original edit was a little bit too "this is proven fact" for my taste. Good job. 63.249.96.155 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guilty plea

message: FYI, The Smoking Gun has some of the police reports:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0215081ward1.html
Proxy User (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documents 

message: The References section link to "FROM CNN: Transcript, December 10, 2004 - 12:00 ET" is broken.  -- noosphere 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected that statement, which is indeed not in the indictment, as substituted the actual charges, along with a link to the source.  Also corrected the date on the indictment as per the same source. Thanks for pointing that out!--SeaphotoTalk 04:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link in References section 

message: The article lead mentions sexual misconduct complaints from 1978 and absolutely no favorable attributes of the subject encompassing the same or similar time frame. Although the recent criminal proceedings against Mr. Ward do indeed merit inclusion in the lead (as they are directly related to his departure from KGO), the 1978 claims have no independent merit in the lead apart from illustrating certain aspects of Mr. Ward's personal background. 
This background information is no more central to this article than the numerous accolades Mr. Ward has garnered from his fund-raising and related accomplishments. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that the 1978 complaints be either moved further down to the relevant subsection of the article, or the article lead provide more balance by including a wider range of points related to Mr. Ward's personal background.
Please address this deficiency, as it does not reflect well on the neutrality and credibility of this article. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though more from a sense of the proper structure and flow of the article than balance. I removed the sentance in the lead concerning the 1978 complaints.  They are adequately covered in the Child Pornography Conviction section of the article.  SeaphotoTalk 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" so if you can dig up some reliably sourced material, have at it!  This material, in far more expansive, lurid detail, was added before he agreed to plead guilty to the more recent charges.  As an unproven decades-old allegation it probably wouldn't even be admissible in court for the purpose used here, so it would have been a blatant WP:BLP issue.  But now that he's plead guilty it seems nominally relevant.  It may still raise BLP objections - just because you're guilty of crime #1 does not necessarily mean we reprint murky un-prosecuted allegations of crime #2.  One counterargument might be that using the "do no harm" standard, this old incident hardly makes him look any worse than the new one.  Wikidemo (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are several justifications (some of which you hint at yourself) for excluding the 1978 claims from the lead, the most basic of which is the issue of stylistic continuity. User:Seaphoto addressed this appropriately and I concur 100% with both Sea's rationale and resolution of the matter. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, fixed.  It was redundant so I removed it - the lead already says once or twice that he's liberal and that his status changed from being a radio talk host to a former host, and I think we can deduce that he's American from the fact that he was born and worked in San Francisco, California.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the article lead needs better balance, please attend to this 

message: Someone re-added content to the article lead, despite the fact that its original removal is supported by multiple rationales from more than one WP contributor, and also supported by a  good-faith reading of WP policy. 
In explaining this action, the contributor said:
if we deleted all summary items covered in the details there's no need for a summary.
Respectfully, this begs the question of why this particular "summary item" merits inclusion in this article at all let alone prominent placement in the lead. 
Indeed, it appears no one has given a single definitive rationale to support why this needs to be in the article, other than: "it was in here before, in much greater detail". That is not an explanation. Similarly, it is not sufficient to justify tabloid-style exhumation of decades-old complaints based on a plea-bargain stemming from completely unrelated charges and completely separate parties.
The support for including these older complaints seems to ignore that they: 
* 1) would be barred from criminal or civil proceedings under statutes of limitations; 
* 2) would be generally inadmissible in any trial or hearing; 
* 3) are not relevant to the subject's departure from his position and ancillary activities as a radio talk show host (which is what makes him notable for inclusion in WP to begin with); and 
* 4) appear to lack any indication of coverage by criminal or civil proceedings, arbitration, job dismissal or employee disciplinary action, religious sanction, censure, or any kind of formal hearing whatsoever.
Where is the foundation to support that these complaints are actually factual? If factual, where is the foundation to support that they are actually relevant in an encyclopedia article? If relevant, where is the *balance* required by WP:NPOV and basic ordinary editorial competence? Where is the reference citing Mr. Ward's (or attorney's) response to these stale claims?
Apparently, there is none of the above.
The compounding fact that this content was re-added apparently without any direct substantiation based on WP policy seems especially ill-considered. Really, it's very dubious to permit inclusion of this content at all. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the decades-old complaints, but someone also removed the child porn conviction from the lead paragraph. The child porn conviction is certainly recent, factual, and notable. Roger (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the decades old complaint does not belong in the lead, but the child porn CONVICTION must be in the intro.--InaMaka (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An FYI, I've posed the question regarding child porn convictions in the lead on the ANI noticeboard here.  I'm not sure what all the concerns are but this is probably a more general issue. Wikidemo (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, no it does not need to be in the introduction. It presents undue weight and is nothing more than bias that is introduced early into the text. There is space below that is more appropriate for the text, and I indicated it as such with the edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked several other prominent people who were also convicted felons, and the WP introductory paragraph always mentioned the criminal conviction. It would be odd to leave it out for Bernie Ward. It is the only explanation for him not being on the air today. Roger (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  I think what seems odd about the lead is that the two events are not connected so the child porn thing seems tacked on.  How about connecting them with something like "He was taken off the air in 2008 after xxxxxxxx."  His sentencing is in a couple months so we can change it then to "He was taken off the air and sentenced to xxxx after xxxx."  Wikidemo (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been changed consistent with Wikidemo's suggestion. This seems like a reasonable approach that also connects why it's relevant for inclusion in the article in the first place. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decades-old complaints included in this article 

message: Since it is inconsistent with the Wikipedia entries of other talk show hosts, I added "liberal" to the description of Mr. Ward as I could not find it anywhere in the article.  “Lion of the Left” is not sufficient when comparing this entry to those of other political commentators and talk show hosts.
I am not familiar with how to edit the reference list, and I know that POV additions are hammered frequently, so here is a link to my source:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10326294?source=most_viewed
If someone in the know would add that to the reference section, that would be great.  Thanks.  Looftie 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is consistently liberal on a very wide range of issues, and neutral sources describe him that way. Roger (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Utterly subjective and irrelevant. Some would even consider that a personal attack. I has no place in the article. Substantiate your claim. "X is a liberal" is not the same as "Y claims X is a liberal". By who's standards. Vagr4nt (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newspaper articles about Ward have usually called him a liberal. Ward is happy to call himself a liberal. WP articles on other talk show hosts frequently label them as conservative or liberal. Ward is a liberal by any standards. His politics rarely get described any other way. Are you just trying to be argumentitive, or do you have some reason to believe that "liberal" is not accurate? Roger (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Subjective or not there is such a thing as a liberal and a conservative, and a talk show host's being one or the other is a rather crucial career distinction to make.  Ward is universally described as liberal.  Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First,it might be subjective, unless the person in question described himself as "unabashedly liberal" for the majority of his career. See http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3980105&page=1  Second, how is calling someone a liberal or conservative, if it reflects their political views, an attack? When did Liberal (or Conservative for that matter) become something to be ashamed of? SeaphotoTalk 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find Seaphoto.  I've integrated the quote from Bernie into the lead paragraph.  I don't think anyone can argue with including his self descriptive terminology. --Crichton91 (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  He can call himself whatever he wants. Doesn't make it so. "Liberal" to you could be something else to me. It's an irrelevant and subjective label and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Vagr4nt (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at other major political broadcasters (Rush Limbaugh, and Shawn Hannity are two examples), they are listed in the introductory paragraphs as "conservative".  The article for Bill O'Reilly,  uses a self descriptive term, "traditionalist".  So clearly such labels are in common use in articles about radio talk show hosts.  Is your concern the term liberal itself?  I suppose we can use the term "progressive" instead, as that seems to be the more politically correct term to use as the antithesis to "conservative", although the subject of the article used liberal for the majority of his career.  Let's see if we can come to a consensus rather than reverting back and forth.SeaphotoTalk 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to fathom why we're having this talk.  He was clearly a liberal talk show host.  The genre is important.  It's probably okay to infer that by referring to him as the "lion of the left" but there is no reasonable doubt as to his liberal politics.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a clear description of Mr. Ward's political leanings 

message: After giving it some thought, the subject on this page may not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia.  
please see Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT for reasons why I propose deletion.   Caffeine USA (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the PROD tag, as Ward was well known even before the child pornography conviction, appearing as a commentator on CNN among others.  Once removed, the PROD tag cannot be restored, but you can bring the article up through the Wikipedia articles for deletion process, where you can solicit the opinions of other editors and we can come to a consensus. SeaphotoTalk 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a weak case, I think.  The article was alive and well, if poorly cited, before the allegations of child porn came out.  It's very likely that the article would have survived an AfD, even minus that notoriety.  Now that there are so many new sources describing the criminal matter it's hard to tease that out.  Before his conviction there were some serious BLP concerns over repeating unproven allegations, charges, and day-by-day accounts of the trial.  At this point it's fair to say he's been convicted, although as a WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS matter it might be best to shorten that section and focus more on the event and its aftermath than the mechanics of the case.  The case itself was of some biographical interest because of the unusual nature of the claims made, and prosecution / defense / public relations strategy, but I don't think things like what date a judge ruled this or that or somebody gave a press statement are biographically relevant.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Bernie Ward was very high profile, with national exposure; of course that lead to even more coverage during the time leading up to the trial and convcition.  As for Duane Garrett, if  verifiable sources can be found I think a good case could be made for an article on him.  He was a well known political operator with his own talk show, which I remember enjoying when I lived in the Bay Area.  His death was very sad. SeaphotoTalk 07:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed deletion