Talk:John Ziegler (talk show host)

message: It would be nice to know what facts in particular we need references for. You can add  after questionable statements. Theshibboleth 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's very little that's referenced now, so it would really clutter the article to add many fact tags. For starters, the "Segments", "Celebrity interviews", and "Controversies" have no sources at all, though they contains facts and opinions. The biography section has one source, covering just one fact. Lack of sources is a common problem with talk show host biographies. My theory is that regular listeners feel they know the information so well that they engage in unwitting original research. In any case, we need to keep this material verifiable. -Will Beback · † · 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This is part of Wiki Project Louisville, but the article mentions nothing significant about the Louisville / WHAS controversy. Thus, the article is primarily about Ziegler after his move to KFI, which puts it more in a Los Angeles frame of reference. I mean, Ziegler worked everywhere from Kentucky to North Carolina, Tennessee to California, so why this fits a Louisville wiki project doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. (Kroessman 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two paragraphs worth of his connection to Louisville.  Good enough for me.  Of course, other regional projects may want to cover Ziegler as well.  But his impact on Louisville was significant, and that's why it makes sense that WPLouisville cover him. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should definatly stay in the Louisville project, what this guy did is infamous in the Louisville area...Cool10191 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Project Louisville? 

message: there should be a list of uncited sources or unsourced citations so it's easier to identify them and then cite them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FranzSS (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added "[citation needed]" tags to a number of facts and quotes in the article that should be sourced. I tried to not add overly many such tags in order to keep the article readable, so those are just a few of the facts that could use references, but they are at least a start when you want to improve the article. Sarnalios 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. In fact, every assertion should be sourced, which means that virtually every sentence or paragrah should have a citation, at least in an ideal world. At some point someone may come through and remove all of the unsourced material, so anythig which is important should be sourced. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait!  Are you sure?  I added the dollar figure in Ask John Anything.  I heard it on his program and made the addition the following day.  Question: How would listeners go back and properly cite things heard on his program?  It is likely, in some cases, that the information will never again be repeated. I'll know to add this in the future, but I wonder how this issue should be handled.  I compared Ziegler's to Howard Stern and Tom Leykis.  Stern's seems to contain a lot of non-show information and is more easily cited.  Leykis' seems to be a mess. 66.134.232.226 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these radio show articles are all a mess. This is one of the best, because there are an unusually large number of printed sources. Regarding your question, unless there's a show archive there's no way for anyone to verify what you heard last week. It's unverifiable and shouldn't be included.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have pointed out previously, and Will Beback has included at the top of the References section of the article, there are podcasts available for the John Ziegler Show, so you can go back a get the citations and sourcing right. But this requires that you know roughly when something was said on the show, which is hardly the case with much of the unsourced material in this, and many other, articles on radio talk shows. I have been spending a lot of time listening through previous shows and tried to verify as many statements as possible, but this does of course take a lot of time considering that JZ is on three hours a night five days a week. Thus far I have listened through the podcasts of April-July of 2007 and am working my way through August 2007, so this is still very much in progress. It is however unfortunate that so many users add pieces of information to articles without at the same time providing the sources, as this creates extra work when people later have to deal with such additions by either determining if they should be removed or by spending time finding the sources. Sarnalios 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are the sources not cited well in this article? 

message: We have seen quite a bit of editing activity following Ziegler's on-the-air announcement on November 12 that he will be leaving KFI. Unfortunately, not a single one of the people making those edits has provided the sources for the information.
Since I do not subscribe to Ziegler's newsletter myself nor have access to his website, it would be nice to get some actual quotes from either the newsletter or (even better in my opinion) his personal website or the official KFI website (though I haven't seen any information there yet concerning Ziegler's departure on the KFI website). Such quotes would of course have to be properly sourced. Sarnalios 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I tried to get across with my initial post is that the information that is added to this article (and every other Wikipedia article) should come with a reference so that readers of the article are able to verify the claims made. I don't doubt that Ziegler has left KFI, but I want any information on this (and all other topics) to be properly sourced. If the sourcing is not done the right way now while the topic is still hot, it is likely to remain in that state later, when sourcing the claims will be more difficult and time consuming. Sarnalios 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also add that the information about Ziegler leaving KFI should in my opinion be contained within the The John Ziegler Show section of the article, as this related directly to his work at KFI. Claims about Ziegler's departure are currently spread out over several sections (the intro, the show and the controversies sections), where the part in the Controversies section appears to be more speculation than evidence of a controversy. His departure may turn out to have been caused by some controversy, but until as much is known, let's keep the speculation to a minimum. Sarnalios 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I found this in the L.A. Times concerning the Ziegler departure from KFI. I think it should be used as a source for this event. Sarnalios 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The L.A. Times maintinas an archive, so any reader cn access past articles. It may require paying a small fee (I access it free through my library's Proquest account). WP:V does not require that sources be available online for free. However, it's sometimes convenient if an editor adding an assertion from a source that's likely to be hard to find quotes the original text in the citation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Ziegler leaving KFI 

message: I have no idea why no one has added his new job as new commentator on KGIL.
You ppl should check on kgil's website  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.43.135 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KGIL 

message: Can someone please give this section some context, say, about the show and Ziegler's appearance on it?  Without it, it seems to reek of bias and personal attack, and lazy at that.  For example, it refers to "several" of Ziegler's remarks, but only two are quoted. And "called misogynist" by whom? The link is to a Google search page, not to a specific attributable source. Thanks - Wordshock (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, there was absolutely no reason for the (notable) information to have been removed. Restoring. Conecycles (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Dating Story 

message: I for one believe this demonstrably "true stuff" should be included in the article. I'm going to wait on others' opinions though.
Preformatted as a reference (I found this at Huffington Post where the video is embedded):
--78.34.242.119 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia has become a weapon of the Left" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Ziegler (talk show host). 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/20080116142514/http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44 to http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44
*Added  tag to http://www.kfi640.com/pages/JohnZiegler.html?feed=127993&article=457648
*Added  tag to http://www.kfi640.com/pages/JohnZiegler.html?feed=127993&article=457650
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521091735/http://www.1260.am/programming/hosts/bios/?host=26 to http://www.1260.am/programming/hosts/bios/?host=26
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) 07:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You can check that I'm a neutral wikipedia editor for several years, just to mention that at some point in future years or decades, the lengthy 'hindsight' blog of this guy with Liz Habib is going to end up being significant, in my opinion. It sort-of serves as a literal-minded dissection of aspects of media, law, universities, politics and although it is Ziegler's obsession with the Sandusky case that motivates him, the depth of analysis is unintentionally almost clinically precise and consistent, and does expose hypocrisy in these arenas. Anyway, maybe at some time something about that unusual and lengthy blog will be considered worth including in his Wikipedia article. Currently it seems to be unnoticed hence un-notable perhaps.Createangelos (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hindsight" blog