Talk:Michael Savage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article Quality is Lacking

• The entire article is top heavy with near out of context quotes on every third line.
• A summary of his viewpoints with proper footnote quotes at the bottom of the article would be much better.
• Citations should state whether or not the article is a news article or an editorial.
• Quotes from his show should come from show transcripts and not from editorials since a second hand quote from his show is likely to be inaccurate.

Deleting Link

I am deleting the link to "Michael Savage / Savage Nation Discussion Forums" Because it links to a page that has been taken down. Prnd3825 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

incorrect quotation

In the article, the following quote appears:

"Intelligent people, wealthy people...are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there’s a billion of them (Muslims) [and 10 percent or so are radical (Muslims).]' I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them (radicalist Muslims); then there'd be 900 million [peaceful Muslims left. -- he says 'of them']' I mean...would you rather us die than them?...Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you’re going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later."

In the referenced source, the parts I have placed in brackets do not appear. The current misquotation obscures the extreme nature of his quote which makes no distinction between radical muslims or otherwise. I suggest editing it accordingly.

Ohhhhh, you can guarantee that I will put this in the article. (EnglishEfternamn 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't find Savage's statement to be extreme. He's saying that if it comes down to it, he'd rather that they die than we die. That's common sense. It's just wonderful how liberals will take his quotes out of context in order to paint him as an extremist. I don't think that most people are falling for it though. 76.21.45.13 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Supporting the notion of the worst genocide in the history of the world is an extremist position. - (Some guy who doesn't know how to use timestamp.)

It wouldn't really be genocide if it were absolutely necessary to defend America. 76.21.45.13 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

...Sieg heil. - (Some guy who doesn't know how to use timestamp.)

Then learn how to timestamp. You press the "~" button four times following your comments. Please don't compare anything that Savage said to Hitler. Once again, Savage would support killing that many people if it were absolutely necessary to defend America. I don't see how he can be faulted for that. Hitler just hated Jews (and others) and wanted them dead. 76.21.45.13 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hitler claimed that killing the Jews was absolutely neccessary to protect Germany. And, yes, justifiable genocide would still be genocide. Beyond that, he is not saying "if it's neccessary", he is saying it *will* be neccessary at some time. That's extreme. But, please, explain the context that makes it not extreme. ThatGuamGuy 18:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)sean

I don't care what Hitler claimed. Hitler clearly did not need to execute Jews to defend Germany. Also, if genocide can be justifiable, then how is it extreme? Savage has the dark view (which many people share) that this is going to be a fight to the death against radical Islam. It's better that they die than we die. 76.21.47.82 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Did you just say genocide is okay? Okay, I want to try to stay NPOV while on wikipedia, but you have gone too far. Killing 900 million innocent people is justifiable? Well, better they die than you. Come on! (69.140.166.42 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Savage said 100 million, not 900. Secondly, if you honestly think that it's better that you die than they do, you're lost. I honestly doubt that it will ever come down to that grim situation; but if it did, America has a right to defend itself. 69.181.156.67 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Savage's syndicate

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)

Politician 818 is correct. Talk Radio Network syndicate Michael Savage's show. I moved the line about Savage being syndicated by Talk Radio Network to the beginning of the Radio section to avoid any confusion as to who syndicates The Savage Nation.

Dean1970 November 15th, 2006.

Stand in hosts for The Savage Nation & Pornography Industry connections

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?

The one thing common to all of the shows that Douglas Urbanski has guest hosted are they are syndicated by Talk Radio Network. Your question assumes that Savage chooses his guest hosts. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the content of the article, not the subject of the article.StreamingRadioGuide 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

Child porn is pornography with children. Nude photos of a 17 year old is not child porn. 12.216.240.130 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How is Savage responsible for what his son's company does? 76.21.46.234 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Urbanski reference is tagged as "Citation Needed"... Douglas Urbanski is guest hosting tonight (5/16/07). What would be considered an acceptable citation?StreamingRadioGuide 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

'''This is a bunch of BS and Dean1970 is making this up because he is a liberal that hates Micheal Savage!'''

Dean1970 November 15th, 2006.

Krystal Methodist

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 November 15th, 2006.

I would think that a Crystal Methodist is a person who is addicted to crystal methadone.Lestrade 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I would guess its just a derogatory word to describe certain types of Christians by comparing them to crystal methamphetamine addicts; I've never even heard of "crystal methadone" Mbc362 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. The correct name is methamphetamine, not methadone. It is a stimulant that amplifies sexual desire but, at the same time, constricts blood vessels, inhibiting sexual performance. It is favored, for some reason, by homosexual men. See http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs5/5049/index.htm.Lestrade 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As A Patriot

Regardless of what others may say, he does identify himself as a Patriot. Why is it not acceptable to include this. HE HIMSELF SAYS HE IS A PATRIOT. This is not a matter of bias; it is a matter of fact: self identified Patriot. Whether another agrees is when the bias begins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.119.221 (talk • contribs)

Michael Savage does not have the right to identify as anything that public supports violence against any other race or nation. (EnglishEfternamn 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Actually the public does support violence against Islamofascists who want to kill us. 76.21.45.13 07:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people identify themselves as a patriot. Probably most people do. It's not particularly encyclopedic or relevant. Gamaliel 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He is not entitled to define himself? Only others can do that? So his own words about himself make bias that does not agree with you? It is certainly relevant as his role is of NATIONAL prominence, with national recognition, over national dialogue. Your bias is against him. 70.107.119.221 22:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

National [anything] is based on nothing more than imagined cultures designed to keep people at arms against each other for economic reasons. If Michael Savage uses a show in a manner that promotes this, his First Amendment Rights do not apply. Speech is not meant to incite people to gear up for hate and violence. (EnglishEfternamn 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

LOL. Yes, yes, it's simply the boogeyman known as Big Business who keeps the world from joining hands and singing 'round the campfire. First Amendment rights apply to anyone, irrespective of his positions. This is why the Neo-Nazis are permitted to march down Main Street and the Nation of Islam is allowed to call me a White Devil. You can't exclude speech based on content. Either it's all okay, or none of it is. 12.216.240.130 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Baloney. Savage has every right as an American to promote a military action. 76.21.45.13 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is an honest forum, my questions must be answered. Distracting the dialogue with procedural matters is not honest. 70.107.119.221 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read assume good faith and note that this is not a "procedural matter" but official policy. It is not civil nor is it within the bounds of policy to assume and accuse others of bias and dishonesty in your initial comments to them. I hope that we can continue this conversation in a civil manner and without further comments of that nature. Gamaliel 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Mine is good faith too. Allow that I point out that my point has not been engaged; instead we dance around this issue. 70.107.119.221 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To deny the subject to be viewed in his own words I think is not Good Faith. To do so is to assume a subterfuge on the part of the subject. This is not good faith; it is unfair. Those that would remove my quotations about him and how he sees himself are not following the assume good faith policy. 70.107.119.221 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We cannot quote every single word Savage has said about himself. We must select which ones and we must select where to place them in the article. Such editorial judgements are standard here, and in any encyclopedia. A judgement that Savage's self-labeling of "patriot" is of minor importance is not "unfair", nor is it a violation of the good faith policy, which applies to conduct between editors and not towards the subject of an article, it is just an editorial judgment. Gamaliel 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Quote every single word that he says about himself? You seem to do a fine job at offering quotes from him that supports your bias against him. This is a "Free Encyclopedia?" I do not see good faith here. To deny me the opportunity to include what Savage says about himself is ruthlessly unfair. It is unfair to exclude this self-description as the whole article seeks to shade him in what seems like half truths and implied and direct bigotry. It is not a "judgement"; it is closer to agenda or perhaps closer to a form of censorship. I am not inserting my opinion about the subject; I am asserting what he says about himself. I seek to include an objective undeniable truth: His words of himself. To dismiss the inclusion as "minor," while you include only controversy, demonstrates your own bias. The whole article at present points only to controversy that the article claims the subject causes. Your editorial judgement to exclude how he identifies himself as a patriot belies your bias against the subject. Shame. 70.107.119.221 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've chosen to become abusive. Further comments of this nature will be removed. Gamaliel 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I am not being "abusive." Choosing a victim posture is not fair. Dude, just refute what I wrote; explain how I am wrong. That would be fair and a great demonstration of freedom implied in Free Enclyclopedia. All the best. 70.107.119.221 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will post here what I posted on my talk page: You have accused me of "bias", of "bigotry", of having an "agenda", of "censorship", and now of advocating turning Wikipedia into a "tyranny". These are attacks and are violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. You can express disagreement without making such accusations and attacks. Gamaliel 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of bigotry. I stated that the article uses half truth to paint Savage as a bigot. Review my comments. Yes, i say that you have a bias, because it is unfair not to include what he says about his own body of work. (I did not insult you by saying that you are biased. Each is baised in truth.) If Picasso charactorizes himself as French/Spanish, is that not relevant to the study of Picasso? Savage is motivated by his patriotism as a citizen of the US. He discusses National matters. This is relevant to his body of work; and to leave it out is suspicious hence my use of the phrase, "closer to agenda or perhaps closer to a form of censorship." I did not accuse you of anything. Easy now. If Ghandi says X about himself, shouldn't it be included in a study about Ghandi? G, Is there a compromise to be found here? I mean, he is a total curmudgeon... 70.107.119.221 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I apparently misinterpreted your comments regarding bigotry, but the rest of my remarks stand. I will not continue this conversation if you are going to continue to accuse me of things and then pretend you did not. There is a compromise to be found, but it must begin with immediately ceasing such attacks and accusations. Accusing others of bias in your initial conversation with them is not acceptable on Wikipedia, no matter how you try to justify that. Gamaliel 00:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I retract the bais usage and label; further, I will operate on the assumption that you do not have bais. (Though I think that no one can be truly objective... IMHO, bais is completely natural, like breathing.) Standing on the merits of the relevance of my examples with Ghandi and Picasso, how can be excluded the subjects self-charactorization. I would like to seek a compromise with you. Ammended 70.107.119.221 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 70.107.119.221 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (And while I agree that no one is completely objective, there is certainly a difference between blatant bias and a genuine attempt to be evenhanded and objective, and WP rules of civility require us to assume the latter of other editors.) Now of course there are exceptions, but I believe that most people are patriots and love their country. I do, and I assume that you and Michael Savage do as well. The fact that he calls himself a patriot isn't significant as most people would describe themselves as such. Mentioning the fact adds no insight into his character, adds no significant information to the article, and not mentioning it will cause no danger of a reading thinking that Savage hates America. Will you go to all the articles in Wikipedia about self-descibed patriots and insure that they mention the patriotism of the subjects of those articles? What about a Category:Patriots? All that work and what is the benefit? What vital information would you be providing the readers of Wikipedia besides stating the obvious? That, and not bias against Savage, is my reasoning, and I would remove that same edit from any article I saw it in. Gamaliel 02:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct... ...But, the tone of the article in in the negative. It highlights only controversy. He is framed as a zenophobic, hateful, anti-gay, bigot, etc., all of which is fair game to include, since he does bring it upon himself. His work represents a discourse about the national identity, a multi-dimentional class war, essentially. To include that he is a self described Patriot is relevant in light of this, since his motivation to address the national identity during a prolonged national tet à tet. Does he have any merit? Readers need not agree that he is a patriot or not. But he says he is a patriot amidst a very hot national discourse about what the Patria is in its essence. I urge that this be considered. This matter is an exception to what your correctly and fairly describe above. How can we strike a compromise? 70.107.119.221 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If it must be included, it seems a natural fit in the discussion about the Paul Revere Society. Gamaliel 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of natural fittings, since his whole raison de etre is his product which is his patriotism, it would have to go in the beginning where I have put it several times already. The Revere thing is absolutely marginal, and is an essential manifestation of his patriotism. Central to what he does is his patriotism. Didn't you notice how careful I was to word my entry? Lets word it so that we both agree on it... Jon 24.44.93.71 06:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You could quote any number of people, especially politicians, who say that patriotism is central to what they do. I don't see how it is especially relevant here, nor is the fact that Savage loves his country important, significant, or unique enough to mention, especially in the introduction. Gamaliel 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we agree to write that he "purports" to act with patriotism? The article as it stands is incomplete, and this inclusion helps fill the vacancy therein. 70.107.104.75 18:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one is disupting his patriotism, just the placement of that information in the introduction. The introduction is not the proper place for the statement of the very obvious. Why not add "Savage loves his children" to the introduction too? Gamaliel 18:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Gamaliel. The assertion is unprovable and undisprovable. Ie., whether he is actually patriotic is unverifiable. That Mr. Weiner would consider himself to be patriotic is mind-numbingly obvious. Everyone involved in politics will claim that, without exception. This factoid is entirely unencyclopedic. Kasreyn 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would, if his body of work centered on Child-rearing. But it centers on the National dialogue...70.107.104.75 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. So will you add "X is a patriot" to every article about a person who participates in the national dialogue? Gamaliel 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just put in he is Americas biggest patriot. Make a separate page dedicated to Michael Savage being the hugest, biggest by miles patriot of America, he won medals during Vietnam and only his self importance as Americas only truth bearer making him too valuble to be risked in Iraq is stopping him from controlling Baghdad single handed. Just put it in every other paragraph. Michael Savage is a Super Smackdown kickass patriot! Dean1970 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I think Michael Savage is a bit of an egotistical, over-the-top hate mongering curmudgeon; but... THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION totally and completely exemplifies what is wrong with Wikipedia. The AGF policy is flawed at its very core when relating to any form of content that is inherently subjective. It's easy to assume good faith when two people are editing articles about factual topics like algebra methodologies, architectural designs, or natural sciences. But a political talk show personality is somenody you will either like or dislike. You can't get away from that. How you feel is going to color your perception and judgement about everything relevant to that person. How can you call that evenhanded treated? I understand that you might TRY to be objective. But, unless you can fully suppress something that is inherent to human nature, you will not truly succeed. This is why a juror who knows the defendant in a criminal trial must be dismissed from duty. They're not even allowed to TRY to be objective because the people who wrote our judicial framework hundreds of years ago knew human nature all too well. Why should people given authority over Wikipedia content consider themselves above this human tendency. Show me a Wikipedia editor who will voluntarily recuse himself from the editing or management of a particular article because of his or her own opinions and I will show you an exceptionally honest individual with a very realistic understanding of human nature. 71.55.62.160 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say that no one is free of opinions and/or bias, it states that you shouldn't assume that the edits of other people are motivated by bias and an agenda. All assume good faith means that you should treat other editors with respect and not make negative assumptions about their motivations. Keeping discussions free of such attacks makes them more productive and makes Wikipedia a more pleasant and efficient place to work. Gamaliel 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I understand that the policy states that no one is free of opinions and/or bias. However, while it purports to ensure that false assumptions about the motivations of other editors are not made, it also enjoins people from dealing with the reality that sometimes arises whenever an editor (often unconsciously) does act on an existing prejudice or bias. I go back to my earlier assertion about an editor properly recusing themself from editing an article for which they recognize an inability treat with full neutrality.

I read an entire transcript posted by somebody seeking to include Michael Savage's self-made assertion of patriotism as one of his underlying motivations. In that transcript, they challenge some of your assertions about what is and is not fair or reflective of underlying bias. You refused to even engage the person on any of the points they raised, simply saying "I'm sorry you've chosen to become abusive. Further comments of this nature will be removed." I found nothing in the reader's comments that I considered abusive. He or she seemed to feel that unfair judgements concerning content were being made and sought to engage the editors accordingly.

Refusing to engage somebody on a point-by-point basis is something that should be solely reserved for peopele who refuse to reason, listen or act with civility. Challenging an editor's judgement (especially as it concerns a controversial person or topic) should not, in and of itself, be considered abusive.

Furthermore, I (and many others) don't agree with your assertion that feelings of patriotism are something that virtually all people would lay claim to. Many people believe that patriotism = jingoism. Still others believe that the idea of patriotism can entail a push towards melting the United States into the world community. Michael Savage's self-stated sense of patriotism on the other hand is a very nationalistic belief in the superiority of the U.S. way of life and government. This information is neither glorifying nor denigrating toward Mr. Savage. It is a set of beliefs and motivations that is unique to him and not common to "virtually all people." Savage's own website emphasizes his three core principles of "borders", "language" and "culture."

As I said before, I am not a fan of Michael Savage. I do think that the motivations and goals of the earlier person were both honest and valid. I think that comments like those made by Dean1970 (which include profanity for sake of satire and have gone completely unchallenged) further underscore a tendency of Michael Savage's Wikipedia article to reflect the negative aspects of his life moreso than the positive.

You should consider the distinctions between the meanings of "patriotism" on their own merit. Like him or hate him, Michael Savage's sense of nationalistic pride is not some meaningless trait found in virtually all people.

Furthermore, like him or hate him, Michael Savage does have several million listeners. Those listeners should have sway over what gets included in his Wikipedia article.

If you are unable to properly address such points in a manner that is truly neutral, Gamaliel, then in the name of honesty, it is time for you recuse yourself from oversight of this article.

71.55.62.160 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider comments accusing me of "bias", of having an "agenda", of "censorship", and advocating turning Wikipedia into a "tyranny" to be very much abusive, and even if you do not, what purpose is sereved by continuing to make such offensive comments after repeated objections from the target? Your characterization that I "refused to engage" the other editor is absolutely incorrect. I made repeated attempts to explain rules of Wikipedia behavior to him and once he ceased being abusive I discussed his proposed edits with him. Your claim that I should recuse myself has no merit. Gamaliel 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, comments regarding "bias", "agenda" and "censorship" are all legitimate points that somebody IN AN EDITORIAL POSITION should ALWAYS be prepared to properly address and respond to. I understand that you don't want to engage in a cyber shouting match. You shouldn't have to. But you are in a position of authority in which you wield absolute control over the content of an article in an online encyclopedia that is supposed to represent the work of the collective masses. As one who can accept and reject content at will, the very essence of your work involves censorship. So quit pretending to be above reproach when it comes to concepts like these. You are human and, hence, you are subject to the same flaws and the same scrutiny as everybody else. If somebody accuses you of "bias" or "agenda" that you know is not true, prove it in a point-by-point response.

Furthermore, I never claimed that you should recuse yourself. What I said was "If you are unable to properly address such points in a manner that is truly neutral ... then ... it is time for you recuse yourself from oversight of this article." Your interpretration of this sentence is rather telling.

Lastly, in your reflexive and somewhat emotional response, you did not address ONE of the points about patriotism which I raised in my previous post. Again, telling.

71.55.62.160 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your comments you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. First, accusations of "bias", etc. are not legitimate points, especially in initial comments directed towards another editor, but violations of our assume good faith policy. Second, I do not "wield absolute control over the content of an article" but I am merely one editor among many. Please familiarize yourself more with how Wikipedia functions before you make baseless accusations. Gamaliel 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User 71.55.62.160, I think you need to back off of Gamaliel; they are only trying to stop this article from being bogged down from too many unnecessary facts, albeit not always in the most polite tone. And frankly, when you close your discussion with "If you are unable to properly address such points in a manner that is truly neutral, Gamaliel, then in the name of honesty, it is time for you recuse yourself from oversight of this article," most people would interpret that as a direct attack on them.

As for reasons for/against include his self-labeling as a Patriot,

You say that "Michael Savage's self-stated sense of patriotism on the other hand is a very nationalistic belief in the superiority of the U.S. way of life and government."

Wikipedia defines patriotism as "positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland'...Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and culture, the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the culture...it implies that the 'fatherland' (however defined) is a moral standard or moral value in itself."

If you can explain how these two definitions are significantly different, I would support adding a few sentences to the article saying that he considers himself a patriot and clarifying what he believes to be patriotic. However, at present I see nothing to indicate his definition for patriotism is outside that of the standard American definition, and therefore, it is not noteworthy.

I have never once heard a high profile talk radio host or political commentator describe themselves as unpatriotic. If you have any documentation of this, please share it, otherwise I do not believe it is noteworthy enough to mention that he considers himself to be a patriot. If you do have evidence of this, I would support adding the label, assuming of course, that you add the label to every other wikipedia bio in which the person has at one time or another described themselves as a patriot. Otherwise, I do believe that would constitute bias. Mbc362 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mbc362, I appreciate Gamaliel wanting to keep a Wikipedia article from getting bogged down with a bunch of facts and assertions that might, at best, be unimportant or, at worst, be irrelevant. I really do. But I did not appreciate his or her refusal to address the points that I was raising. It struck me as both inappropriate and unprofessional. That being said, I greatly appreciate your picking up the ball and properly engaging me on this.

Regarding patriotism: The Wikipedia article cited is one whose neutrality is currently being disputed. So I don't think it can be held as an absolute reference point on what "patriotism" means. I take at least some issue with the definition of patriotism simply meaning "devotion to the fatherland" because I think it is both vague and watered down. Under that definition, dissidents in Nazi Germany could easily consider themselves patriotic. They loved their country; they hated their government and present-day institutions. Many of them undoubtedly cheered the news of Germany's surrender. They obviously weren't patriots in the same way that members of the Nazi party were.

I suppose that raises at least one distinction: support of the "fatherland" versus full-blown support of the government and present-day societal institutions.

You say that you've never heard a mainstream personality call themselves "unpatriotic." Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks had this to say to the British press in June of 2006: "The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country... I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Michael Moore once said that our economic system has "got to go." In that statement, he took a direct strike at one of the United States' core institutions: capitalism. Does Michael Moore consider himself "unpatriotic?" Not at all. Is he "patriotic" in the same sense as somebody (like Savage) who upholds capitalism, believes in the foundational principles of our present-day form of government, and seeks to preserve our national identity? Not at all.

I have listened to many a personality who avoid using the term "patriot." When pressed, they say that they love their country (which I believe most of them do), but their conflation of patriotism with jingoism, along with their distaste for our history and the way things are today, prevents them from voluntarily using the label of "patriot." They instead use monikers like "progressives", "catalysts of change" and "revolutionaries."

As I've said (twice) before, I'm not a fan of Michael Savage. One reason for this is because he is not able to treat topics in a way that even resembles evenhandeness. But at least he doesn't pretend to.

You say that unnecessary facts or assertions could lead to the article getting bogged down. You are right. But how, I ask, can a section titled "Alleged Support for Fascism" -- a first-class section that contains no citations and makes assertions of logic that are tenuous at best -- be considered valid content? Is giving somebody who doesn't support the ACLU the same moniker used to describe Nazi Germany really anything less than severe coloring of somebody's character by those who disagree with his views? Can the inclusion of these kinds of logical leaps by those who oppose his views be seen as evenhanded treatment when matching assertions made by those who admire him are largely missing?

These are all valid points that I believe deserve to be addressed if Wikipedia is going to house an article on somebody as controversial as Michael Savage while operating within the (very extensive) policy framework laid out by its founders and operators.

71.55.62.160 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:71.55.62.160, dictionary.com defines patriotism as "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty", I thought the wiki definition was more descriptive. If you have a problem with the patriotism page, you're free to edit it. However, I still don't see how Savage's definition of patriotism differs from the American norm significantly enough to include it in his bio. Secondly, I stated that I've never heard a high profile talk radio host or political commentator describe themselves as unpatriotic. Natalie Maines hardly falls under that category. Musicians and artist often question social norms and I don't think their beliefs have much bearing on this discussion. Lamb of God released a song about assassinating Bush in which they referred to the shooter as a patriot; that doesn't mean there are a significant number of people that feel that way. Same goes for Michael Moore; he is a film maker who devotes his projects toward questioning social norms. If the 2004 presidential election showed us anything, it was that Moore's views are not widely accepted by Americans. As for the many personalities you claim refuse to label themselves as patriots - do you have any citations? Keep in mind I'm only concerned with people who they themselves are well known politicians, talk show hosts, or news anchors etc. We are comparing Michael Savage to other people in his profession, not any crazy dissident on the street. Finally, in regards to the section titled "Alleged Support for Fascism," I don't ever remember defending this section and moreover, at the time of my writing this the section no longer exists. In closing, I believe that labeling oneself as a patriot is more or less assumed for someone in Savage's position, and unless you can convince me either that it isn't assumed or that his definition of patriotism differs from America's, I don't think it needs to be included in the article. Mbc362 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the subject in question from the article because I believe that it's inclusion is still under discussion. Mbc362 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO: if 71.55.62.160 could produce an example of savage stating patriotism is the basis for his wiki-relevant, controversial actions, the phrase " and self-proclaimed patriot" could be included in the article introduction appropriately. A summary of self proclaimed professional motivation seems like a relevant addition for so few words. Plus I want this discussion to continue because I liked reading it.- Bookswinters 06:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that all his political actions are motivated by his patriotism, just as are the actions of everyone involved in politics. Stating this is akin to stating "a self described human"; its more or less assumed.--Mbc362 14:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Micheal Savage is a radio talk show host and author, which I would argue puts him closer to entertainment than politics. Many radio personalities do not use patriotism as justification for the things they say on air, and his being an author implies nothing.

Additionally, his radical views (as opposed to Rush Limbaugh's or Al Frankin's) could easily cause confusion about his patriotism. He has called for the death of 100 million Muslims and nuclear attacks on an Arab capitol, stances easily viewed as unpatriotic. Basically I'm arguing that it is very possible for someone to know savage's name and some of his viewpoints and not know that savage believes he is acting in America's best interest. -Bookswinters 17:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How could that be easily viewed as unpatriotic? Defeating our enemies is unpatriotic? 76.21.45.13 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His radio show and books are all centered on political issues - therefore, while he does entertain people, he is also involved in politics. How many people involved in politics do not consider themselves patriotic? I'm not saying that most people view his stances on issues as being the best choice for their country, but I am saying that the fact that Savage espouses those views in his books and radio show is because he feels they are the best choice for his country; that they are the patriotic thing to do. It was his patriotism that inspired him to enter into politics; the fact that he labels himself as a patriot is not surprising. In its most general form, patriotism means having pride in one's country and doing what one views to be best for their country; specific ideas about national issues do not indicate the holder's patriotism or lack thereof. --Mbc362 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I concede this one. No other "extreme" political commentators that I looked at feature their views on their own patriotism as it applies to their professional motivations. Even Fred Phelps "non-patriotism" is not mentioned in his article introduction. Additionally, I don't have a source of MS claiming to be a patriot, or that his patriotism us his primary motivation.-Bookswinters 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel, unless mistaken, I see that you have decided to tolerate the 'as patriot' inclusion at the 'personal views' section. Am I correct to assume this? Is this an olive branch? If so, it is nice to see. I will review this and let you know if I agree. Fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.104.75 (talk • contribs)

I moved it instead of deleting because I didn't want to get involved in this argument again. But if you are going to take that as an endorsement of that material, then I'll just delete it. Gamaliel 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, your tone is rude, as it is coersive, threatening, and escalating, and argumentative; further, it does not assume good faith. I demonstrated good faith by thanking you. Kindly reciprocate. Thanking you in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.104.75 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

70.107.104.75, I have repeatedly explained why I don't think this material should be inserted. I would appreciate it if you would at least respond to my previous posts before you reinsert it.--Mbc362 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

70.107, Gamaliel was only stating intention and telling you not to take nonaction for endorsement. I don't think his response was rude, just blunt. --HassourZain 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Threatening? Escalating? What the hell? This is exactly why I didn't want to get involved in this argument again, but then there is no way I was going to let you use my reluctance as an endorsment. If you feel the need to single me out for confrontation, fine, I will stay out of this debate, but please respect the opinions of the other editors who also disagree with you and refrain from reinserting the disputed material before discussion here. Gamaliel 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Positioning victim posture does not help the situation. None singled you out. "Savage is a self-described "patriot" who advocates that United States citizens should defend the national "borders, language, and culture." 70.107.104.75 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I explained at great length why I feel like this line does not need to be in the article. I've asked to you please respond to my arguments before reinserting it. Please do this. Also, there is absolutely no need to insert the same material in 3 different places within an article.--Mbc362 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I feel that what the subject says about himself is valid. Savage is a self-described "patriot" who advocates that United States citizens should defend the national "borders, language, and culture"' This is a very fair statement. I have spoken about this inclusion for several months now, as I started the Patriot thread here. Note that I include quotes around patriot, which lends discredit to its usage in the context of the subject. I can't see how the subject's own words can be overlooked. The article includes irrelevant speculation about his personal life, his religion, and his family. How is this less important the tangential mentions of NAMBLA and other irrelevant items that shed nothing on the subject? I cannot say that I intend to relent on this. This has not been treated fairly.70.107.104.75 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How does accusing me of "threatening" you help the situation? Gamaliel 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You threatened to remove it were I to interprete your inaction as endorsement. This after I thanked you. You did not assume good faith either. 70.107.104.75 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful to stop accusing everyone of doing this or violating that in the harshest and most inflamatory language you can come up with and actually address the issues that users like Mbc362 are trying to get you to discuss. Gamaliel 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have stated that we don't need to include everything someone has said about themselves in their article. His stance on protecting the national "borders, language, and culture" is already mentioned so it doesn't need to be inserted again. The fact that he describes himself as a patriot is not surprising, and I feel, not noteworthy. Including quotes around patriot does not discredit its usage, it informs the reader that it is the exact word he used. If there is irrelevant speculation in the article, by all means please address it here so we can discuss its possible removal. By the way, you might want to read up on WP:3RR.--Mbc362 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed everyone's concern I believe; no one has convinced me that the patriot entry in extraneous. So, I must conclude in light of this impasse, that the the whole article needs full review. The subject is denied the right to define himself in this forum. This would never occur in an article about Dr. Martin L. King, Hillary Clinton, or Ghandi. Instead, the article at present is full of irrelevant, slanted and just silly entries. Savage participates and addresses the idiological national dialogue. His is the belief that the establishment works against the nation; that the nation is suffering from globalist elitists. In light of this, the inclusion about patiot is not inappropriate. I have not made an unreasonable effort to change the article wholesale, (an article which is clearly unfair); I have sought to include a statement by the subject about the subject. Allow me to remind, I believe that Savage is quite a loose cannon, and is due the criticisms he earns. So, ss I see it, either the patriot line goes in, or the whole article needs a full review. I mean, goodness, we are talking about one inocuous line. 70.107.104.75 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By your standards, this post is a lot more "threatening" than my inoccuous comments here. And you haven't even begun to address the concerns of the editors here. You are right, this would never occur in an article about, say, Hillary Clinton. Where is the sentence in that article that says anything remotely like "Hillary Clinton is a patriot who advocates that United States citizens should defend the nation from [insert appropriate threat here]". No other Wikipedia article would allow such a weasly-worded bit of meaningless puffery in a netural article, and we shouldn't allow it here. Savage is not being "denied the right to define himself in this forum", there is ample space given to his views. You nor Savage are not being denied any "rights", we are just disagreeing over an editorial matter that you are seeking to personalize and blow out of proportion. Unless you are prepared to address the issues raised by other editors, please stop wasting our time with your accusations and edit warring. Gamaliel 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gama, huh? Nevermind... The line is not weasly-worded. It is very fair, because it is fact. His work is motivated by love for his 'fatherland' He advocates change in three spheres: boarders, languange and culture. There is nothing weasly there. Again, the whole article needs a full review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.104.75 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Why does "the whole article needs a full review"? Because you can't get your way? Again, please address the issues editors have raised or stop wasting our time. Gamaliel 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gama, see above. 70.107.104.75 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Arab

Why has the category 'Anti-Arab' (if it even exists) not been added to this article? Anyone who is even slightly Anti-Semitic has had labels added to them moments after they made the comment, shouldn't the same be done with those who are Anti-Arab or Anti-Islam? Kytok 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I abhor the concept of having any such subjective, judgemental, and bias-fraught terms as "categories", I would oppose even having an "anti-Arab" category, much less using one on this or any other article. This isn't some sort of mud-slinging contest. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. We should focus on facts, not recriminations. Kasreyn 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think Savage is "anti" any specific group. In fact, he sometimes refers to some homosexual friends and even extols the virtues of some of the Muslims he knows. What he constantly criticizes are Group Identity Politics and Group Think. GuyInCT 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing source

On June 5, 2006 the IRS stripped the society of its tax-free status. I checked the source but it was unavailable. Furthermore, blogs are not allowed to be used as reliable sources in wikipedia, correct me if I am wrong. So please provide something that backs up what you wrote or remove it. Thanks.

vincent_shooter 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

JPEG Vandal

On Dec. 12, 2006, the Michael Savage JPEG image was vandalized. Lestrade 13:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

So what happened to the original image? Was it deleted? — Loadmaster 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked for it in Wikipedia, but can't locate it. Searching Wikipedia's image library is not easy.Lestrade 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Savage & Judaism

Michael Savage is by no means "public and vocal" about his own Jewish heritage, at least not on the show. If anything, he almost always refers to himself as "White", implying he is a Gentile as well. In fact, it seems to me he is continually chasing a sort of WASP, identity. He wants to be seen as one of those conservative American WASPs who support the Jewish perspective on the Middle East situation. Like John Hagee, perhaps. (EnglishEfternamn 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Alleged Support For Fascism

I returned this segment to the article because I feel it is highly relevent in adequately explaining the nature of Michael Savage. If anyone chooses to remove this segment, I will revert their efforts as many times as necessary. I will agree, though if anyone decides to put an "NPOV" tag on the section.

But the facts are as followed: Everything quote in that paragraph is based on things he really said. I know, I listen to his show often, and I remember most of what he says. Look it all up if you feel you must (EnglishEfternamn 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

If you're going to demand that the section stays in the article, you better add some citations to back it up. Also, since he himself has never explicitly called for adoption of fascism, this sections belongs under criticism , and if I'm not mistaken his alleged support for fascism is already mentioned under there. Lastly, that quote appears (at least to me) to either be taken out of context or Savage did not mean it seriously. I removed your edit to the Hamdaniya subsection because comments of that nature have no place in an encyclopedia; they are in no way verifiable Mbc362 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn, that is just ridiculous. I also listen to Savage's show almost daily. If I said something like, "Now the ACLU is going to come after me because I'm calling for fascism. Ooooh, look at me, now I'm calling for fascism" and all you quote is "...I'm calling for fascism..." you would be taking my obvious sarcasm totally out of context. That is why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Also, in an encyclopedia, you can't say things like "some people claim". You have to give facts backed up by verifiable sources. An encyclopedia is meant to be a third- or, at worst, a second-hand source, a compendium of existing, verifiable information, not a op-ed or research journal. Your edits are going to be reverted until they comply with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines such as Verifiability, No Original Research, WP:Biography of living persons, Avoiding Weasel Words, Reliable Sources, all of which I recommend you read before attempting to re-insert edits here.--WilliamThweatt 15:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts. Michael Savage DID in fact state that he was "calling for repression", as he explained that it was the only way to save the "nation" (i.e. borders, language, "culture"). He said this in the spring of 2005 and you can count on me eventually finding some type of manuscript of the showing. Fans of his show need to know what his real views are. Again, Michael Savage said himself that his views are much more extreme-right than what he allows himself to convey on the show; he stated this around April of 2004.

By what premises is this "ridiculous"? You are resorting to the use of illogical absolutes; presenting subjective notions as absolute truth. This, sir, is the epitome of what Wikipedia does not condone. (68.35.186.121 22:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

And you can EVENTUALLY include the quote in his article, after you have found the proper citation for it. As it stands now the quote is unsourced and dubious even to a crazy liberal such as myself. I removed the Fascism section and added it to the Controversies and Criticism section (minus the quote of course). The paragraph was written as a criticism of some of his more controversial statements and belongs in the aforementioned section - it does not deserve its own section. Mbc362 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed the Fascism section back because it represents the highest level of neutrality standards. Whether you are a Savage fan or not, and I agree that in some areas he is very well-learned....the reader has a right to know what he has been accused of, and for crying out loud, what he has SAID. Again, he said these things, and you can bet you'll get your citations. Until then, I find it fair if you choose to disput the neutrality or something of the sort. I'll even put the "citation needed" tags on the quote now. But if you decide to go against neutrality standards and remove the entire section (a move characteristic of overt vandalism), I will again revert the change, as many times as needed.

I hope now the readers realise why the Fairness Act was quite fair. (EnglishEfternamn 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Before you go talking about Wikipedia standards, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them, starting with the pages I suggested above. It's not at all about fairness or neutrality. It's about Verifiability, Wikipedia's strict policy against Original Research and what types of material we can legitimately (and legally) print about Living Persons. Also, I suggest you read WP:NOT for a list of what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a simple collection of facts. It's a compendium of already available information. This is an encyclopedia. You need a source for everything, especially quotes and accusations...this goes double for articles on living persons. Wikipedia policy (Biography of Living Persons) says this type of non-sourced accusations should be immediately removed until a legitimate source is provided.--WilliamThweatt 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you won't be reverting again. The rules of Wikipedia require that such serious allegations be held to the highest standards of neutrality and verifiablity. You've been asked by multiple parties to provide sources for this information. This material must be sourced before you inserted it again. Please see WP:BLP for more information on our rules and practices. Gamaliel 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn, I suggest you recheck the definition of vandalism. Edits like these destroy the credibility of wikipedia, and putting "citation needed" tags does nothing to help your cause. Mbc362 06:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I sure did. It is as followed:

"Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) or replacing entire established articles with a spurious redirect is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings. "

This is why deleting an entire section, as you and a few others have done many times, constitutes as vandalism, or at best, the lowest common denominator of neutrality standards. This reflects the highest degree of an attempt to ideologise the article, something unacceptable in this encyclopedia. I offered my version of a compromise. The section will stand. If you fail to comply with the standards laid out for all users I will have no choice but to report you to the proper Wikipedia admins. No user may have special privilages in the creation, preservation, and improvement of a "free" encyclopedia. (EnglishEfternamn 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia admin here. Once again I have to point out that you are violating the following rules:

• WP:BLP rules against inserting controversial/potentially defamatory material without a proper source
• WP:CIVIL - when other editors properly remove this material, as allowed and required by Wikipedia rules, you attack them by referring to their edits as vandalism.

You have two choices here. You can continue a pointless edit war or you can provide sources for the material you wish to insert and work with other editors to find a mutually satisfactory version. Wikipedia needs strong editors who are willing to insure that articles are neutral and represent significant viewpoints, including unpopular ones. But those editors must also follow the rules of Wikipedia, and currently you are not following the rules. You cannot expect to break the rules indefinately, and I ask you, for the final time, to please work within the rules so you can contribute positively to Wikipeida. You will achieve nothing by continuing to break the rules and will only get yourself blocked from editing. Gamaliel 06:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an abuse of power on your part as you use your position to further subjectify the content of Wikipedia. You can bet that I will go to Jimbo Wales himself if I have to on this. All perspective must be represented, even, as you said "unpopular" ones. To other users I must make it clear that the user abouve has violated the rules of civility to the strongest extent; sending me threatening messages with the highest level of profanity. I am mentioning this because I cannot allow this type of abuse to remain a secret. I am contacting the Wikipedia Arbitration Commitee to investigate your practices. I shall do this right now. (EnglishEfternamn 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

I will not be dissuaded by threats. I consider your insults and threats to be harassment, and I demand that you cease them immediately. As for the wikipedia definition of vandalism - READ THE SECOND SENTENCE. Several editors, including myself, have explained why we are removing the content. Therefore my actions do not constitute vandalism. Secondly, you never offered any sort of compromise. You simple reinserted all the material that had been previously removed by other editors and added "citation needed" flags to it. Furthermore, If you had bothered to read my past discussion posts, as well as my edits to the controversies and criticisms section, you would realize that I had not entirely removed the "Alleged Support For Fascism" section; I deleted the quote and relocated the encyclopedic parts to the criticisms section and flagged them as needing citations - thats more of a compromise than you ever offered. I did this with the belief that you would soon return to this discussion with proper citations. Unfortunately, this did not happen. If citations for these sentences do not materialize shortly, I would be inclined to remove these sentences as well. Mbc362 18:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've added citations, however unless I am completely missing something, none of the statements in the Alleged Support for Fascism paragraph are actually supported by the page they are linked to. If these statements appear on some other page on that website, the links should go directly to that page, not just the general website. I hope this is fixed soon. Also, I feel the need to reiterate what I've said several times before: this paragraph is a criticism of Savage and therefore should be part of the criticism section. Lastly, I again removed your edit to the Hamdaniya subsection as it constituted speculation and is therefore unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not here to guess what has contributed to a person's public image; if a group denounced Savage as a fascist for his support of the "Pendleton 8" it would be fine to include that. Mbc362 13:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mbc, you're not missing anything, that site was actually a pro-Savage site and had nothing to do with that section...it didn't even reference the "quotes" that were attributed to Savage. As for you, EE, I engourage you to take this "all the way to Jimbo". If you had bothered to read the Wikipedia policies that I suggested to you from the beginning, namely WP:BLP, you would have seen that Jimbo has already weighed in on this. Here are some links to his opinions Keynote speech|Jimbo_Keynote Keynote speech, and ["WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"|"Zero information is preferred...". There are plenty more quotes from Jimbo at WP:BLP. Please take the time to read these.--WilliamThweatt 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I should note that in this very discussion section, one of the users here has stated that Wikipedia is "not about neutrality..", it was User: WilliamThweatt that stated this. This is significant evidence that these users are not srtiving to keep Wikipedia neutral, but to turn it into a campaign website as idologised and subjectified as your standard political newspaper. As a concerned, pro-neutrality Wikipedian, I oppose this. Our readers and fellow editors deserve much better than this. And I say again, no Wikipedian is abouve editing and vandalism rules. Dispute the section if you like, but a stark deletion of such a significant portion of the article should not be condoned. All perspecives must be represented. We owe this much to our readers. (EnglishEfternamn 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

Actually, if you took the time to read, I said that the reversion of your edits are "not about neutrality". And as for your other "points", they might be valid if you were actually presenting a documented and cited perspective rather than your own personal views about Savage. Many editors have pointed out your violations of numerous Wikipedia policies and I have even provided you with links to Jimbo's statements regarding Biographies of Living Persons, none of which have you even acknowledged, much less discussed.--WilliamThweatt 05:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that you have not once provided sources for the material you're inserting, in violation of wikipedia policy. All you have to do to fix this is present credible sources for these allegations. We have repeatedly explained why we are removing this material. I suggest you spend less time reverting our edits, calling our edits "vandalism", claiming we are violating wikipedia's civility and neutrality policies, claiming that we're trying to turn wikipedia into a "campaign website as idologised and subjectified as your standard political newspaper", claiming that other editors that agree with us are abusing their power and "sending [you] threatening messages with the highest level of profanity" and more time finding the necessary citations so that your edits conform to wikipedia standards. Mbc362 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts, Wikipedia is about neutrality, objectivity, and civility. If you cannot comply with these standards, and continue to threatening messages, delete entire sections, and continue these practices, it is my responsibility as a Wikipedian to confront these violations. (EnglishEfternamn 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

Facts have citations to support them; your edits do not. Until your accusations are supported they will be removed. Mbc362 18:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the rules on vandalism. Again, Wikipedia does not permit the deletion of an ENTIRE SECTION. You have now admitted that you have violated these rules, and will continue to do so. Please stop, you are doing a great disservice to me and our readers. (EnglishEfternamn 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

I have repeatedly pointed out why I and the other editors are removing the section, as well as why that does not constitute vandalism. The wikipedia policy of vandalism concerning blanking is as follows:

Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) or replacing entire established articles with a spurious redirect is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

You apparently need to reread the portion in bold. Furthermore, I and several other editors have explained to you why your edits are violating wikipedia policy yet you have consistently paid no attention to them. Mbc362 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn, as far as I can tell, you were the one who added that ENTIRE SECTION on December 12, 2006. Nobody put it there before you did. Your appeal to neutrality, objectivity, and civility is incredibly dishonest. Frotz661 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe the unmistakable bias in the editing of this section on the part of about 5 editors. I think deleting AN ENTIRE SECTION is undisputably a characteristic of vandalism. I've done nothing wrong, neutrality, objectivity and civility is vital here, and there is an undying effort to supress the very information that keeps these principles preserved. I have no time to keep this going, but I can guarantee the section will be returned to the article, citations and all, and when it does, it will stay. Until, then I have no choice but to dispute the neutrality of the article until further notice. We've talked at length about this, and anyone could read this section and see why such a dispute is required on the part of an objective, responsible Wikipedian. (EnglishEfternamn 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

First off, wikipedia's vandalism policy makes it quite clear why deleting that section is not vandalism, if you can't understand that the problem is on your end, not ours. You have repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations into this article in violation of wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. When you cannot win a debate, you resort to personal attacks, claiming we're sending you threatening messages, vandalizing the article, etc. Two admins have repeatedly told you to stop reverting the changes and you have ignored them. There is no cabal designed to suppress your "facts", they simply have no business being in this article until there are proper citations for them. Mbc362 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "entire section" was deleted because the method in which it was written violated Wikipedia policies. This has been explained to you over and over again. In an effort to assume good faith much patience has been shown you in this regard. "We" haven't talked at length about this. I and other experienced editors have. You keep repeating the same things and do not address the myriad policies this section violates. You say you've "done nothing wrong", but, as I've pointed out and tried to explain to you, you have...and you have not even tried to answer that. All contributions are welcomed and encouraged as long as they comply with basic Wikipedia policies, which this section, as written does not.--WilliamThweatt 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel you are largely missing the point. You and other "experienced" editors have turned against me, and all aspects of neutrality, in order to delete a portion of information for ideological reasons. You have then resorted to personal attacks and have taken rhetorical mesaures to twist and interpret the Wikipedia rules in a manner that supports your own stance. In other words, if the rules are at odds with your intentions, you are sure to disregard them. This is characteristic of bad logic, a lack of civility, and motivations as ideological as if you are representing "The Savage Nation" itself. This is a major disservice to the readers of this neutral website and I can guarantee that I will not take this passively, and neither would the readers.

I WILL bring back the section eventually, citations and all. (EnglishEfternamn 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry you feel that way. The fact is, it's not about you, my friend. Nobody has "turned against you". It's really quite simple, the section, as you wrote it does not comply with Wikipedia policies. The many editors that have tried in vain to explain this simple fact to you are not representing "The Savage Nation", we are representing Wikipedia and it's high regard for academic, encyclopedic standards. In fact, to demonstrate my point and to disprove yours, User:Gamaliel, who has warned you for your conduct, is known as a very liberal minded, anti-Savage editor and probably agrees with a lot of what you wish to include (Gamaliel, forgive me if I misrepresent you). However he recognizes that, as written, it can not be included because of the numerous ways in which it violates Wikipedia policy. The motivations of most users are not ideological, they are to protect the acedemic, encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia.--WilliamThweatt 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I think that's a fair assessment. Users of different ideological viewpoints can work together here harmoniously if we assume good faith and don't go into every minor conflict with fists flying. Gamaliel 21:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section and will continue to do so with impunity in its present form per WP:BLP. The sources provided to do not allege that Savage supports fascism or even substantiate the quotes. Do not add this section back in the article until it is backed up by verifiable and reliable sources that satisfy WP:BLP.--RWR8189 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is simply ridiculous to have this section in the article. Who alleges he supports fascism? How does the fact that he thinks the issue of universal health care distracts from the war on terror have anything to do with fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.34.213 (talk • contribs)

Oh brother. First, let me preface by saying that I think Savage qualifies as a Moonbat, of the barking variety even, and I'm a conservative. I only listen to his show on occasion, and I have heard him talking about fascism on several occasions. He seems to hold the view that the Left in America are the ones who are fascists, both in ideology and in their behavior. How that got twisted into him being a supporter of fascism is mind-boggling. - Crockspot 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good fair Article

This is a pretty good, fairly objective article. It is neither biased or false. I think the writer should be commended.

No, it is not fair; it is slanted and presented from the point of view of those that are offended by him. 70.107.104.75 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific recommendations for how to change it? JoshuaZ 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently conducting a neutrality edit of the page. Please see my edit log on neutrality of the article further down this discussion page. Thanks - Eisenmond 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of Controversal

Use of "Controversal" violates NPoV policy. Savage is "controversal" only to his enemies, to those who are against him, or who are threatened by his personal and professional positions. Question: why should enemies define him? Should enemies of Hillary Clinton be allowed to define her? To those who are threatened by executive orders, initiatives, or legislation Hillary would support, she certainly is "controversal". Her supporters do not view her as so. Further, her wiki article does not frame her as so. To see such in this article is blatanly wrong and intelecturally dishonest. For shame unto the judgments that the editors have made herein. Kindly do not accuse me of acting out of line, or in violation of the terms. That would be the typically dishonest and excesively emotional reaction to thie clear cut inconsistancy which suits the agenda of others. 70.107.104.75 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He is highly contoversial. This isn't an issue of being "only to his enemies" since having many people who find who aren't happy with him is almost the definition of controversial. This isn't any different than stating that ANSWER is controversial (for example). JoshuaZ 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. This isn't the Michael Savage drive time hour we are talking about here. This is a guy who has gotten into controversy after controversy over outrageous things he has said. If he isn't controversial, who is?

"MSNBC said, "The addition of Michael Savage to the MSNBC lineup was made with the full awareness of his reputation for controversy and confrontation."" [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31345]

"Savage is "controversal" only to his enemies"? His employer thinks he's controversial. Is MSNBC an enemy of Savage? Gamaliel 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ. In response to a summary on the talk page on the removing of the descriptor "controversial"- I think that in the case of pundits or other speakers on divisive topics, the term "controversial" applies to them in the sense that they are a public figure responsible for controversy. Their opinions are disagreed with by a sizable group of people, and their status as a public figure conflates their ideas with their appearance or identity (in that their identity is notable because of their ideas). I think the descriptor should stay. --HassourZain 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's be honest, here. No one has engaged the arguement. You all are digging in your heals. This is a common occurance on WIKI. Who is to decide if he is suitable for this descriptor? To select it is immediately violation of NPV. We must strike a compromise, or this will not be resolved. 70.107.104.75 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be sourced, look at what Gamaliel has said above. The consensus so far is that "controversial" is a neutral descriptor, and in this case, it would be consensus that decides if he is suitable for this descriptor. --HassourZain 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, HassourZain. I offer concession, with the caveat that we allow to remain "and popular." It strikes a positive chord that harmonizes fine with the negative chord of "controversal" 70.107.104.75 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think that controversial is a negative descriptor (especially in the case of a commentator), "popular" might merit insertion if we could find a neutral source to attribute it to. I'll see if I can turn up any reviews or anything that describe him so. I'll post it here if I can find one. --HassourZain 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you have to attribute 'Popular,' is it correct to do the same for 'Controveral'?70.107.104.75 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that either, though like Gamaliel said, a press release from MSNBC described him as a controversial figure. By the way, I worked the controversial and popular bit into the flow of the description. I love assonance, so "popular political commentator" sounded better to me. :) --HassourZain 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Eurika! I am surprised and pleased that concordance has been achieved.70.107.104.75 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think both words should be left out and the readers trusted to find out for themselves as they read the article. :-) Steve Dufour 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Presidential campaign?

Wasn't there some talk a few days ago about Savage considering a possible 2008 Presidential run?

WAVY 10 01:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there was... Monday morning he announced that he was strongly considering a run for the Republican nomination. If you check the United States presidential election, 2008 page under Republican candidates, there is a link to this report. And if you check his website you will see that he is strongly considering it. Enjoy. - Eisenmond 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on his involvement in the campaign, including his platform and criticism of other candidates. If he files for exploratory or with the FEC this section can be expanded in a seperate campign page, discussing in more detail. I think it is fair to include his intentions and more about his views on his place in the party. Thanks - Eisenmond 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some misleading language in this section of the article. The article says: "stressing that he would focus his campaign on his mantra: "Borders, Language, Culture." In doing so, Savage would be required to cease commentating on his top-rated radio talk show. The article sounds like he is required to stop commentating on his show, because of his campaign themes. However, the real problem, as far as I know, is the FEC would see his show as an undue advantage in the presidential campaign, and a conflict of interest. While other candidates would have to raise money and travel to campaign events, Savage would be paid to promote his candidacy on his talk show. I think the language in the article should be changed to reflect this issue, because it would be much clearer to the reader. Thanks Thebathrobe 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-establishing Neutrality

I think the best way to re-establish neutrality in this article would be to remove blogs as sources of information, thereby cutting out opinion. I will perform a comprehensive look into this, in hopes to retain pertinent information while removing non-neutral opinion and wording. Thanks - Eisenmond 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have finshed the bio and introduction of the article. Rephrashing and seperating issues, such as a single sentence which both addressed Savage beginning to carry a handgun, and arguing with friends on the street. Statements such as this may lead readers to believe that the gun was used during such confrontations. If there are any inputs to the NPOV edits, please, let's discuss! Thanks - Eisenmond 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to spell out to the readers what is a " measure of his shifting political views." It comes off as commentary to me, which is what we need to avoid. Just state the facts and let the readers come to their own conclusions. Also, according to the source, "Weiner openly carried a gun and made public scenes when he ran into his former friends and acquaintances." So I don't understand why we should go to great lengths to make sure the reader knows that the two facts are not connected in any way, since the source implies that they may be. --Mbc362 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of creating a list of facts, there are times that some additional verbiage is required. It may appear as "commentary", but it is added to remove the POV statement that was in it's place. If you think it can be written more effectively, by all means, make changes. But I implore, please keep the voice NPOV. Regarding the gun, consider the source. I seperated the issue because there is nothing that indicates that the weapon was involved, i.e. a police record - because that would be assult with a deadly weapon. In any case, I conducted a fair analysis of the sources, and cut out the POV information, or that which was speculation / implying / etc. Thanks - Eisenmond 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between inserting verbiage to make the sentences flow and what was inserted here. Openly carrying a gun is not necessarily "a measure of his shifting political views," it could be due to safety fears unrelated to political arguments, or simply that he was going batshit insane. As we don't have a motive for his gun-totting, we probably shouldn't guess at it. The more I look at the sentence however, the more I wonder if it really belongs at all. As you pointed out, there is no police record of it being used, no evidence of him drawing it in any arguments or using it in any way, and it doesn't seem to really add any new insight into his character. Maybe its just because I'm from the South, but carrying a gun doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Would anyone be offended if I just remove the entire sentence?--Mbc362 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have edited up to the culture heading. Continuing editing on basis of neutrality in statements. Have not removed references or cite sources. Rearranging statments such as Paul-Revere tax exempt status to a more appropriate location. As always, please provide feedback if there is any! - Eisenmond 17:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have now completed up to Criticisms. I moved some statements from the Culture section to the criticism statments, as they are more appropriate in this section. All references are currently remaining. ONce I finish the overall NPOV edit, I will begin checking all sorces and removing information and sources from blogs or anonymous editorial letters. As always, inputs are welcome! Thanks - Eisenmond 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• After criticisms, the rest was pretty cut and dry. The main context of the article has been NPOV edited, without addressing the MANY "Citation Needed" spots. This will be the next step. For the sake of further neutrality debates, we should focus on placing controversial statements in the Controversies and Criticisms section. All else should pretty much be bio- editing and source citing :) Please review and provide feedback. Thanks - Eisenmond 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag has been removed. Thanks for your patience as I edited this article. - Eisenmond 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag has been put back with no explanation. Should it be removed? wjbean

"Gay" letter

It would be better to print the text of the letter and let readers decide for themselves. Steve Dufour 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I had added a picture of the letter to the article but it was removed by other editors. Gamaliel 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Views on Religion?

Savage's stated views on religion seem pretty unlikely, judging by some of the other comments he's made. Is it possible to get a source (and a date) on those? Rumour is that Weiner used to be a hippy and a pal of Alan Ginsberg - could his universalist leanings date back to those days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.220.7 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I was also struck by how "liberal" his views were on this subject. :-) I do know a little about Judaism and the Universalism expressed by Savage was well within the mainstream of Jewish thought on the subject, despite the original wording of the passage which seemed to imply a contradiction between the two. Steve Dufour 17:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Will anyone object if I remove the tag? JoshuaZ 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I object at this time. I am still only 75% finished with my neutrality edits. If you could give me until the weekend to get proper feedback and continue the "citation needed" checks, we can agree that the tag can be removed. Thanks. I have been working hard on this one this week! - Eisenmond 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag removed. Further editing should adhere to the Wiki policy on NPOV. Thanks - Eisenmond 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Savage's comments on homosexuality

This section needs citations. 76.21.45.13 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please prove that Savage's book says those things. 76.21.45.13 12:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them appear to be taken from this website: [1] Danski14 14:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that should be cited in the article. I'm not sure if GLAAD is a reliable source though. Maybe it is. It certainly doesn't like Dr. Savage. I don't even think that it's a big deal if he wrote those things, but information should be cited. 76.21.45.13 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added in the refs. I am not sure whether these quotes are representative of his views on Gays as a whole, but they do come directly from him. Danski14 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that Wikipedians cherry-picking quotes to insert into this article is inherently POV and likely OR. We've gone through a similar discussion in Coulter's article and came to that conclusion. --ElKevbo 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is his comments on transgender individuals in the section about homosexuality? This would mean transgender issues are a part of homosexuality instead of being an entirely different issue with some related issues with homosexuality. --IraeNicole 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional ethnomedicine?

How does a Salon article prove that Savage's Ph.D. is in nutritional ethnomedicine? Savage says that his Ph.D. is in nutrition and epidemiology science. I would think that Savage knows better about his degree than Salon. 76.21.45.13 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

It is getting very non neutral. Statements such as these:

"On October 9, 2006, Savage labeled Madeleine Albright a “traitor” because the Clinton administration was in office when North Korea bought two nuclear reactors from a Western company in 2000. Savage said former Secretary Albright should be “tried for treason and when she’s found guilty she should be hung” Savage has previously called Albright a "hag" and "a monster in a dress"."

are biased in the fact that they say he has criticized all these people, but don't clarify why. Especially this one, it stacks everything up against him but doesn't present his side, just saying that he called Alnright a traitor and said she should be hung. We should put in why he criticized her, other than a basically sarcastic remark ("because the Clinton administration was in office when North Korea bought two nuclear reactors from a Western company in 2000.") The Person Who Is Strange 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel, check your source

Page not found. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/90478p-82252c.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.164.130 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

The story exists, and the fact that it is no longer on the web does not make the properly cited source invalid. Please visit your local library if you wish to read the story. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel, if you have a valid source for this libelous claim, please cite it. "See your local library" is not a valid source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.164.130 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

You are correct, "see your local library" is not a valid source. A properly cited major newspaper article is a valid source, however, and the article properly cites a major newspaper article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 05:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find it on archive.org, but what about the google cache [2] Would that work?

Also, I would just like to say that I think the entire article needs to be watched closely. Anon IP activity has increased since Savage made slanderous remarks regarding the article on his show (see article for details). It should be checked for NPOV and unsourced statements should be removed outright if necessary to meet WP:BLP. Danski14 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I removed the recently statement:"On March 9th 2007, Savage publicly announced on his radio show that he is going to try to sue Jimmy Wales for his website, Wikipedia. He claimed that people go on the website and purposely post negative comments about him that are not true. He said he doesn't understand how people can trust a website encyclopedia where anyone can post up any random information. He says these comments may pose a potential threat towards him. He said Jimmy puts him and others in danger. He called Jimmy Whales, "white trash" and said he was trying to make a quick buck. He said he will see about him in court once he gets a hold of him.ref:[3]: go to live podcasts and download podcast for hour 2 of Friday March 9th 2007, you can find him talking about it in the last 5 minutes of hour 2 of the show.

While it is true, I think it was very poorly worded. Also, I do not believe it to be encyclopedic because as far as I could tell, Savage has not shown any indication of actually following up on his threats. It is also somewhat of a strange violation of WP:SELF. Danski14 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is no active page to cite, then your source has retracted its claim.

Wikipedia administrators, in particular, should consider the extent of their personal responsibility when making or repeating libelous claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.164.130 (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

A far-right source has the whole letter: results here

March 8, 1970

Dear Allen:

After speaking to you on the phone about how nice the black-white thing is in mountain villages in Fiji, I walked downstairs to the school courtyard, where a little–known black brother looks at me, takes my hand gently, we do some old–world Lower East Side finger tricks, and he peacefully kisses the back of my hand – I do the same for his hand. I told him about our brief talk, and he says, "I must have felt the vibes."

Michael Weiner

Botany Dept.

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI

What are "old–world Lower East Side finger tricks" ? I'm ignorant regarding this particular gay vernacular! (I did just learn about Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin's new Gay porn star friend Matt Sanchez's sex act called The Dirty Sanchez though ! (crap ! - I kinda wish I didn't!) - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 05:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators, you need to adhere to your own guidelines.

"

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Antiem 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sources for these claims - see link above, and link FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "If there is no active page to cite, then your source has retracted its claim." is inaccurate. This is not standard practice on Wikipedia or in scholarly citation in general.

A proper citation is in the article. The fact that the webpage is currently inactive is irrelevant. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The full text of the article is available on the Lexis/Nexis database. If this article had been retracted, it would no longer appear there. This source meets every requirement for inclusion and is fully and properly cited. Please familiarize yourself with matters of proper citation before you continue this edit war. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Using your source, I want you to justify the phrase: "interpreted by some as sexual in nature." Who does this specifically refer to? Please familiarize yourself with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words.

Please follow your own guidelines: "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view, and the lack of given sources also implies a verifiability issue. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words Antietam 06:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of continuing this edit war by removing properly cited material, please suggest an alternate wording that you find appropriate. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own guidelines either a specific source needs to be attributed to this phrase "interpreted by some as sexual in nature" or the phrase should be removed. "By some" is not acceptable. I intend to remove this phrase in the coming days unless it is corrected or re-worded to specifically identify the "interpreter(s)." Antietam 08:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Book

Did Michael really write The Taster's Guide to Beer (ISBN 0026256002)? How do you know?

It doesn't really fit in with his other areas of writing interest. Thanks. --johno95 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he wrote it... you can click on the ISBN link, and then see different links, for instance here: [4] on Amazon. He uses his birth name. Danski14 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait. There are other Michael Weiners in the world. One is an actor. I am not saying he DIDN'T write it. But where's the proof that he did? (Like a mention in a reputable article.) It doesn't do any good to say he's using his birth name. It could be another Michael A. Weiner using HIS birth name. If anyone has a copy of the book, maybe it contains a short bio or photo. --johno95 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that occurred to me of course, but other book sources said Micheal A. Weiner, and the comments on Amazon.com alluded that it was him, so I thought it was fairly safe. If you think it's not true, then feel free to remove it (don't want any lawsuits or anything, hehe). He doesn't have a published list on his website, but for what its worth you can see his works listed here on "NNdB" [5] Sometimes I wonder if they just copy from wikipedia articles when they are creating pages on that site... Danski14 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He has also mentioned it on his show. 72.208.26.191 03:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also heard him mention it on his show. He said he wrote a book about microbreweries once, and would not be interested in doing it again.(24.6.135.19 06:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

OK, thanks. I found the book, and on the first page, it lists the usual homeopathy books, etc. "also by this author." But thanks to everyone here. Now I know that Michael is/was a beer fan. Interesting. -- johno95 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop Savaging Savage.

Don't list Savage under "anti-Catholic" just because he disagrees with the Catholic Church on one issue. Savage actually has a point; why should a church be able to break the law? Savage also agrees with the Catholic Church on many issues and even defended Pope Pius XII, so please knock it off. It is simply your opinion that Savage is anti-Catholic. This is an encyclopedia; let the people decide whether he is anti-Catholic. Now, if Savage said, "I hate Catholics," that would be different. If Savage is anti-Catholic, then liberal politicians who are pro choice should all be listed as "anti-Catholic." 76.21.45.13 12:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some removals of content

I have removed several difficult statements from the article pending proper sourcing. I am not sure that I got ALL the unsourced material from the article, but we really should remove ALL unsourced material on the article. Watch out as well for anyone POV pushing by inserting false or overstated claims about Mr. Savage's certainly controversial positions. NPOV applies to everyone and WP:BLP is an important policy in cases like this. I nearly stubbed the whole article for a careful resourcing of everything, but the article is mostly pretty well sourced already, and so I think it just needs a cleanup... and possibly semi-protection. --Jimbo Wales 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the section about his views, I question (ie remove) the bit about his defense of animal rights; I've heard him bash vegetarianism on his radio show, and the source of that view is another bio page (apparently the source of much of this page's content) that contains no further references, and certainly not anything that properly gives substance to the assertion.

Two Degrees

The two masters degrees, mentioned in the intro paragraph, and then in paragraph four, should match EXACTLY. Could someone (if you know the correct degrees) please fix this? I am not sure that you have to mention the precise degrees in the intro, but some people like to do this. Then we get into trouble. (ie. Anthropology and Medical Anthropology are similar, but why should they differ?) -- johno95 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal name still Weiner

Does it matter that Savage's legal name is still "Weiner"? (On the flap of every one of his Savage books, it reads "copyright 20XX Michael A. Weiner.") If it is important, where would this mention go? I bring this up because this wiki piece makes it seem like his name was (in the past) was Weiner, but now it's Savage. To us, he is Savage. It's ok to call him Savage, because without that name, he probably wouldn't be listed in wiki. But maybe you could mention his legal name is still Weiner. What do you think? -- johno95 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Savage's Start

This is in the second paragraph of the radio section:

"In the 1990s, Michael Savage began his radio career on KGO (a San Francisco news/talk radio station) as a fill-in host for the liberal Ray Taliaferro. Less than a year later he was given a weekday show on KGO's sister station KSFO."

Less than a year later from what date? The 1990s?

Maybe someone knows. Thanks. -- johno95 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Savage just celebrated his thirteenth anniversary on radio on March 21. Therefore, he debuted on March 21, 1994. He got his own show on KSFO in the beginning of 1995. 76.21.45.13 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Savage still mulling?

I heard Savage say on his show that he's not running. Should this article still list him as a possible candidate? 76.21.45.13 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• As long as his web page still has his mullings poll listed, I think it would be a good idea to leave that section as is. Once he openly declares that he has no intention of running, and re-defines his position in the campaign, then we can make changes... but I think that his mullings sparked significant enough talk to keep mentioning his role in the party, etc. Thanks - Eisenmond 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Run for what?

If you believe the vote tally on his web page of passing 10 million sponsorships as true and valid, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you or anyone of the "savage-heads" might be interested in.

whois and source

Compete.com Rank: #34,009 with 51,625 U.S. visitors per month

Just a hair over 51,000 visitors per month, and a on-site poll tally of over 10 million. I thought their was something fishy in electronic voting in the U. S. Must be a boatload of duplicate chads, pregnent butterfly votes or somebody just pulling a number out of thin air. Whom can blame the Republican presidential candidates for not taking this loud mouth entertainer puppeted by the Talk Radio Netowrk seriously when once again, Savage (or Weiner's) credentials just do not add up.

Even the "51,625 visitors per month" tally is skewed because it is based on the number of people whom allowed the web surfing tracking software to be installed on their PC, and record their activity, but I cannot see how 9 million other "Savage" surfers would be so wise as to not allow this on their Microsoft Windows based machines.

I tend to believe that the ten million mark is a fictitous number only to instil entertainment level conversations. The Radio Network (syndicate) at best only estimates that Savage has between 8 and 10 million listeners per week, so looks like this hype has just about ran its course of usefulness as the first RNP debate is scheduled in 24 hours, and Savage's invitation must have been lost in the mail.

Savage wasn't invited because he hasn't decided to run yet. The GOP should take Savage seriously because, right now, the party has zero chance of winning in 2008 as a result of moving to the left and kissing Bush's butt as the current candidates are doing. The GOP needs Michael Savage. He's a straight shooting non-politician. America needs and wants that. Savage is also much more intelligent than the current GOP candidates. The GOP doesn't need another intellectual lightweight as its nominee for the presidency. BTW, what does "pregnent" mean? Why are Savage haters incapable of spelling words correctly or signing their names on this forum? 69.181.156.67 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling? Look at his grammar! It's "who" when the "who" is doing the action, not "whom". What a wasted attempt to sound intelligent. --71.245.176.208 05:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

An Independent and a Conservative

Savage is both an independent and a conservative, although he will register as a Republican if he indeed runs for president. 76.21.45.13 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Literary Scene

To what does "literary scene" specifically refer? What does it mean? It is strangely vague and conspicuously cliche. It does not say anything really, does it? Could someone add to this to qualify the meaning. What is a literary scene? (Gamliel, I am not trying to pick a fight with you...) 70.107.104.75 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Local authors and their events. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What additional specificity can we find for the usage of "literary scene"? What type of authors? What type of writing? What type of world view did they have as writers? This is too vague. There must be more than one such "literary scene." What distinguishes the literary scene from which he estranged himself from other literary scenes? 'Literary scene' alone without qualification is weasily. 70.107.104.75 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent questions. Where do you suggest we find the answers? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another good question, yours. I don't know. So, since it cannot be answered, the inclusion of this strange usage reflects a poor standard in the article's redaction. 70.107.104.75 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that it's strange at all, it's a pretty common usage and it seems perfectly on point. Just because we don't know the precise nature and composition of the SF literary scene at the time of Savage's involvement does not mean that it was not a literary scene nor does it mean that we can not describe it as such. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you are content with it, pleae qualify it. If it is common usage, explain it. If it is perfectly on point, tell us the point please. Do you imply that San Francisco had only one "literary scene?" There was no other such scene that could qualify as a scene too? Since there was only one scene, it does not need further explanation? All other similar such scenes were inferior? It is not described at all, therefore you cannot say it can be described as such. A literary scene is a means to an ends, and not an ends; the ends is the literature it promotes. What were/are the ends of this scene? 67.87.92.56 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"From there, he started making trips into San Francisco to hang around the North Beach literary scene." [6] Perhaps you can find the answers to your questions in the article this quote is taken from. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Salon article! LOL. Just because it is referenced, does not make it legitimate or encyclopedic for that matter. Nothing is communicated. Your defense of the wording is not persuasive. 70.107.104.75 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It should not be there. How can we avoid an edit fight? 70.107.104.75 22:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While you raise some interesting questions, I simply don't agree that you have made a compelling case to remove the material at issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it should not be there. Again, how can we avoid an edit fight? 70.107.104.75 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Republican??? Says who???

I listen to his show, probably on average about once per week. Yet, I've never once heard him proclaim himself a Republican. He sais repeatedly, and to this day (April of '07), that he is a "registered Independent". He is also a staunch critic of the Republican Party, not only for the party being too liberal, but even in some instances the party being too conservative on fiscal issues. One show, in about '05 I'm guessing, he's going at it with a Republican caller over the minimum wage. Savage was unmistakably the 'liberal' in that particular debate.

Savage is what he sais, a conservative independent. So, would the people who keep calling him a Republican reconsider their entries? Sounds to me like some Republican contributors here are trying to dishonestly forge Savage into their ranks by misrepresenting his American political party affiliation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.87.163 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Gamliel is the most active overseer of this article. There are numerous debates in this talk page about how Savage identifies himself which have yeilded nothing. It is pretty much established that what the subject says about himself is not relevant to the agenda of the numerous overseers. As you can see, the article only slimes him. This statements is going to self destruct. 70.107.104.75 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does "sais" mean? That's not a word. Secondly, Savage is not a Republican, but the first article that was written about Savage possibly running for President stated that he would challenge for the GOP nomination. Let's face it; Savage can't win as an independent. If he does indeed run, he'll have to register as a Republican. I believe that Savage will try to move the party back to the right if he does indeed run. 76.21.45.13 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled "says," not "sais." 69.181.156.67 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Savage and H. R. 3302

A bill To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent excessive concentration of ownership of the nation’s media outlets, to restore fairness in broadcasting, and to foster and promote localism, diversity, and competition in the media. Text of the bill in .pdf format

Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005

On 2 May 2007, Micheal Savage used his airwaves to instill in his audience a fear that the liberal congress was out to get him and other "conservative" talkshow hosts. He went so far as to say he expects to be subpeaned to testify before congress in defense of his own political views, of which are already guaranteed under the first amendment.

Actual headlines from his web site:

"Dems Declare Savage 'Threat to National Security', Want Him Removed From Radio; Using Same Rhetoric as Hitler's National Socialists; see sponsors of Nazi Bill Moving Through Congress( H.R. 3302)"

However, upon reading this bill it has absolutely nothing to do with any on-air personalities, however it does target large communication conglomerates from maintaining ownership of large shares of any given radion market. This includes television and newsprint as well as AM/FM radio frequencies.

Headlines on the Savage web site all linked to PFD formatted files that were provided by "Insight Magazine" as well as a commentary by the editors of "[7] insightmag.com". The credentials of this magazine are questionable, but it might be suggested that Insight Magazine, being an ultra-conservative publication might have ties with "The Radio Network", a large communications and entertainment company that might be affected by the outcome of passing and signing into law of H. R. 3302. I myself do not believe that anyone at insightmag.com has ever read the actual text of H.R. 3302 in the last 2 years of its process from committee to full vote on the floor. Not that Micheal Savage would be hurt or silenced in the legal definitions of this law. Oddly enough, the bill is some 2 years old and seeks to reverse a number of decisions made by the FCC for allowing large markets of radio/TV markets from being owned by 1 person, in order to dictate what is local programming. For example, as Hurricane Katrina was approaching the Mississippip Coast, the affected radio stations were run by a service in the midwest and they refused to allow local authorities to use their airwaves to provide local information regarding Hurricane Katrina. This information would include emergency shelters, evacuation routes, and local conditions, of which a broadcastor in Ohio would know very little about while conditions of the Gulf Coast were under siege by a large-scale hurricane.

Instead, Savage wished his audience to believe and fall for the concept that he created by instilling the bieleif that a liberal congress was out to squash his ability and free speech rights as protected by the first amendment.

In truth, the corporate syndicate that broadcasts the "Savage Nation" to over 300 markets, was most likely very concerned that the ratifying of H. R. 3302 would drastically affect their ability to control and manipulate the airwaves. Talk Radio Network knew that the entertaining skills of Savage would instill some of his listeners to contact legislative members to not support the passing of H.R. 3302.

In conclussion, it seems even the great independent Micheal Savage is manipulated like a puppet by corporate ownership and syndication powers. A shame on all for allowing this to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.147.36.108 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The bill would bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which would affect Savage's show. For a guy who smugly looks down on fans of Michael Savage as idiots, you certainly have poor spelling and grammatical skills. "Conclussion"? 69.181.156.67 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How many listeners know this guy's real name?

I wish people would stop calling this guy Savage. His name is Weiner. And since in German, when the "e" precedes the "i", it's pronounced not like an Oscar Mayer "Weener," but rather like "whiner," which is pretty much what he is, in addition to just being a very strange person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.140.30 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Please learn how to sign your name, or you will be perceived as an idiot. Secondly, his name is pronounced "Viner," not "Whiner." If you were an actual expert of the German language, you'd know that. Thirdly, most of his listeners do know his real name, but his professional name is "Savage." There's nothing wrong with calling him by that name. Fourthly, your personal opinion of Savage is irrelevant to this discussion and is inappropriate. Keep your personal opinions to yourself. I happen to believe that he's not a whiner or very strange at all. 69.181.156.67 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also the point that many of his listeners do not know his real name. I didn't, until I read about it on Wikipedia after hearing him on the radio for a few years. How many people know Madonna's real name? — Loadmaster 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your telling us that personal opinions are irrelevant? You have attacked liberals as hating freedom in an earlier section. (69.140.166.42 00:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Only in response to attacks on Savage. Why do you ignore the attacks on Savage but not my responses? 69.181.156.67 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"You're," not "your." 69.181.156.67 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an established naming convention that deals with this at WP:NCP. — Loadmaster 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to "Savage Letter"

The link to "Savage Letter" goes nowhere. Where is the article? 69.181.156.67 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Savage hosted a radio show on nutrition?

Savage has stated that he used to host a radio show that dealt with nutrition on Saturday nights in the New York City area. Maybe someone should insert that into the article, with cited sources. This goes way back to when he still went by his real name. 69.181.156.67 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How This Person Chose the Name "Michael Savage"

The article states:

He chose his "nom de voix" in "the Tonga Islands in the 1960s. I stumbled upon the name of a [19th-century] shipwreck who was locally infamous -Charles Savage. His exploits were legendary," he said. "So the name was bouncing around in my head."

However, there is no citation. This appears to be a quote, so the information must have come from somewhere. I believe the source of this statement must be listed. I have never heard this anywhere else. Ursasapien 08:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No Section on "Savagisms"?

"Red Diaper Doper Baby" "That's all" "It's the lawyers stupid" "KNEW San Fransicko" "KNEW San Franfreako" "One man's opinion" --BrianB4837 22:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was actually going to create a separate page for the Savagisms, similarly to what we've done with the Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show page. --SirAndrew1 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That page should be on Wikiquote. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, it already is: [8]. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis?

I read the Salon article, but the statement "In the early 1970s, Savage had more liberal political views" seems to be an interpretation, rather than a strict reporting of the article. I would suggest the word "political" be removed. The article and those quoted in the article say little regarding his political view. Rather, they paint a picture of a man who was more liberated, more tolerant of homosexuality, and more involved with people we consider "American liberals" now. Ursasapien 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rescinding his support of Romney

Yesterday, Savage rescinded his support for Romney after learning that Romney referred to gay adoption as being "American." If someone can find a source for that, please put it into the article. 69.181.156.67 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)