Talk:Mark Williams (radio host)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I would argue with the term "opinion journalist." It's an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp." On top of that, I believe it's a description the author of this article may have created, as it's not something you hear commonly or even infrequently when describing someone who would claim to be a journalist.

The idea behind journalism is to report facts, not opinion. Opinion is editorial, a distinct and separate part of news. I think any journalist worth their salt would agree you cannot be an "opinion journalist" - either you're a journalist or an editorialist. To be both would indicate a lack of objectivity or a preponderance of subjectivity, thereby disqualifying a person from being one or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is not to say a journalist can't have opinions.... but to report opinions as "news" or pass them off as fact is not only disingenuous, it's unethical.

So, you've never heard of George Will? Never heard of Jack Anderson? Keith Olbermann? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.115.125 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Reminder: Wikipedia is not a place for listings of quotations. That sort of thing belongs on Wikiquote, so if you feel the need to post those quotes, post them there. If these have to be removed one more time I will report the IP address responsible for it to the administrators of this site. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy is that Wikipedia articles should not merely be lists of quotations. However, there is no policy preventing the use of quotations at all in Wikipedia articles, and there are plenty of articles that contain appropriate, notable quotations that serve to illustrate the subject matter. In this case, since William's words have been the subject of national controversy, it seems appropriate to include selected quotations of notable remarks (rather than some muted paraphrase).

For example, compare the article's current paraphrase:

Jealous condemns Lincoln for his role in the abolition of slavery. The satirical letter stereotyped African-Americans as lazy, and further implied that African-Americans as a group use government assistance money to put "a wide screen TV in every room."

with an only slightly longer direct quotation:

"We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!" ... "How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist!"

Which of these two better conveys the nature of Mr. William's remarks? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither, they are both fabrications of a blogger in Florida ... produce the document by Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.38.92 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Peacock terms

"Award-winning" is an attribute commonly used in promotional texts or self-portraits, but it is peacock language that is not considered appropriate in the more factual, encyclopedic style expected on Wikipedia. The problem is that it is too vague - an award could mean anything from a spelling bee to a Nobel prize. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Out-dated? Selective?

Williams is also politically active as spokesman for the Tea Party Express and has been highly visible campaigning for Tea Party backed candidates in California, Nevada, Utah, Massachusetts and elsewhere.

It's my understanding that in July 2010 Mark Williams stood down as spokesman for the Tea Party Express movement following the Abraham Lincoln/Benjamin Todd Jealous letter controversy. Has he been reinstated? Centrepull (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

vandal goethan

goethan continues to vandalize this article by removing the follow sentence and link

"Later, at a Move On sponsored union rally in Sacramento Rodney Stanhope (one of Williams' operatives and not undercover) was physically attacked and injured by a Teamster when the union protesters swarmed a Tea Party counter protest. The teamster, 28 year old Richard Andazola of Stockton, CA was arrested for the assault (incident video and TV report here http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/union-goons-attack-injure-tea"

If finishes the paragraph but to the political dissatisfaction of the vandal who insists on continue in his attempts to warp the article to his own political point of view. To justify his vandalism goethan claims the link he continues to remove is not credible, yet it is a link to the individual who is the subject of the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.227.25 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:RS, guidelines which your proposed contribution fails. — goethean ॐ 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a second source [1], which is at least accessible to the public (as opposed to the teapartynation.com link). However, it still doesn't demonstrate why this incident should be considered a notable event in Mark Williams' life - in fact, it doesn't even mention him.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dickwad.... I call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" that "cite" enough for you asshole? Mark Williams

Actually, it is not. Please see WP:IRS. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have removed the criticism section per WP:CRITS and merged the material into the career section. I have also removed material that I didn’t believe was sourced adequately. Please discuss here before reintroducing. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had already commented here when I reverted. Your edit removed information which was well-sourced (To Washington Monthly, CNN, Mother Jones, etc.) — goethean ॐ 22:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. A couple of points:

• Doesn’t BLP specifically caution against criticism section?
• Is media matters blog a reliable source for biographical material?
• Are opinion blogs, even from an otherwise notable sources, a reliable source for biographical material?

Naturally, these questions are rhetorical from my perspective, but I would like to hear your justification. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Use NPOV terms

I would like to ask 216.93.227.25 to stop edit-warring without arguments about the usage of Park51 vs. Ground Zero Mosque. (And how about getting an account? It has many advantages.) There is good reason why Ground Zero Mosque is a redirect to Park51 and not vice versa. Per WP:NPOV, we should use the neutral, factual name instead of the controversial, politically charged one. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that this is a place where guys who will never touch a girl or leave their parent's attic gather for fun and place Phd, but if you are going to quote the guy at least have the honesty to make an attempt at using the words he used... and uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.135.98 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasons, but this sentence ("Williams has been an outspoken opponent of the Park51 project to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site") is not a quote. He is quoted in the next sentence about the subject, with his own choice of words ("He has called it a 'temple to terrorists' and stirred controversy by adding that the facility would be used for 'terrorists to worship their monkey god'").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I mention "FUCK YOU GEEK ASSHOLES"? Just checking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.135.98 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Newspeak

A couple of you insist on substituting your personal political correctness hangups to play the part of Winston Smith and engage in willful revision of history away from fact and toward something more in line with your own opinion.

I refer specifically to the tug of war over the term "Ground Zero Mosque" and "Park 51 Project". Fact: An engine from one of the jetliners fell through the roof of this building and the body pieces of untold numbers of people were also recovered, the building next door collapsed and the site has been part of the Ground Zero reconstruction area ever since. Fiction: "Park 51 Project", is an Orwellian bastardization of the language designed to conceal the truth of the horror at that site. "Park 51 Project" is a term that did not exist until it was created to counter the furor over the construction of a Mosque on the site where Islam attacked and killed 3,000 people.

Goethean is Winston Smith here. My question to him is: why are you participating in revisionist history and relentlessly misrepresenting my words and deeds? I understand that you are sympathetic to the enemy but what I do not understand is why the Wikipedia community, supposedly dedicated to accuracy and credibility to the point where it actually uses the word "Encyclopedia" to describe itself. That label is as inapplicable to this organization so long as individual opinion and subjective views replace facts and history.

I am undoing, again, goethan's politically correct vandalism and suggest further reading for those who would like to know regarding the truth of Wikipedia's actual mission that you may visit this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_G%C3%B6bbels - better take a screen shot now before somebody gets in there and revises that article to one where Hitler saved all those pesky Jews by moving them out of the Nazi's way.

Mark Williams Sacramento, CA August 15, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.27.26 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After you determine for yourself whether I am Joseph Goebbels or a character in an Orwell novel, maybe you should take up your argument at the Park51 page, where it has some claim to relevance. In the meantime, this article will follow established Wikipedia naming precedent. — goethean ॐ 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Letter to Lincoln

I removed that paragraph because it continues to be published without a link to the source. All links associated with that paragraph to to second hand media reports of an alleged letter that does not seem to exist, even in cache or archival web sites. An email to the subject of the article elicited a response that said: "The so-called Lincoln letter reported in various forms is a fabrication of a blogger in Florida named Joy Reid and who forged the letter, we believe under the sponsorship of the SEIU, and published to discredit the Tea Party. No such actual letter exists." You may inquire directly to confirm. The subject's public email is legal@marktalk.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.38.92 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

IP mieschief

I've been watching this article for a while (without joining the fray). Now I've noticed this: 3 IPs habe been heavily involved in editing this article:

• 216.93.227.25 (talk · contribs) (from Sacramento)
• 76.114.38.92 (talk · contribs) (from Sacramento)
• 65.78.135.98 (talk · contribs) (from Sacramento; also insulting others as "assholes")

And all this in an article about a controversial radio host from - guess where... ? Now isn't this just hilarious? --Clezanee (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and also somewhat sobering that people apparently listen to this ignorant, racist blowhard. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Blow me fanook. I can't wait until one of allah's sub-human, barely primate friends blows you to schmithereens. I will be there laughing my ass off at the expression on your face.