Talk:Bo Dietl

Controversial Statements

User 24.46.170.153 and I seem to have a disagreement over the relevance of the bottom few paragraphs in the article (see the article's history). To answer your question, 24.46.170.153 ("He is not some authority on islam, for what reason do these comments need to be here?"): controversial statements made by public figures are entirely appropriate material for wikipedia articles. I would contend that the information is relevant and notable. Would you prefer it be re-written in such a way that the controversy behind the statements is more clear? (Perhaps in a "Controversy" or "Controversial Statements" section)? Tzepish 23:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Constituting my quotation (source attributed) of the November 9, 2009 appearance of Mr. Dietl on Fox where he made racist gestures and commentary as "vandalism" is asinine to the extreme. Anyone who has any notion of removing such and turning Mr. Dietl's page into anything more respectable than the crass standards he has established for himself is a complete idiot. I very much suggest anyone with such notions of being an apologist for racist behavior refrain from breathing, preferably until all life functions cease. Of course, the hilarious thing is that the information is STILL in the article, but this time without a source URL linked to the actual gruesome pictures of Mr. Dietl pulling his eyes back with his fingers and the actual newsclip. Bravo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.86.159 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have two valid URLs, one from the New York Post regarding the Mafia informant accusation and another from ThinkProgress.org that has the actual Fox News video with the Katie Couric reference. Stop trying to whitewash. Adjust the tone as required, whatever. Don't be a douchebag and delete what is pertinent information to Dietl's public image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.86.159 (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is no controversy. Not every incident is relevant. Dietl isn't a nice guy (in my opinion) and for someone to act like an ass on that kind of show is expected. I'm reverting the additions: they are trivial, and in fact lend more weight to the subject than he deservers. IP, mind your language. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're nixing the New York Post attribution as well which accuses him of being a snitch for the Gambino crime family? Really now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.86.159 (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the kicker. If you delete the entry about him being accused of being an informant against the prosecution in the Gambino crime family trials - which has nothing to do with the circus known as the Don Imus Show and is a serious, real-world event - then obviously your notion of vandalism needs reassessment.

As for the "mind your language" part, I'm done here and I wash my feet of your pettiness. Whitewash all you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.86.159 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for your contributions. I took the liberty of applying a copy edit or two. And BTW, it isn't the Post which accuses him--it's a criminal who is cited in that paper. I am not surprised you don't see the difference. That vandalism warning was for the triviality of Dietl being an ass on a show, not for the Mafia stuff. I hope your feet smell great now. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims

"Unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" per Wikipedia - BLP sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiweb10011 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh, an actor and WikiP has no pix?

can you get some? 173.61.0.54 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)