Talk:Neal Boortz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ex Wife

Why nothing about his first wife? She isn't even mentioned. At least her name might be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.146.210 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2007

I believe Boortz has only been married once. He frequently refers to his "ex-wife" on the air, but he's referring to WGST.24.196.230.130 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Felines?

On The Neal Boortz Show, he has criticized politicians, muslim extremism, the homeless, "government schools", liberals, smokers, the obese, cats, and welfare recipients, but considers himself an "equal opportunity" offender.

Is this a stealthy instance of vandalism? Does the word "cats" have a figurative meaning I'm unaware of? Does this guy seriously hate cats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.155.88 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I had to chuckle at your comment. It would seem that this is stealthy vandalism, however Boortz does have a dislike of cats. He is a dog lover and feels that cats are useless. I wouldn't say he hates them, but he does dislike them and has expressed this through the years. --Maniwar (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the clarification. The main thing I get from this article is that Boortz is one of the most painfully un-hip people currently alive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.149.91 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality?

This is a quote from the page:

"He abandons his libertarian principles when he finds it convenient for the government to police his personal dislikes -- like smoking. He supports the legal sale of drugs AND the ban on smoking. Then the government is just fine."

There seems to be a little editorializing on the part of one of site's visitors. I am taking out the last sentence, and I think we may need to strike the whole passage, as it appears biased. Just my thoughts.

I'm not sure the statement is even factually correct. While he's certainly against smoking, I've never heard or seen anything that would lead me to believe he wants the government to ban smoking. There's a similar claim made in the current version of this article that I'm removing now. -- SwissCelt 13:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

When Dekalb and Fulton counties underwant legislation to ban smoking from restaurants, he said something to the effect of, "If a business owner spends $100,000 for a system that keeps the air free of smoke, why can't he allow smoking in his restaurant." Basically, smokers can impede on his right to breathe fresh air, but that doesn't mean the city should bar owners from allowing smoking if they take steps to make the air breathable. So no, the statement isn't factually correct. But at times, it does seem that he wants it both ways. However, I believe that if currently banned substances became unbanned, he would harrass them as well. Otheus 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Boortz opposes anti-smoking legislation and is in favor of legalizing most all drugs. Not sure where the above information comes from. -kres —Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk)

NPOV

I don't know if I'm doing this correctly, but one thing that is inaccurate on the page is it says he started his radio career in Atlanta, when he actually started it in College Station, TX, during his time at Texas A&M University, where he worked at WTAW 1620 AM.

I didn't remove the Anonymouses edit because it contained good info, but it is dogmatic and POV in the extreme. It should be fixed, but I lack the requisite knowledge to do a good job of it. --maru 01:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Maybe you're referring to text that is no longer there, but these are all FACTS. He was born ___. He believes ___. Some people hate him because ___. Those are provable facts and, therefore cannot be non-neutral regardless of his beliefs or why people hate him. --205.243.112.50

Yeah, I was referring to now-removed text. The article is better now, but the subject of daily vandalism- I know this because I am one of the ones who watches and reverts. Just check the history. --maru 19:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach by Anonymous(205.243.112.50). "Some people..." is not really a "fact". Also, it is weasely and is used in Propaganda. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. --AI 13:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting back to the reliable versions of this page, Al. Christ, why do you people have to do this crap every time Boortz mentions Wiki on his show for 10 seconds? --Jhortman 13:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...also he is not an multi engine rated pilot nor is he a flight instructor of any type. This information is available on the FAA pilot database.

Hye, Jhort- what's with the "disputed"? Is that there just because of the constant vandalism, or is there something else? --maru 17:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously difficult to have a completely NPOV with someone like Boortz, but there were many irrelevant and unverifiable statements in the article whose sole purpose seemed to be to influence the reader's opinion about Boortz. I tried to make it much more factual, NPOV and remove the irrelevant comments. GeorgiaTex 01:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

GeorgiaTex, your change is obviously POV and warrant that they be reverted. The relevance of John Marshall Law School not being accredited holds no value in an encyclopedia enviroment. When you add comments like "self-described" as we've discussed in my Talk page, it shows that you are trying to influence the article and make it POV. I agree that Boortz makes it difficult to be NPOV, but many of your comments slant and ring full of POV. Stating that Boortz is loose on facts is POV. Unless you can cite reputable sources outside of Sugg, that rings full of POV. If you can contribut to the article without chaning the tone, please do so, however, keep it NPOV. Maniwar 02:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess this article has gotten more NPOV, so I take back my earlier comments.GeorgiaTex 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

Which?

• He began his radio career in Atlanta in 1969 at WRNG-AM (Ring Radio). Boortz also practiced law from 1977 to 1992.
• He began his radio career in College Station in the 1960s at WTAW-AM. Boortz also practiced law from 1977 to 1992.

These are two different, contradictory versions. The episode isn't mentioned in the bio on his linked website. Does anyone want to track this down and reference it? -Willmcw 20:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Also, it just says that he graduated with a law degree from Atlanta. Which school in Atlanta? --joeyo 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

When I signed on at WTAW in College Station I did not look at it as the beginning of a career. I was trying to make money to stay in school ... and meet girls. I went to John Marshall Law School in Atlanta. I believe that's in the Bio. Also, perhaps the highlight of my law career was my representation of Evander Holyfield for eight years ... from the Olympics to shortly after he defeated Buster Douglas for his first heavyweight title.NBoortz (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Neal Boortz.

Homeless?

I am an avid listener to his show and have NEVER heard him criticize homeless people. I have heard him say the government should not get involved in this issue but that is far different from actually criticizing them. If he has please give a reference citation for this information.

Ryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't make sense

The politics portion says that on the radio and website Boortz says to not believe anything without checking it out for yourself...that's not really "paradoxical" to the following statement, and saying "however, paradoxically" sounds really wrong. -User:Progoth

I agree and have reomved the "however, paradoxically" phrase. -Willmcw 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing for flow

My edits were to improve flow. I pray I did nothing to arouse controversy.

Disclosure: I'm a fan, but I'm not trying to insert POV here.

• On Boort'z invitation and talk at the Libertarian convention... it seems irrelevant where it was.
• On the "major uproar" caused by his supporting the war in Iraq, this isn't so much POV as it is "original research". It's also really ambiguous.
• I separated Radio and Politics. I think this makes sense given the paragraph ordering, but it is hard to separate his politics from his show.
• I wonder if my injection "Boortz can frequently be heard" is along the lines of Original Research. It's intended to balance out the following sentences which indicate that maybe he hates only southerners. Please advise.

I don't think it's OR. This information can be verified on his daily blog; additionally, publications such as Creative Loafing have taken him to task for these stances. -- SwissCelt 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Am I applying the word unilateral correctly here?

Controversial Statements

Boortz makes A LOT of controversial statements. It is, in essence, his job to get the listener's riled up, or at least entertained. Should we have an article on "Boortzisms" or "Controversial statements by a radio talk show host" we can expand on this item ad infinitum. But for now, I propose:

• The lengthy quote concerning Ms. King is quite superflous. Moreover, it seems the edit was intended to be inflammatory due to Ms. King's recent passing. Should every public figure with an opinion on Ms. King get to have their $0.02 on Wikipedia? I don't think so.
• The O'Reilly quote irrelevant. The fact that he got under O'Reilly's skin is perhaps noteworthy, but you'd have to document some relevance and context for that ("Reuters reports it was the first time O'Reilly used the B* word concerning a guest.") Perhaps this quote would be better under O'Reilly's entry, but I don't see why it would make a difference. Should we note that Boortz calls Dr. Laura "cruella", or Limbaugh "the godfather"?

If someone wants to start an entire section or page of notable and controversial Boortz quotes and statements, by all means, create a compendium and insert the new article.

I don't understand the media matters links. They seem very POV and out of context. The "Controversial Statements" needs a major changeover. Not saying that he doesn't make them, he makes them everyday, which offends people of all types, muslims, poor, christians, smokers, liberals, republicans ect... An entry needs to be made seperatly to list all these, and should include links to his own website and an alternate source, maybe mediamatters.org I know he says many things, but it looks as if media matters tends to paint those things a certain way, either by taking them out of context, or omitting his entire point(s). --65.83.137.137 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of context?

paint a certain way?

All they do is record his program in full context for the world to see. --Asbl 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

With Media Matters while they only record statements which on its own is not pov the way that web site uses them is. --Soliscjw 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. How can it be POV, if all they do is record Boortz's words in full context. --Asbl 23:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Out of context, painted a certain way. They may record his program, but you sure don't have access to the 3-4 hours that it runs. In many cases he'll touch up on the same statement multiple times, or have callers who disagree with his point of view challenge him. Anyway, the point is, while Boortz makes many controversial statements, day in, day out, is it needed to site them all? Or just cite the ones that MediaMatters, which is a biased organization, picks up on? What? You mean there are things MediaMatters isn't concerned with? Look Boortz offends many people, or makes many statements that upset those people. These include: muslims, christians, jews, african-american, hyphen-american, hispanic, conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, smokers, libertarians... Anyway, I hope you get the point. In other words, its POV. In this case its MediaMatters POV, maybe you can find some christian website that lists all the statements that they don't agree with. I don't know really, I just know that to list all these controversial statements, that is controversial to one group, or in some cases multiple groups, fully lacks a larger chunk of the controversial statements that he makes. And because mediamatters concerns itself with a particular party, they are hardly non-biased, and barely can be considered objective or a lack of POV. Asbl I hope you can understand that.--65.83.137.137 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.83.137.137 (talk • contribs) .

I agree, Boortz makes a lot of controversial statements, so not all of them need to be listed in Wikipedia, only the most controversial ones. The Cynthia McKinney statements received a lot of attention and demands for an apology (which he did issue), so that one certainly belongs in the article.

I dont understand your arguments against Media Matters that "mediamatters concerns itself a particular party". Media Matters is a tax-exempt non-profit organization, which means, by definition, that they are non-partisan.

--Asbl 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, media matters is a non-partisan group. Go to www.mediamatters.org click on the "about us" button. As you can see it states "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time...."

Media matters a left leaning organization, similar to how Media Research Center ( http://www.mrc.org )is a right leaning organization. Neither are "non-partisan" groups.

And on the Cynthia McKinney comment. Boortz apologized on air to her. With her on the radio show. While this "controversial statement" might seem important or needed. It hardly is needed in wikipedia, which should be like an encyclopedia, where it notes the more important items, or facts. Boortz's personal comments/attacks on how her hair made her look is hardly a big ordeal, especially after he's apologized to her, and she accepted his apology. More importantly, a few weeks from now it will hardly be relevent. As the issue will blow over completly and be forgotten. Can you see this same comment in wikipedia 5 years from now? No, because its hardly anything important.--65.83.137.137 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with you regarding McKinney (for the record, I am not a fan of McKinney)

1. The article is neutral, and mentions that Boortz did apologize (did he issue the apology to her while she was on his show? if so, that should be added to the article).
2. I think the controversy should be on Boortz's Wikipedia article, as the incident reflects on his character and the characteristics of his show. Boortz should know better than to make such a personal attack over the public airwaves. Disagreeing with McKinney on the issues is legitimate -- criticizing her actions vis a vis the Capitol Police is also legitimate -- calling her a "hoe" is out of line.

Regarding Media Matters, I will give you that they have an agenda, but they are still non-partisan. I think it is definitely within the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy to quote them, as they take quotes in full context and either refute them, or simply just publicize them. If you, or anybody else, can show that what Media Matters post is wrong/biased/incomplete put the evidence in the article to refute them. There is no reason to exclude Media Matters. --Asbl 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to McKinney, I am saying that it may seem like big news now. But once the story isn't as big, its importance will disappear. 65.83.137.137 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am taking out the minimum wage statement under 'controversial statments' becuase it isn't really that controversial and nothing has really been reported about it.

With this continued use of Media Matters, it is very important to note that their recordings are still out of context and only record a small fraction of what is on the air. For instance, the statement in the "Controversial Statements" section: "On July 19, 2006 Boortz called the Islamic prophet Muhammad "just a phony rag-picker" and said it was "praiseworthy to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins.".[6]"

Whereas a more accurate quote would be "And I also believe that this Muhammad guy is just a phony rag-picker that created (interupted by caller)" Then Media Matters cuts to a new clip. (You are not able to hear the rest of that particular conversation with that caller) Further more, this particular statement starts with "I believe..." and was between a caller in which Neal was discussing ______ about. (we obviously do not know specifics because they aren't included in the brief out of context quotes/clips from Media Matters) In the "praiseworth to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins," Whereas the actual quote is "As long as we have stories like that -- and they're easy to find in the media virtually every day -- as long as we have stories like that about the religion of Islam, then it is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins." As you can see, both of these quotes are drastically different then what is used in the "Controversial Statements" section. Boortz is citing a certain (unknown) article to point out why he's saying that "then its perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy..." You don't know what article that he's talking about, which helps point out that the quotes are out of context. Further, please refrain from using Media Matters SUMMARY SECTION as a source for quotes for use in Wikipedia. IF you are going to use Media Matters as a source, at least make sure to use the quote, and not the snipet. 65.83.137.137 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed: "On July 19, 2006 Boortz called the Islamic prophet Muhammad "just a phony rag-picker" and said it was "praiseworthy to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins." Predicting Media Matters would flag his Cindy Sheehan attacks, Boortz also declared Islam a religion of "violent, bloodthirsty cretins" and called Prophet Muhammad a "phony rag-picker for reasons stated above. If it is decided to be added back in, please use the full quote, or ackknowledge that Boortz is discussing a particular article about the subject.65.83.137.137 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets not get into an edit war here. I am re-removing his "praise-worthy" statement, as he is citing a specific article. If it is put back in, you must include that in, and perhaps doing so you'd realize that it isn't controversial. I've made my case for removing it. Please make your case on why its needed. 65.83.137.137 15:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the statement is out of context or misrepresentative of his views. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, the actual quote is "As long as we have stories like that -- and they're easy to find in the media virtually every day -- as long as we have stories like that about the religion of Islam, then it is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins." Boortz is citing a certain (unknown) article to point out why he's saying that "then its perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy..." You don't know what article that he's talking about, which helps point out that the quotes are out of context and incomplete." I have looked for the particular article, but have not been able to locate it. Further more, as to his views to Islam, he does not have a problem with Islam, only has a problem with the lack of an outcry towards the extremists who have hijacked Islamic religion(on par with many muslims most recent reactions towards the Pope). 65.83.137.137 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

That's a good argument. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a statement qualifies as a "controversial statement" until it can be shown that that statement has created a notable controversy. For instance, if a columnist for the New York Times comes out and criticizes that one of Neil's statements, then you have a controversy worthy of being added to wikipedia. One can't just wave his magic wand and declare a statement to be controversial and just add it to wikipedia. In my opinion, that qualifies as original research. I keep finding these so-called "controversial" statements with citations that are no more than links to Neil Boortz's website. I'm hesitant to think the media matters links are really acceptable since they too only report what people say and therefore just because its published on the Media Matters website does not automatically qualify it as being a controversial statement. I'm gonna leave the Media Matters but I feell the ADD/ADHD passage and the passage on "urban outdoorsman" should remain out of wikipedia unless someone can find a notable source showing that these statements created some sort of controversy. If one were to add every statement which might cause or might have caused a controversy than one would end up posting a transcript of Neil's show. That, at least in my understanding, is not the purpose of wikipedia.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neal_Boortz&diff=97466095&oldid=97295570

removed

Those two statements were used as prime examples of the thesis of the section which claims that that Neil Boortz has "dealt with many controversial statements," yet nobody has shown these statements created any sort of controversy whatsoever.

AlmostFree 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on you. These statements have sparked journalists to write about Boortz, as well as Media Matters dot org to target him. He has stated on air, that many have called the stations he is on and asked for him to be removed. I am reverting your deletion. You can always help improve the article and add sources rather than deleting. --Maniwar (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

POV scrubbing...

HOly crap... this article is (perhaps unintentionally) santed. Addittionally, some of the poor flow makes it seem as if there's more points being made with like juxtapositioning of contradicting statements and such... I'm a-gonna make some sizeable changes in general, so watch the edit history and correct me as needed! Karwynn 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Radio Earnings

Rest assured that whoever wrote the part about Boortz earning "$8-900 per show" needs to take Neal's own advice and not believe everything you hear on his show. Trust me when I tell you that the host of a nationally syndicated radio show with over 5 million weekly listners makes considerably more than that. --Bigbadkeeper

Keep in mind much of his income comes undoubtedly from promotions and endorsements and such. THat figure (which I did not come up with, "'m just saying) may be accurate when referring to straight up radio performance income alone. Karwynn (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

didnt know where to add this, but haveing mediamatters.org as a credible source is a bit of a stretch, as they are way to over critical of non-liberals...just my 10 cents

Article seems fairly POV still. Specifically "Neal donated his share of the proceeds from this book to charity in order to encourage sales.[5] The book is one of his most frequent topics of discussion and is a common free gift to callers." The "source" states "So ... I can feel entirely comfortable urging you to go to the Internet or to your local book seller to buy a copy knowing that I'm not using the airtime to line my own pockets, but rather to bring about a change in our tax laws that would benefit every American, except, perhaps, for the K Street tax lobbyists inside the Beltway."

I can see how one would look at that as a way to "encourage sales." Though he had repeatedly stated on air that he felt that if he made money on this book it would hurt the cause. Previously, before he made the decision to donate his proceeds, he had gotten criticisms for making a profit on this book... After talking with his wife, she convinced him that he should in fact donate the proceeds to charity. I feel that part should be rewritten to "Neal donates his share of the proceeds to charity because he strongly believes in the Fair Tax movement and believes his profiting from the sales would hurt the cause." (also changed donated to donates, as he the book is still selling copies) I do not believe they currently are giving away copies of the book to callers. This may change in the upcoming week due to the fundraising activities of WSB 750 for Aflac Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Service of Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. 65.83.137.137 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam

I'm concerned about the following statement in the article: "He has created much controversy with his general attitude toward Muslims and their faith." While Boortz frequently takes Islam to task, he has made it clear multiple times on his radio show that he dislikes radical Islam and Muslim extremists, not all Muslims.Elwood64151 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. I'll make a small change now and someone can edit further if they wish. I'll just change it to "general attitude toward radical Islam" for now. Morphh 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the phrase "violent attude about Islam" to "attude about Islam" putting the word violent is a point of view --Soliscjw 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced. There are already some specific examples in the article, so I removed the statement, trusting to the idea that specific examples followed by an unsourced, sweeping generalization is not for good reading. Karwynn (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Check this: [[ http://www.cair.com/audio/Neal_Boortz/neal.htm Neal Boortz Threatens to 'Eradicate' Muslims]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.93.63 (talk • contribs)

It cuts off so you can't hear what is said after and you don't know what was said before the call (to put it into context). He was speaking about Muslims not taking any significant action against extremists and radicals that use the religion to justify blowing up children. He was probably refering to eradicating the extremists if peaceful Muslims fail to take outraged action against this segment of their religion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This give me the opportunity to speak to that "phony rag-picker" comment that I absolutely did make on the air. The natural inclination is to believe that the use of the word "rag" somehow was related to the "rag head" epithet used by some critics of Muslims. In fact, liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes once said during a joint appearance with me on CNN that "Neal referred to all Muslims as 'rag heads'" I challenged her on that point and she never could produce any evidence of truth. The "rag-picker" phrase actually comes from Og Madino, the author of many inspirational books. As I remember it means someone who seeks out and clings to the lowest elements of a society, sometimes in an effort at rehabilitation. NBoortz (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Neal Boortz

Error under "Author" and additions

I'm not sure where to rewrite these changes and where the additions should go, so I write them here.

The article discusses "The Commencement Speech" as if it were a separate book. It is not, it is a chapter titled "The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech" starting on page 29 of his FIRST book "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" (there is no table of contents and chapters are unnumbered), published 1998.

In the immediately preceding chapter "The College Years: Bludgeoning Young Minds," Boortz introduces introduces The Commencement Speech and writes of giving this speech on the air on June 6, 1996, and that transcripts were requested. These were presumably distributed, perhaps leading to the idea that the speech was published as a book. Boortz further writes that a recording of the on-air speech appeared on a "Best of Boortz '96" CD released in December 1996.

Additions (these are just two I don't see in the article, surely many more can be added):

Boortz has radio newsreporter Jamie Dupree on his show for the first segment (10 to 15 minutes) of the last hour (Noon to 1PM Eastern time) of his show, and is on daily except when either is on vacation. During the segment Dupree reports Congressional and Presidential news from Washington DC, and Boorts offers commentary.

Boortz has very occasionally mentioned that many years ago he took what was then called the Silva Mind Control course, now called Silva Method, and that he is a proponent of it.

benb 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Boortz new book "Somebody's Got To Say It" is out I got it today at Borders.

Actually ... the very first book I wrote was named "The Commencement Speech You Need to Hear" and only saw localized distribution in the Atlanta area. NBoortz (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Neal Boortz

Neolibertarian

I see some people want to see him described as a "neolibertarian." I'm okay with a sentence or small paragraph on it. It doesn't need to be in his bio though. He is a libertarian, first and foremost. Just because there is a new movement with some libertarians, it does not acurately put him in that category. 65.83.137.137 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved to one sentence under the politics section. It just more accurately describes his libertarian views. Neolibertarians support incrementalism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of freedom. This more accurately describes Boortz in regard to the classifications of Libertarianism. Most libertarians oppose and are suspicious of government intervention in the affairs of other countries, especially violent intervention. The original and longest-running point of contention in the Libertarian Party is incrementalism. Hence, fractions of the libertarian party have been created that further describe the political philosophy of a person. I don't think it is anything POV or degrading to further classify his ideology. What is the description of a libertarian but the beliefs that person holds? He is a libertarian but more specifically, he is a neolibertarian. This is just a name that further describes the beliefs that person holds. I'm not sure how you would state that it does not accurately put him in that category. Morphh ^(talk) 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm thinking about rewording it a bit, but overall its better there then in the first paragraph. As to why I stated it didn't "accurately" describe him, well, that was simply where it was located. As a libertarian, he commonly mentions his disagreements with the libertarian party. Being that there is no "neolibertarian" political party, it would be incorrect to state he is a "neolibertarian talkshow host." It fits much nice under "politics" because there is more room to expand upon the term. 65.83.137.137 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I must object to the reference regarding Mr. Boortz being a neolibertarian. I believe this is a POV issue, since Mr. Boortz has never self-identified as a neolibertarian, and I am unable to find any sources or citations that support his self-identifying as a neolibertarian. I believe the standard should be what the subject self-identifies as. Rather than what others believe the subject to be. I won't alter or edit it for about ten days to give ample debate time. I do vote to omit it from the otherwise excellent article. I see it as an issue of fairness. Rpchristiano (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It labels him as libertarian in the lead, which I think is appropriate since that is what he describes himself to be (although I can understand not stating some technical sub-classification). However, in the politics section, it states that some feel his politics more closely match that of a neolibertarian (sub-classification) philosophy and why, which I think is fair. Morphh ^(talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll let it be for the time being. Sometimes Libertarians derisively refer to other libertarians as Neolibertarians in an attempt to position themselves as the only "true" libertarians that deserve to lay claim to the philosophy, simply because of minor points of disagreement. If it is written as a sub-classification of libertarianism, then I have no object in reagrds to neolibertarian being used in such a context.Rpchristiano (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. Is he actually a member of the Libertarian Party (capital L)? Ayn Rand was a libertarian, but if I remember correctly not a member of the party.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A Class Aricle...

I'd like to see this article become an A-class article. What do we need to do to get it there? I've added some missing elements in his bio and reworked it a little bit. If something needs clean up or needs to be added, lets do it, but let's get this to an "A". Any suggestions or comments? --Maniwar (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It should first be submitted to GA as this is the next step after "B" class. Take care of all the citation needed tags. Refs should follow the punctuation without any spaces. Correct the ref that is a HTTP link and not in normal format. Give it a good read through and copyedit. Morphh ^(talk) 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I took my crack at it... The lead still needs expanding a bit (should summarize article - so add some politics and such) and others should read through it and give it any additional copyedits... Morphh ^(talk) 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, and you have done a great job. I've been taking stabs at it myself here and there and I do believe it's a much better article. --Maniwar (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I changed the lic. on the images to what I thought fit best for promotional images/items. See if you think anything else would apply - fairuse. We need to add a source for the bobblehead pic. Morphh ^(talk) 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the one pic of Neal signing the book for the moment Radar-2 Neal-Boortz.jpg. Looks like it was taken by Getty Images at a book signing and probably copyrighted by them. May be considered "Fair Use" if the image provider allows it as such. Since it seems this paper gets many of its photos from them, they may be under a contract to use the image and not part of "fair use". Take a look and see what you think but I'm not sure this would qualify under the specified lic. I added another one though of a Boortz FairTax ralley that is under public domain. Morphh ^(talk) 18:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should either be a B or GA. It needs a lot more material for an A or FA. Maybe talk about Boortz's personal life or a more detailed analysis of his political ideaology. I support this Good Article nomination.--Wikiphilia 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

POV in contraversial statements

The sentence " For example, Boortz sides with a small minority who believe that ADD and ADHD are "medical frauds" and a scam that teachers, parents, and drug companies use.[11][12]" seems POV to me in being that it starts with Boortz sides with a small minority. Please show where it is a small minority that believes this when congressmen and even the Attorney General Reno made public statements calling ADD ADHD "the greatest medical frauds in american history." http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/bless/addadhd.htm A google search lists 465,000 hits for add adhd fraud. Its far more than a small minority of people who believe this is a fraud. Maybe the sentence would be more correct in reading "For example, Boortz believes that ADD ADHD are "medical frauds" and a scam that teachers, parents and drug companies use." This sentence in itself shows the controversy by disagreeing with a large portion of the medical community, drug companies and the 5 to 7 million parents who have their kids on the drugs without making the claim that this constitutes the overwhelming majority. Unless someone can show me a poll or something that states the overwhelming majority believe ADD ADHD are legitimate, this is a POV statement IMHO. Hope im not out of line. Thanks Jmsseal 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good to me. I've made the change. Morphh ^(talk) 03:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I made the change, it showed that it took, but now that I go back I'm not in the history and I did not get an error. Too weird! --Maniwar (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and suggestion for making the article better. --Maniwar (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

newsmax.com

Re [1]: If independent editors endorse this factoid, that's more or less fine with me. (Frankly, I have no idea why or why not it's relevant to the article.) Note however that it presumably was added as pure self-promotion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#newsmax.com links. Femto 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was curious as to why you put this here, but now I see that you may have a beef with Newsmax. It is relevant because Boortz is very influential and carries weight in many sectors. For example, he singlehandedly influenced support for the Fair Tax votes during the 2004 elections. He is also the most popular Libertarian figure out there. Pointing these facts out add to the biography and to the article especially when they lend support. --Maniwar (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article is currently on hold for the GA nomination. This is how the article, as of May 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes. However, there is a 1-sentence section (Forbidden topics) that should either be expanded/incorporated elsewhere. Done Also, there are minor errors (see lead section). Done

2. Factually accurate?: Uses boortz.com for a majority of the sources. Usually this can be interpreted as copyright violation and/or advertisement. Please see WP:V. Also, please mention all the available information (author, publisher, date etc) in all the references. Moreover, while the information from the websites referenced do seem to have a substantial amount of information, it is not properly indicated in the article that this information has been taken. For example, the Career section does not have a single reference so it could be assumed that the information has been totally made up. Need to be extra sensitive for biographies.

3. Broad in coverage?: Seems to be thorough.

4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to be NPOV

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: All fair use.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be reviewed. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to state your opinions on the GA nomination page. Thank you for your work so far. — Zuracech lordum 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

Failed article as issues not addressed in time. Keep up the good work and please don't give up. Zuracech lordum 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

arrrr. For some reason this was kicked off of my watchlist and I am now just seeing all of this. OK, time to put on the editing cap. Morph, good work while I was away. --Maniwar (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What say you, that we give this another push for GA? I think a lot of the changes have been met, but i do welcome any additional fixes and changes. I think we're closer to FA. Anyone up for it? What else can we do to make it better? See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/December_2006#Neal_Boortz and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Neal Boortz for anything I missed. I do have a question, what do they mean by Alphabetize categories at the end of the article. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Neal Boortz? --Maniwar (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the Categories... I'll try to give it a read through this week but yes.. lets submit for GA again. If all looks good, then onto FA. Morphh ^(talk) 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some references that need to be formated. Morphh ^(talk) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done!!! --Maniwar (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think it will be a issue for GA but for FA we have a lot of single source refs. Almost everything is a reference to Boortz, instead of 3rd party sources like WSJ, NYT, Atlanta news, etc. We should try to get more independent sources. Looks pretty good.. should be ok for GA. Morphh ^(talk) 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about other sources, and will keep my eyes open. The hard part is that Boortz says many of these things on his website, and ABC, Fox, New York Times, etc, does not publish any of it. Also, I missed that duplicate link some how...good catch. Well, let me know and I'll keep tweaking away at it to improve it. I'd like to see the personal section increase if you have anything. --Maniwar (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged quotes

While I certainly do not disagree with what is said, if these are direct quotes, then they need to be attributed and annotated accordingly. As they currently stand, they should be removed since "you will see what I mean" is not encyclopedic in any way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While we applaud your efforts, it's nice to discuss something before reverting it. However, following your lead, just in case someone is not familiar with Boortz, I went ahead and added a lead sentence to that section. Hopefully that fixes your concern. --Maniwar (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this does not address my concern. The problem resides with the lack of formality with an encyclopedia and the use of first person/second person tenses/phrases. Highlights below in the offending text and explanations in parenthesis.

OK, here's a little inside radio for you folks. ("OK" is WAY too informal for an encyclopedia, as is "you folks." Who exactly is saying this? While it may be pulled from his website, it should be properly referenced and quoted) Mipping and mupping is slang for someone on the air not speaking any legible or understandable manner.(Perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia) The term comes from the sound a broadcast tape cart that has been improperly erased.(Also good) Using a monotone voice just say "mip mup mip mup mip mup mip mup" quickly .... you'll see what I'm talking about. (too informal, improper use of eillipsis, also see 1st sentence critique)

— BQZip01 — ^talk 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not complete, please do not revert without first discussing. Morphh, can you or any other editor chime in? Apparently BQZip01 isn't understanding that these are quotes from Boortz. --Maniwar (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF? I understand clearly that it is a quote and I . I am saying that it has not been cited properly and either needs quotes or should be paraphrased. As it currently stands, it appears to be text in an encyclopedia. In addition, the informality of the quote should certainly be attenuated by cutting out the superfluous words. I already pointed this out above. If this is a quote then it should be annotated as such. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a quote, then it should be enclosed in quotes. I don't have a problem with cutting the begining and end of the statement as I don't think it looses anything but it doesn't bother me to leave it if we quote it. If it is not a direct quote from Boortz, then I agree that the first and last part should be cut. If we trim it down, then perhaps we could add ("mip mup mip mup mip mup") to the end like presented here. (Morphh ^(talk) 3:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

this is absurd, but to appease, I've added quotes to it. I don't like the paraphrase aspect of it, because it leaves out...well, Boortz! How he says it, and I've heard him say it, is rather hilarious. --Maniwar (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not absurd, it is an encyclopedia. It is also not the funnies in the Sunday paper. I find a lot of what he says amusing too, but let's imagine for a minute another article about Joe Smith, a radio talk show host...

Joe Smith has a lot of sayings. Here's what they mean:

• Actor - a player on the Las Vegas strip
• Shaker and taker - Security at a casino
• Tip top - A high roller with no apparent limit to his bankroll. This kind of player is my favorite but is the riskiest for a casino. These kinds of assholes can drop millions or profit millions in a single weekend stay. If you see one of these players, you will recognize them from their serious bling.
• Zipper - a high-end player whose winnings go up and down

Without saying that the text accompanying "Tip top" is a direct quote it appears that this is an encyclopedic explanation of something he says, is very informal, and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP

I have copied the section I believe violations BLP, as well as NPOV:

On The Neal Boortz Show, he has criticized politicians, Muslim extremism, the homeless, "government schools", liberals, smokers, the obese, cats, and welfare recipients, but considers himself an "equal opportunity" offender.

I believe this violates BLP because it could possibly accuse him of being anti-liberal, ect. Although I am fairly sure he has criticized these groups, it needs to be referenced. Also, ...the obese, cats, and welfare recipients, but considers himself an "equal opportunity" offender in my opinion violates NPOV because of weasel words. A rewrite of the lead is needed. I'll work on a draft here. ~ Wikihermit 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Which weasel words? "but considers"? Those are his own words. I agree it need not be in the lead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to interject, On The Neal Boortz Show, in other words, he has openly criticised these things on his daily show...on the air. He jests about it and states that "I am an equal offender." They are not weasel words when he has said them. I guess the considers can be changed to calls himself and I will do so after this post. I think a consensus of this article will show that the editors who are familiar with Boortz would like to see that in. Just my $0.02. --Maniwar (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd believe it, but it needs cited. Citing it will work fine. ~ Wikihermit 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters in not a reputable source. If you are so bent on adding something, check some of the articles on Boortz's own website, or some of the articles he has written. I'll give you some time to replace it, but basically, the media matters article is not going to stay. They have been called on it many times for distorting the truth with Neal and many others. (i.e. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36326], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35182], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=211], or [2]--Maniwar (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he a Republican?

It has been well-documented that Neal Boortz claims to be a Libertarian. He says so himself. However, his actions before the 2004 Presidential election suggest that he is actually a Republican. The weekend before the 2004 Presidential election, the most important political event in the USA, he campaigned through several large cities with hardcore Republicans Sean Hannity and Oliver North speaking to large crowds encouraging them to vote for Bush.

2 days before the election, the Boortz.com home page reflected that he encouraged all of his listeners to vote for Bush .

Although I haven't found it to be documented, Boortz stated on his radio show that he voted for Bush (Republican) in the 2004 Presidential election.

These are the actions of a Republican, not a Libertarian. His stances on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act are in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party. These are not peripheral issues. They are at the heart of what the Libertarian Party stands for.

If Rush Limbaugh, a talk show host with strong Republican views, claimed to be a Republican for four years, yet the month before the 2004 Presidential election encouraged his millions of listeners to vote for John Kerry, is he Republican or Democrat? If the weekend before the election he campaigned with Democrats Al Gore and Al Franken, encouraging tens of thousands to vote for Democrat Kerry, is Limbaugh still a Republican? If on election day, he voted Democrat for Kerry, is he Republican or Democrat? He would be a Democrat pretending to be a Republican until it mattered.

Boortz is a Republican that claims to be a Libertarian until it matters (election time). Libertarians vote Libertarian. Republicans vote Republican.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanE (talk • contribs) 27 August 2007

I want to point out that you need to follow WP:SIG and please sign your posts. Now to respond to your questions. I see that last year you tried to inject these POV and opinionated changes/charges. I would like to caution you and ask that you discuss before re-inserting them or you may risk being blocked from editing articles, which is not what I want to see. Boortz is a card carrying libertarian. He has spoken at many and been invited to speak at many more, which he has turned down, Libertarian conventions. Neal votes more on principles, which in my opinion is the best way to vote. Many people do not vote along party lines, and because Neal disagrees with his party, does not mean he is not Libertarian. Additionally, I've heard Boortz mention on air that he like a Republican candidate better than the Libertarian, but because of principle, he voted Libertarian. Your argument is weak and rather POV. If you want to insert this in the controversy section, so long as it is a controversy and you can back it up with sources where the reader isn't trying to interpret what you're saying (WP:Cite), then add it there. But you must leave your opinion our of an encyclopedic article. --Maniwar (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neal is best classified as a neolibertarian. Libertarians vote Republican all the time... not everyone wants to waste their vote, even if they have the ideals of classic liberalism. He is for incrementalism, which is a big split in the party. He chooses who he thinks can win and further the goals of his libertarian ideals. In most cases, this is republican as they are the only option for someone that can "win". I agree with Maniwar. Morphh ^(talk) 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean regarding wasted votes, although I personally disagree with that mindset. Regardless, this is about a radio personality who reaches hundreds of thousands of people. He encouraged his listeners and readers to vote Republican in the most important election. If I could find a receipt that he was paid by the Republican party to campaign, would that help define him as a Republican? --AllanE (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican is a more accurate label. He subscribes to the libertarian philosophy while typically voting for and being involved in the US Republican Party. Does this sound reasonable to you? --AllanE (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments got wiped :). Anyway, see the No True Scotsman falacy. Basically, he's a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. Unless he revokes this membership and registers with another political party. He is a Libertarian. --Wynler | Talk 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He would "waste" his vote on the Libertarian, Badnarik, because he's a Libertarian. But the argument is much bigger than one vote. He influences hundreds of thousands of votes, and this vote was the big one. He was motivated to influence those hundreds of thousands of votes towards the Republican candidate, Bush, and therefore away from the Libertarian. Do you think the Libertarian Party approves of that? I can get a card saying I'm a member of the Democrat Party, but my voting actions and my campaigning actions are more important and give greater insight into my true beliefs and philosophy. --AllanE (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Libertarian Party disaproved they are within their power to revoke his membership. And I would also say, that if you're registered as a member of the Democratic party and vote Republican, you're still a Democrat. Someone doesn't fit into a group because you feel a certain way, it's what's verifiable. --Wynler | Talk 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but again, you would have to find sources showing that he influenced said people or x number of people away from voting libertarian to vote republican. All what you are saying is an opinion. Find sources supporting this and it would be best served in the criticism section. If it is cited with verifiable and reliable sources, I would not be opposed to it. However, all what you're saying here is simply an opinion, be it false or true, but it's still an opinion if it's not substantiated. --Maniwar (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edit - SAWB

I don't believe the recent edit made by stephenfleming was vandalism. The reference to SAWB - Smart Ass White Boy can be found here.[3] --Wynler | Talk 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I will revert my warning to the user, however I don't believe this is significant or notible enough to include in the Lead. Boortz may have used it for a short time, however, the others he consistently has used throughout the years and continues to do so. Thanks for pointing that out. --Maniwar (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

I came here looking to evaluate the article for GA status. The Boortzisms section appears to be copied directly from his website. I think this section needs to be reworded or somehow linked. Ursasapien (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed above in the BLP section/discussion, and we thought it was taken care of. What else would you suggest and how would you suggest we fix it? We added the source and quoted them. Please advise. --Maniwar (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there are a couple of things editors could do. The first would be to take a small number of terms (4-5 at the most), rewrite the definitions in their own words, and write it in prose rather than a list. Interested readers could follow the link if they wanted more information.

A second approach would be to contact Neal Boortz/the show/Net Dog and obtain permission to use an image of the list. This is more tricky as we would not only have to convince them to give us the image under a totally free use license (Boortz isn't necessarily fond of Wikipedia) but we would also have to figure out a way to document this to the Wikimedia "powers that be."

In the end, I do not feel it is necessary to have such a long list and I do not feel it improves the article. Simply summarizing his penchant for making up clever terms and listing a select few would be better, IMO. This would remove a major impediment for this article to reach GA and beyond. Ursasapien (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ursasapien, after I posted my comment above, I added quotes and citations to each one. I was hoping that would take care of it. Also, I saw this list here Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show and that they are doing the same thing, except it has it's own article. What are your thoughts with quotes and sources? --Maniwar (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that seperating this information into a sub-article may be a good idea. I have seen multiple articles that use this tactic to get the main article to GA status. However, I think you are missing my point. This portion is taken word-for-word from Boortz website. We simply can not do that. This is not the case on the Rush article you gave as an example (at least not as I could discover). Yes, they quote examples from Rush's show, but the list, itsself, is not a direct quote. Perhaps, I will try to work on it and present it here. Ursasapien (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, you did a good job of editing down the list. I edited the Boortizisms section a little, myself. I tried to put the information in more of a narrative fashion. Perhaps the section could now be expanded to include some of his other favorite subjects like death, newscasters, or public schools. He has a number of nicknames for each of them. Ursasapien (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix...I like what you did. Sometimes it's hard, especially when you're so involved with an article, to see what another editor means. This is a good time to step back, and I sort of did to see what you would do. Thanks for also commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show‎. I don't understand why they allow this in another GA article, but not here. Oh well, thanks for the help on both! --Maniwar (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, per your suggestion, I've copied it here to further improve User:Maniwar/Boortzisms. --Maniwar (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet one other thing, anyone who wants to can comment above as well as on this RFC Talk:Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

Okay, looks good. Just a few issues. Some areas need more citation, for example: third para of intro, first half of author and first and last para of politics.

In terms of prose, it is okay but could be improved. It is a tad promotional in areas and runs on telling rather than showing lines. On minor points, you have a single line para under biography and the producers names under radio personality shouldn't be in bold. Under politics you have a quotation at the top but do not bring it into the text. It would work better if you related it more, used it in the prose rather than just have it floating at the top.

I'm not sure why you have the controversies on a separate page, it isn't very big and I think it affects NPOV considering the main page if taken from NB sources and seems a tad promotional.

I don't see any other problems, they are just some minor points. - J Logan ^t: 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on some of the tasks and I think it may be easier if I strike them as I go through for other editors to follow. Morphh ^(talk) 12:47, 07 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here...runs on telling rather than showing lines. Can you please elaborate on this so that I can perhaps see how to improve it? Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree a little bit with J Logan on the controversies regarding the size. I do feel it is big and the addition may create problems with NPOV article structure and overall weight in the article. I haven't really reviewed the controversies for BLP concerns. I guess I'll leave this up to Maniwar as he/she has been the primary contributer but I just wanted to voice my concern. My opinion would be to remove the sub-sections headers and summarize the controversies a bit more so article structure is neutral and content is more balanced. Morphh ^(talk) 17:19, 07 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Morphh on this. I hesitantly inserted it to build the section, but will do some tweaking and summarizing. I welcome anyone's help with it. --Maniwar (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re telling: Show, don't tell. Re contoversies: fair point, some elaboration would be fine for me, it was a suggestion as I felt the text was too dependent upon Boortz as a source. - J Logan ^t: 18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand this either, even after the link. I'm not sure how best to apply it to a biography. Perhaps an example. Otherwise, I think we've addressed most of the points listed. Morphh ^(talk) 20:00, 07 October 2007 (UTC)

Admitedly maybe not the best term I could have used. Generally I mean it areas can read like it is telling me a list of things without really engaging me in it. But I think you've covered it for GA now.- J Logan ^t: 09:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally yes but there is room for improvement on the general flow and engagement.

2. Factually accurate?: Well cited although does lean on simmilar sources. Despite that it doesn't seem to have any problems.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers most aspects well.

4. Neutral point of view?: Ditto under accuracy, no real problems in balance despite leaning on similar sources.

5. Article stability? No major vandalism or rv wars.

6. Images?: Two images, used properly. Could do with finding one of the subject of course.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. - J Logan ^t: 09:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Boortzisms?

Even with the edits made to avoid copyvio, I'm not sure the "Boortzisms" section is really all that notable to begin with. Don't most talk radio hosts come up with their own colorful phrases? Regardless, the section should be rephrased yet again - as it is, it implies that these are all original Boortz terms. Two that are listed in the article are from other sources: "The Breck Girl" (Rush Limbaugh) and "The Beast with Two Backs" (Shakespeare's Othello). Several more are included in his "Boortztionary", such as: "FUBAR" (US Armed Forces), "funbags", "NIMBY", "pound sand", "Waldo the One-eyed Trouser Snake" (anonymous, but none likely began with Boortz). Boortz's website says the Boortztionary is "a glossary of terms Neal uses", so why does this WP article insist on calling them "Boortzisms" and continue to repeat that he "has names for" these things? He certainly may use these terms, but the existing phrasing implies that he made them all up himself. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've already taken care of the rephrasing (and renamed the section "Boortztionary"), but still I maintain that the section is hardly noteworthy. It reads like promotional material, and seems out of place in a GA-Class article. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because people keep editing out what they deem POV, they clear explanations, edit, and edit till the clarity has been dwindled and dwindled away. I do like a few of your suggestions, and will incorporate them and reinstate some of the other trimmings. This section is pertinent because of the frequent usage of his terms. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Maniwar. Boortz uses these terms so frequently that a basic understanding is definitely useful. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The section does seem more like promotion than legitimate encyclopedia entry. The deletion of the entire "Criticism and Controversy" section appears to be CYA by Boortz and/or his staff.Prestoncoleman (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed WP:OR was immediately reverted

Boortz expresses that he is an equal opportunity offender and has made controversial statements about Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy, former Senator Max Cleland, former Representative Cynthia McKinney.[38][39]

This statement, in the "Controversies, critics and rivals" section, is a non sequitur. It may very well be true that "Boortz expresses that he is an equal opportunity offender." It may also be true that he "has made controversial statements about" the people listed. However, the sentence fails to establish a relationship between the claim of the first clause and the claim of the second clause. This appears to be original research which synthesizes two unrelated claims, neither of which is adequately sourced, since the two citations present only prove that Boortz criticized Cynthia McKinney by making statements which he later retracted. The OR suggests that, based on an extremely limited sample of only four subjects, Boortz has made controversial statements about others regardless of their race, gender, or ability — just so long as they are all Democrats. Because this is a biography of a living person (and a GA-class one at that), any OR must be removed immediately, as well as controversial material that is poorly sourced. I attempted to do so, and remove the logical fallacy of the statement in an NPOV way, but was immediately reverted. I've no interest in an edit war, but I'm concerned that this article has led to WP:OWN issues. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section is poorly constructed. Perhaps the clauses need to be broken into two sentences. The references are obviously only for his criticism of Cynthia McKinney. I think it would be wonderful to have citations for his criticism of each person mentioned. The part that reads, "Boortz expresses that he is an equal opportunity offender," makes more sense when you read further down in the section and it details his battle with O'Rielly and Christian conservatives. Perhaps, I will first seperate the two clauses and then find more references and rewrite the section to be more clear. Ursasapien (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tobogganoggin, be careful with your false unresearched accusations. This compromise you see was that of several editors over a matter of months. Rather than writing out and expanding every single issue (which can be elaborated on in the Boortz controversy article) this became a summary. And like Ursasapien said, if you read further down and you will see that these things are explained. Additionally, other sections of the article touch on some of these issues. --Maniwar (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I owe you an apology. I don't believe I made any accusations, but I may have made an insinuation, which still wasn't very civil of me. I do not wish to impugn the intentions of any of the editors who contributed to the sentence above, nor the article as a whole, but was only taking issue with the statement itself as it appeared at the time — however it came to be that way (which on wikis can often be convoluted).

Ursasapien, I certainly appreciate your efforts to improve the section, but if Wikipedia reports a claim made by Boortz, and then goes about attempting to prove him right, then wouldn't that entire section qualify as OR? Have any attributable sources investigated Boortz' biases (everyone has some bias) in general, or commented on his claim to be an equal opportunity offender? I realize that OR is rampant throughout Wikipedia, but in BLP articles, we should be making extra effort to reach for the highest standards of factual, neutral statements. Controversial figures particularly deserve articles that have been given extra attention to ensure that they hold up under scrutiny. Compare this article to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, both of which in my opinion have achieved higher standards of neutrality. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tobogganoggin, Do you have a suggestion on how to fix this section? It seems fairly neutral to me, relying on specific statements that he has made. Perhaps we could get some citations where he is criticized by a self-proclaimed liberal and a self-proclaimed conservative. I do not see the section "attempting to prove him right" but rather as examples of his criticism from both ends of the spectrum. I would support distilling the section down to an even more concise summary, as we already have a sub-article that covers the details.

BTW, I took a look at Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore's articles and I found the following:

“ After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint (where he wrote for the student newspaper The Michigan Times) and working for a day at the General Motors plant, at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice, which soon changed its name to The Michigan Voice as it expanded to cover the entire state, which Moore later regretted. ”

Moore's regret seems like OR to me. There is no citation that talks about his state of mind. Then I found this:

“ He attended Southeast Missouri State University, where he earned a "D" in a speech class. (Some contend it was an "F".) Limbaugh dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class. This would have normally made him eligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War, but he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease. ”

You're telling me that no other verifiable iformation regarding Rush's education could be found? Just his poor grades and avoidance of the draft are the only relevant issues for this section of his article. I would hardly hold up either article as an example of neutrality. Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"You're telling me that no other verifiable iformation[sic] regarding Rush's education could be found?"

No, I haven't said that. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical question not directed at you. You seem to think these articles are examples of good ones with no OR. Perhaps you could show some suggestion for change. Ursasapien (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lester Maddox, an avowed segregationist

Mr. Maddox's views on segregation belong in his article. The implication that Boortz holds similar views is synthesis (unless someone has a citation that demonstrates Boortz espoused such beliefs. Please do not add this bit back in unless you can demonstrate (on this talk page) some justification for it's inclusion. Ursasapien (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This entry is replete with "Boortz describes himself as" or "Boortz claims to be" type descriptives. Those are the opposite of objective, NPOV. ---- Jimintheatl

So Boortz can conceal his affiliation with the segregationist Maddox , but post the following quiz associating democrats with Maddox?

Sat 21 Dec 2002 A Quiz. Courtesy Of Neal Boortz Filed under: Uncategorized — John Dunshee @ 1:20 am

NEALZ NUZE 20th Century U.S. History final:

1) The Dixiecrat party was made up of Southern

a) Democrats

b) Republicans

2) Jim Crow laws were passed by legislatures controlled by:

a) Democrats

b) Republicans

3) When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights efforts in the South, the governing powers that opposed him were of which party?

a) Democrat

b) Republican

4) In Arkansas, the governor who stood in the door of a schoolhouse to block integration was a:

a) Democrat

b) Republican

5) The president who ordered in the National Guard to dislodge the above-mentioned governor from the above-mentioned door was a:

a) Democrat

b) Republican

6) George Wallace was a:

a) Democrat

b) Republican

7) Lester Maddox was a:

a) Democrat

b) Republican

8) Although Republican Bo Callaway won a plurality of the vote, the Georgia Legislature installed Lester Maddox as governor. The Legislature was ruled by an overwhelming majority of:

a) Democrats

b) Republicans

9) As a bonus worth 50 points, which is the only one of questions above answered correctly with “b”?

Explain again the sourcing problem? ---- Jimintheatl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed an unproven accusation of a living person from this page. Furthermore, "This entry is replete with "Boortz describes himself as" or "Boortz claims to be" type descriptives. Those are the opposite of objective, NPOV." Stating he is XYZ when he is the only one who describes himself as such is POV. Stating that he stated XYZ cannot in any way be considered POV. It is a statement of fact. Respectfully, I suggest you read WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS for further information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unproven accusation?" Please specify. Fact: Boortz worked for Maddox. Fact: On his website, he says only he worked for the "Governor of Georgia." Fact: On that same website he has made the point that prominent Southern segregationists, including Maddox, were Democrats. I believe, given his "Church of the Uncomfortable Truth" self-promotion, these uncontested FACTS about Neal Boortz speak to many issues surrounding this controversy-seeking individual. ----- Jimintheatl

If you say you are removing something, please specify what you are removing. I am not sure what you are referring to. ----- Jimintheatl

If you want to add this bit, you need to do so under the "Criticism" section. It would probably be better to get the wording right, here on the talk page, before you post it to the main article. You still have the issue of original research. If this is an issue (that Boortz tries to distance himself from his previous employer so he will appear credible when he criticizes said previous employer) then it will have been reported in some reliable source. All you have to do is include a link to someone making this criticism in a reliable source. If you are simply making the connection yourself, it is synthesis. Also, please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. When you press "Save page" it will magically transform into your signature with the date/time stamp. Ursasapien (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think. The specificity is appreciated. The false or unspecific removals, by "fanboys" or not, is annoying.Jimintheatl 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated from my talk page:

In what possible sense was my addition unsourced? It was referenced to the website of the subject of the entry, Neal Boortz. He worked for Maddox. He doesn't acknowledge working for Maddox on his website bio. Instead, on his website, he now identifies Maddox as a racist to condemn his political opponents(Democrats)...Come on....This isn't relevant?----Jimintheatl

It's not the source, it's a violation of BLP and it is a POV edit. You've been warned about adding controversial statements to articles before, and yet you ignore the warnings. --Maniwar (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened to your original complaint--unsourced? It was not unsourced. Why is it OK for the Boortz article to frequently refer to Boortz own website for complimentary or "cute" info (e.g.' Boortzisms) but not OK to accurately cite his concealment of his association with Lester Maddox, when on his won site he criticizes Maddox as a racist? ---- Jimintheatl I see in the discussion of Boortz jargon that your entries there were decribed as "fanboy stuff." Is this another example of that? I do not understand why you originally claimed the material I added was unsourced (it was not) and now say it's a POV edit. How is it POV when it merely states facts: Boortz worked for Maddox, Boortx conceals this on personal site on which he also accuses Maddox of racism? Please explain. ---- Jimintheatl

Tread softly Jimintheatl and watch the personal attacks. Consider this a kind nudging and not a warning. Now, if you go back to my edit summary here[4], you will note that I cited POV and BLP concerns. What you are injecting is an interpretation. Find sources, Reliable, and verifiable to back up the charge. No surmises allowed. As for your other nonsense, that is off the subject...so stick to the subject and leave me out of it. Another attack and you will be warned for that as well. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What charge? I agree there is an inference which can be drawn (or not), but I don't think I "charged" anything. Why is Boortz's own site not reliable, not necessarily for independent facts, i.e., that he worked for Lester Maddox, but for what is posted on it (i.e., that he says only the he worked for a "Governor of Georgia" whom he also (on his site) implies is a racist Democrat? It seems to me that allowing this sleight of hand allows the subject of the article to have it both ways....Sorry if I offended you, but your edits/removals seemed vague to me; I was thrown by the "unsourced" reference. Jimintheatl 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, as explained on my talk page, there is too much speculation and interpretive original research in that sentence. The issue of Maddox belongs on his page, not Boortz's. Also, watch the attacks with the "fanboys" statements. You have been shot down by numerous editors, you edit is POV, in Violation of BLP, and is OR. If you want to add it, you must show reliable and reputable sources stating so, and not just adding your own interpretation. This is wikipedia policy, so enough with the , no one will let me add my comment because they're "fanboys" attitude. You can add it, but be prepared to have proof to support it, otherwise it will be removed. --Maniwar (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Boortz for Entitlement Program.

Among his other positions Neal Boortz advocates vouchers for education. As former Representative Marge Roukema has pointed out, vouchers would convert education into an entitlement program. They would also add a substantial tax burden because people who send their children to provate schools would immediately sign up for their voucher and apply it towared their provate school's tuition. As an advocate of new taxes for a new entitlement program Mr. Boortz certainly gives new meaning to the word "Libertiarain." 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

• First, please point to a reputable source that states that Neal is for school vouchers and that these voucers are considered an entitlement program. This is not a olace to debate Boortz's stances or school vouchers in particular.

• Please also understand that the contention that school vouchers would "add a substantial tax burden" is a logical fallacy.

• Finally, please sign your post by typing four tildes (like this ~~~~). Ursasapien (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The contention that school vouchers are un-Libertarian is unsupported. The Libertarian Party of Oklahoma, for example, has expressed some support for vouchers ( http://www.oklp.org/schools.html ). While they may not be the perfect Libertarian solution, vouchers would enhance individual control over how their money is spent, which is a primary goal of Libertarians.0nullbinary0 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo

Why is Justin Raimondo's opinion of Boortz's Libertarian credentials worthy of such prominent citation? Raimondo's entry identifies him as "libertarian/paleoconservative" but presents no evidence for the first part of this hyphenated description. I can't figure out why anyone would think he's an authority on Libertarianism.0nullbinary0 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to defend Raimondo's status as a noteworthy authority on libertarianism? If not I'm going to remove this reference.0nullbinary0 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Mr. Raimondo is not the 'final authority on libertarianism'. His comments are given far to much weight in this otherwise excellent article. I vote to delete or heavily edit this section. I have also discussed my concerns regarding the neolibertarian issue in the 'neolibertarian' section of this disscussion page (please see section above). I will delete that particular reference within ten days if a consensus is reached. Rpchristiano (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Little Buford" controversy

Boortz's latest controversy involves a nine-year-old boy whom Boortz ridiculed on his show and online beginning Friday morning, March 7, 2008 and continuing on Tuesday, March 11 and Thursday, March 13. Boortz played audio of the boy and then repeatedly mocked the child's speech. Boortz and WSB General Manager Dan Kearney were informed on March 7 that the child is disabled--he has ADHD as well as other cognitive and emotional disabilities--but the abuse continued for a full week. Someone has been deleting any reference to this controversy, which can be verified using Boortz's own website, the FCC, and local newspapers. My question is, who's deleting this, and why? If an editor, please give your rationale.

Here's where Boortz's website refers to the controversy: http://boortz.com/nuze/200803/03072008.html (scroll down to see the poll)

Here's where the FCC ruled on the incident: http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0610/DA-08-1372A1.txt

And here's one newspaper article on the incidents: http://media.www.gscvoice.com/media/storage/paper1222/news/2008/03/28/News/Boortzs.Morals.Challenged.By.Gsc.Professor-3305483.shtml

There are also references on several blogs, including these: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3011405&mesg_id=3011405 http://newsprism.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/breaking-news-boortz-ridicules-9-year-old-with-learning-disability/ http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200803/1204997229.html

Prestoncoleman (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the editor deleting the content but I do question if it is notable enough to be included in the encyclopedic biography of Neal Boortz. Today's flash in the pan news is usually not the type of thing to go into a biography unless it is part of the subjects notability. You're going to need a source stronger than a college newspaper. Blogs can't be used. You have to show this is significant. Area news coverage over a period of time might be something probably worth mentioning. Criticism on the blogsphere is not going to do it. If it is included, it should be brief. You have to weigh this with the entire article, the context of criticism over his life, etc. Morphh ^(talk) 4:54, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Points well taken. The entry has been cut to one sentence, and an additional source from a newspaper has been added. The FCC release is about as credible as it gets. As for the newsworthiness of the incident, it was far more egregious than Don Imus' single use of "nappy-headed hos"--Boortz humiliated a disabled child over a period of seven days--and at least as controversial as other entries in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestoncoleman (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the "Lil' Buford" controversy that some detractors don't seem to want to mention. First ... this subject matter was not discussed over a period of a week. It was the subject for one portion of one day .. and a brief mention the following day. Two days out of a 39 year career. Also .. not once was Lil' Buford's real name mentioned on the air. It is true that I am a critic of strong regional accents. I explain on the air that these accents can often be impediments to social and professional success ... and that steps should be taken to try to get rid of the accents, especially in children, in order to prepare for success in life outside of your local community. ADHD .. IF it does exist in this child .. has nothing whatsoever to do with his accent. Also, it is easy to believe that someone may believe that this child has ADHD since as many as 50% of Georgia school children get their daily doses of ADHD medication in their school. What we really have here is a small-town college professor who has taken a dislike to me and is using this forum to constantly badger me with postings and edits I believe to be improper and exaggerated, if not untrue. If Wikipedia wants to make itself available as a tool to carry on a personal grudge, so be it. NBoortz (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Neal Boortz

This could all be resolved if WSB and Cox Communications would make the Boortz Show audiotapes of March 7 and 11, as well as the deleted Boortz.com post from March 13, available for review. The reason they won't is that they don't want the incident to be covered in the media, which is what is being suggested as a threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia. If Mr. Boortz was truly only concerned with "strong regional accents," he could have limited his ridicule to the accent of the father of this child. The fact that the child's name was never mentioned on air is hardly relevant, since Mr. Boortz chose instead to call the child out of his name, using the name of a character from Disney's Hillbilly Bears in order to further stereotype and mock the boy. Also, the name of the child and his father, as well as the name and address of their family business, were readily available at the WSB website in the news story with which the incident began. Mr. Boortz wants to control the content at Wikipedia; if he has a rationale based on editorial policy or credibility of sources, he can make that case, but his on air and online tactics, which are part and parcel of his notability, should be fair game for criticism. For purposes of establishing credibility, I'm a professor of communication with a doctorate in media studies from the University of Iowa, and also a media critic. In addition, the child lives in my community. If Mr. Boortz considers a post or edit "improper and exagerrated, if not untrue", he should give his reasoning. Also, Boortz claims on his website that "Lil' Buford was our topic for one portion of one show only," [5] and now he's apparently admitting to two days. Which is it? Also, he says the child "was the subject for one portion of one day .. and a brief mention the following day." The incident began on Friday, March 7, so the following day would be a Saturday, when he wasn't on the air. ADHD is irrelevant, though Mr. Boortz's highly questionable assertion that "as many as 50% of Georgia school children get their daily doses of ADHD medication in their school" speaks to his lack of credibility. For a man who advertises his insensitivity and puts it on display so regularly, Mr. Boortz is certainly sensitive to criticisms backed with clear evidence. If Wikipedia wants to set its editorial and evidentiary standards based on those of talk radio, so be it. The standards of academic work would seem more appropriate. Prestoncoleman (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Who edited out the entire "Criticisms and Controversies" section?

Someone has edited out the entire "Criticism and controversies" section. Why? There appears to be no editorial reasoning behind the edit. It's been rewritten and posted with new citations. The "Boortzisms" section has been deleted due to innacurate information, including the attribution of "the beast with two backs" to Boortz (the phrase appears in Shakespeare), and irrelevance (nicknames for fellow talk hosts and slang for masturbation, for example.) Prestoncoleman (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Boortz Detractors post

The following was posted without any references or details by someone claiming to be "a team of Boortz listeners":

Boortz Detractors

During his 39-year career in talk radio Boortz has certainly created his share of detractors. Some content themselves with sending email messages to his program threatening his life and the lives of his wife and daughter. On several occasions detractors have tried to hire attorneys to pursue legal actions against Boortz for his comments on the radio -- all without success. It would seem that liberal college professors get particularly upset at some of Boortz's comments. In the late 1990s a professor at an Atlanta community college sought to hire a lawyer to pursue a libel case against Boortz after he commented on her requirement for community service hours from her students in order to pass a basic English course. Another professor, this one from a North Georgia community college, amuses himself by making frequent and erroneous posts to Boortz's Wikipedia profile. A team of Boortz listeners try to keep up with this particular professors manic attempts by removing the incorrect material.

Please make yourself known so we can have this editorial dispute mediated. Prestoncoleman (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor claims to be Neal Boortz. It also seems clear that you're Preston Coleman, the person filing the charges in the web posts you reference. So we have some conflict of interest issues on both sides. You've both violated rules of WP:3RR and if this continues, you may both be blocked or the page may be protected from editing. Wikipedia is not the battle ground or soap box for your dispute. Biographies of a living person have strict rules and it is up to the person adding material to properly justify and gain concenus for inclusion if such is disputed, particularly when it is criticism. The conflict has been posted to the BLP Noticeboard.

Let me first state that I haven't listen to the Boortz show in years and have not heard the "Lil’ Buford" comments. With regard to the above Boortz Detractors section, I do not support the inclusion as it is unsourced and most of it is improper for the article. The first few sentences may be something to consider. In my opinion, Lil’ Buford has not reached the level of media attention necessary for inclusion in the biography of Neal Boortz. At this point, I don't see that it contributes to his notability, and seems barely notable in the media. While an acceptable source, the FCC filing does not make this notable, anyone can file a compliant, and the issue was dismissed by the FCC. One reference is to Mr. Coleman's college newspaper, and the other doesn't even mention Buford. I can't find anything in Google reporting it except for blogs. We also have to consider that Boortz probably has a different point of view on the matter, which is excluded in the content. I don't see that this is similar to Don Imus. His controversy was part of his notability. I'm not defending the comments - they may very well be crude and worthy of flaming criticism. I can understand the controversy, particularly as a father, but I think Wikipedia policy requires more (especially on a biography of a living person). Morphh ^(talk) 1:25, 07 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lil' Buford incident has been removed from the Boortz main page. The "Boortz Detractors" post may or may not have been posted by Boortz himself--the tone and style are consistent with his writing. I have to respectfully disagree that the Lil' Buford entry was "criticism" as opposed to fact, or that the incident isn't as newsworthy, and more egregious, than the Imus comment. Prestoncoleman (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that it wasn't newsworthy or that it wasn't more egregious. I just stated that at this time it hasn't received sufficient news coverage. Our opinion regarding the egregious comment is not sufficient justification on its own. If it does get more coverage, here would be my rewrite of it. In March 2008, Boortz attracted controversy by playing an audiotape of a mentally disabled nine-year-old where he repeatedly ridiculed the child’s speech, leading to an unsuccessful FCC petition to deny Boortz’s employer the right to purchase five local radio stations. Morphh ^(talk) 2:37, 07 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right--you didn't say anything of the kind. Sorry, my bad. I think your edit is perfectly appropriate and that the Boortz Controversies page belongs on the main Boortz page. Prestoncoleman (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest merging Neal Boortz controversies into this page. This page isn't long enough for a WP:SUMMARY-style spinoff and so this page just exists as a WP:POVFORK. See also: WP:CRIT. Oren0 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be merged and likely cut down to a couple paragraphs on things that are easily verifiable and important. Morphh ^(talk) 14:07, 07 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember this section being created to bring the article to GA status. There was concern that it would inundate the article and remove the NPOV and encyclopedic attitude. I think the spin off article could grow a bit, but I'm not for it's removal or merge. I'll try to close it in a week few days. There doesn't seem to be consensus, so unless that changes, it will be closed and left as is. --Maniwar (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Long introduction

His introduction is way too long. Most of that info should be in sub-sections. The intro for him should be 1 or 2 paragraphs with the important only important info. Anyone know how to fix this problem? Rockyobody (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit long. It should not be more than three, two likely being the appropriate length. I'll try to clean it up. Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Who did Neal support in the Republican primaries?

↜Just me, here, now … 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

Neal Boortz is actually married to his first and only wife. The confusion of two wives comes in when he refers to his old radio station, Ring Radio, as his ex-wife due to the contentious way that they parted. LeedesLady

Actually, Mr. Boortz means WGST-AM, not Ring Radio, when he mentions "the ex-wife." Nevertheless, Donna Boortz is, in fact, Neal's second ( and current ) wife. His first wife was that crazy cajun woman. CarsonsDad (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

GPA

Is there a reason to put his GPA into the article? Is there a citation? It seems rather like an ad hominem attack which shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinshane (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ideological labeling

Boortz self-identifies primarily as a libertarian, but does diverge from some libertarian positions, therefore we should identify him as such here, unless there is very strong sourcing to contradict that. Drrll (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion

The cite for his religion links to an article, but the article never mentions his religion. Should we remove the cite and possibly the reference to him being an Episcopalian? FightingEntropy (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; BLP dictates that unreferenced stuff needs to go. I re-added the reference you removed for the prior sentence, since it was a valid source for that content. --Chris (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Sorry about that. I only meant to remove that line. I don't edit here a lot, so I'm a bit of a noob at it. Thanks. FightingEntropy (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethanol

Ethanol biased(not misspelled) Gasohol If you leave off the G...it spells Democrat...

From actual use and records I have the following results....I have a 2006 Government Motors Pick-up. If I use ethanol gas I get form 1.5 to 2.5 less miles per gallon than with ethanol free fuel. My truch preforms much better.

Jack Brossette (Bro' shay) 580 Rubin Dr. Pineville, La. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.137.2 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

cool story bro 97.77.103.82 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Neal Boortz/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated this article a while back but didn't add comments at the time to this page... I have since added comments on the article talk page. See article talk Morphh (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retirement

Boortz announced on June 4, 2012 that he will retire on January 18, 2013. Northroad (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That appears now to have taken place. I've never heard his show, but I've heard references to his retirement from other radio show hosts. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mawr

It says: "Boortz was born in Bryn Mawr, Atlanta" -- While he is in Atlanta now, he was BORN in Bryn Mawr, PA.

No, he was born in the state of Pennsylvania, not in the postal code known as "PA". — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neal Boortz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081107203612/http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/pressrel/RS2008/Marconis/08_Marconi_Network_Personality.htm to http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/pressrel/RS2008/Marconis/08_Marconi_Network_Personality.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neal Boortz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060521193735/http://atlanta.about.com:80/od/celebrityprofiles/p/nealboortz.htm to http://atlanta.about.com/od/celebrityprofiles/p/nealboortz.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)