Talk:Jeremy Glick (author)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Just a minor niggle

Im not registered so thoguht id leave it up to you lot do do any editing. There is no "allegedly" about the following: "when U.S. support was allegedly given to anti-Soviet Afghan forces" this is just a common fact. I have a degree in Modern History and International Relations and had to write a massive great essay on the subject. Obviously, the support given to the muhajadeen wasn't inteneded to backfire but did. Right now I am in the middle of something, but if somebody wants a reference (I guess it should have one) just look into any history book written by any PhD level author on the subject of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I just feel the "allegedly" makes what is absolutely factual seem biased or wrong. As to my opinion, thats what angered me the most- O'reillys clear ignorance on the subject! cheers peeps.

[edit] What to do

I've had the article protected from editing. I think it's important that everyone, including me, stop arguing and reach a compromise. Don't look at the article as a whole, pick out individual points that you feel are an NPOV violation and state what you think should be there in its place. If you would like to tell me what to change please leave a message on my user discussion page. Please don't leave childish or vulgar comments like the user below who accuses me of being an 18 year old pedophile, or calling me far-left, communist or America hating. I and Jeremy Glick have more respect for true American values than Bill O'Reilly will ever have. Thanks and I hope we can finally work things out. --Miller 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bipartisan conflicts are not welcome here

The message that Jeremy Glick was trying to get across in the "interview" with O’Reilly, was an important one, but many people are paying no attention to it, and are instead indulging in bipartisan vituperation which is ubiquitous in all democratic societies; that is, the argument about who is right and who is wrong (the statements below clearly illustrate this attitude). This is a subjective matter and has no place in an encyclopedic entry. Jeremy’s views of the war on terror are reflected in most other countries around the world, especially countries that have troops in Iraq, like Britain, Australia and Japan, people who see their fellow countrymen dying on a weekly or even daily basis in a war which has being going on for roughly 3 years when this article was written, and which has no clearly defined purpose or motive. To see people like Jeremy Glick on TV is a breath of fresh air and helps to restore the image of the United States not as an imperial aggressor, but as the land of the free, a state where everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of belief.

--Miller 21:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Violations (Kind of petty and pathetic):

"and continued to repeat left-wing viewpoints about George W. Bush's election to the presidency in 2000."

“As Glick continued to speak about his radical viewpoint”

If you hold a certain disdain for Jeremy’s own personal views then please keep it to yourself. You’re not going to get much credibility by perpetuating these pathetic stereotypes. Just quit it.

--Miller 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a poorly written encyclopedia entry.

This article isn't encyclopedic at all. It paints Jeremy Glick as a Saint and everybody else as a demon. Clearly the author has a political agenda in mind. I would suggest a complete rewrite with nothing but the facts.

As is, this is something you'd expect to see in a blog, NOT in an encyclopedia.

[edit] A comment on the above statement

That sounds like you are someone who's ideology conflicts with Glick: " It paints Jeremy Glick as a Saint and everybody else as a demon.". I don't believ it does that at all. I believe a good encyclopedic article would simply talk about what was said such as Glick talking about the funding of the Mujahadeen. While this was arguably not relevent in this interview it is factually true, and this should be mentioned.

[edit] Jeremy Glick

It's a little spooky that one of the Flight 93 passengers was named Jeremy Glick, and this Jeremy Glick lost his father on 9/11. Morhange 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Spooky indeed! But merely a coincidence.

[edit] Listing of Changes

Characterized Glick as left wing, certainly if OReilly is conservative then Glick is Liberal

Clarified characteristics of the advertisement that Glick signed.

characterized the viewpoint that Bush instigated a "Florida coup" as left wing

stated that the advertisement was "left wing" Your opinion; Bye Bye! --Miller 23:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

added Glick's statements

Removed statement that implied OReilly's emotion as "angry", OReilly's emotionally state is known only to himself

al Qa' ida does not need quotes, al Qa'ida is a known entity not invented by Oreilly as implied by the quotation marks

removed authors thoughts about OReilly, "something he apparently thought OReilly was incapable of doing" blatant insertion of the author's opinon

corrected "allegations" OReilly made no allegation against Glick, corrected this

characterized Glick's viewpoint as radical, certainly it is a radical viewpoint to think the USA caused 9/11 Your opinion; Bye Bye! --Miller 23:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

deleted statement that cannot be confirmed about OReilly in the commercial break after the interview It doesn't matter whether or not it can be confirmed because the statement was preceeded by the word 'allegedly' (if you don't know the definition of this word, look it up). the statement merely points out that Glick claimed Bill said that, and the article clearly points this out. --Miller 23:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And George Miller is an "alleged" child molester. See, it doesn't have to be true to have effect! (How fast can the minions flush this?)

First of all I'm 18. Second of all nobody made that claim against me. And last but not least, you've been reported to Wikipdia as a result of that vulgar and hateful comment. If you're going to say things like that about me, why not put your signature chickenshit! User who wrote the comment above: 68.62.150.155. I’ve tracked your IP address. Surprise, surprise; Tuscaloosa Alabama!!!!!!!! Latitude 33.2276, longitude -87.5443. --Miller 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


deleted statement about OReilly critics, certainly their viewpoint is just as valid as OReilly supporter's, not germaine to the article, interpretation should be left to the reader

[edit] Rebuttal

Whoever you are I just want to say, with all respect, you are breaking the NPOV rule with ridiculous comments like this. I'm not that bothered because I view this article on a regular basis to rectify vandalism from people who have to defame Jeremy Glick merely because they don't understand the underlying message of his argument and/or have a conflicting political stance. I would also like to point out that having your father die in any circumstance is a troubling and upsetting event. O'Reilly tore Glick to shreds with his abrasive tone and verbal abuse, and it baffles me that Jeremy Glick is potrayed as such a monster merely because he doesn't want innocent Afghan children to go through the same experience.

I would also like to point out that at no point in the interview did Jeremy say that the USA was "to blame" for the September 11 attacks, and even if he had said that, it is not your place to label him as "radical". Examining O'Reilly's mannerisms and tone of voice indicates that he is indeed angry, and saying that he is angry is not biased and is therefore perfectly justifiable.

--Miller 23:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

I've removed the stub notices as I believe this a thourough account of the interview, which includes all necessary and relevent quotes. --Miller 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad entry

I love Wikipedia, but it's entries like this which clearly shows the political bias of the person who wrote it.

I deleted/changed some of the 'observations' mainly over O'Reilley. Basically, whoever wrote that, hates O'Reilley and they didn't care much for the goal of Wikipedia to be an unbiased source of knowledge.

This page either needs to be cleaned up, or to have the whole Fox-News segment reporting remouved.

Actually, that's what I'll do until we can figure out a better way to write this wiki entry.

[edit] Let the interview speak for itself

The knee jerk revisions on this page should stop. There is absolutely no need for a biased description of the interview when a transcript would be more fair and there is a link to a video of the entire interview on the page. The Miller far left version is of no use. The constant reversions by Miller (Simpson's Contributor) are prima facie evidence of his intent to allow only his version and none others. I am removing the description of the interview. I wonder how long it will take someone, either NoGuru or Miller, to change it back?

Not long arsehole! --Miller 17:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Well it took all of 10 seconds for someone to revert this article to the left wing agitprop it is. This type of thing makes Wikipedia completely useless for any topic that has even the slightest tinge of politics. Removing edits under the guise of fighting vandalism to ensure that only a certain view point is presented is petty.68.62.150.155 10:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry about the revertion; I mistook your edit for vandalism. I have now reverted the article to your last edit. Cheers, Waggers 15:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think your re-revertion took any context out of the article. Granted, this entry could stand to be cleaned up, in any case.

Good thing far left miller kept an MS Word document of the article!!!!!! And by the way, what comment did I make which is so 'far left'? Saying that Britain and other foreign states are against the war? Since you love O'Reilly so much, you're obviously an avid Fox News viewer, so you don't realize that pretty much everyone outside the states (excluding Israel) is against the war. The fact that I said he mentioned Jeremy's family 5 times? Well this is not godless, far-left, communist etc etc, it's true. Anyway I'm reverting your pathetic 'unbaised' act of deleting thewhole article, and I will do the same everytime you delete it. --Miller 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almighty Miller

" I and Jeremy Glick have more respect for true American values than Bill O'Reilly will ever have. " - Almighty Miller

These comments are fine, however for someone who contributes towards an 'Online Encyclopedia' this is a disservice. This is perfectly legitimate in the discussion page; that's what it's there for!--Miller 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding that Wikipedia is developed a terrible reputation as being a place where both sides of the political spectrum 'fight it out', and endlessly pages will be locked/vandalized.

I realize that what I am saying is now a very old argument. Either way, I'm deleting some of the more incindiary anti-Bill O'Reilly comments.

Again, this stuff would be perfect for a Blog, but not an online Encyclopedia.

That's absolute bullshit; I'm the one who's continuously reverting the vandalism! --Miller 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Miller, take a moment to look back at this page and all other pages relavent to jeremy glick. Your edits and comments are all over the place in the discussion page (I stopped counting after 20) and you basically take it upon yourself to say that your oppinion is the only one that matters and nobody elses is relavent. Anytime anybody says anything that you disagree with, you immediately ridicule them and remove their edits as if they are vandalism when they aren't. Ask yourself: is it everybody else who is politically motivated, or is it just you? Think about that next time you claim that you have respect for the true American value system, which observes everybody's oppinion with fairness.

I respect the views of people who don't like Jeremy Glick, but removing irrelevent or false information has nothing to do with fairness. I'm sorry I've wrote so much on this page; I just though it was fair that I should be able to write on it (hint hint). Whoever it was that vadalized my user page don't do it again. It makes you look pathetic and proves my point very well. --Miller 00:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...Miller might appreciate the criticism, but why don't you take that sort of thing to his talk page? It has nothing to do with this article. And on the subject of this article, I think it's pretty good. It limits itself to factual information, and almost all the content is well sourced. Tenebrous 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If it was him making small edits here and there, that would be fine, but he is too far overzealous with this page, so much so that it merits making mention of it here. Removing parts that are biased or don't belong has everything to do with fairness as well. Otherwise, what is the point of the NPOV rules?
What parts of this are non-neutral? At the moment I could care less about his methods; the article is good, and I haven't seen him being 'overzealous'. Perhaps you're referring to this talk page? Keep in mind that talk pages are for expressing opinions, and as long as he doesn't edit his POV or make personal attacks, he can hold whatever opinions he wants to. If you've got a problem with Miller, please try and overcome it. If you've got a problem with the article, please state it. Tenebrous 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan or Iraq?

Was this guy against the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq? The article says Afghanistan, but the interview took place in 2003, about 1 1/2 years after the fact, but a couple months prior to Iraq. I'd say he was a bit late to the debate if the dates in this article are correct! JME

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

Editing the part about Bill O'Reilly being a 'conservative reporter' is POV. While O'Reilly is definetly conservative on a lot of issues he is not a 'conservative reporter'. It would be different if it were Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, who are officialy and self-proclaimed conservative commentators, but not O'Reilly.

[edit] Conspiracy theorist?

I removed Category:Conspiracy theorists. I see no evidence for that in the article, other than O'Reilly's distortion of what he said about 9/11. He didn't say the U.S. did the attacks, just that the U.S. previously supported the kind of people who did the attacks (e.g. the Islamists in Afghanistan so long as they were fighting the Soviets) - that's no conspiracy theory. Margana 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What about his position that "our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup" - just wondering does that constitute him being a conspiracy theorist? - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Arguably. But I don't see that quote in the article. Margana 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly Interview

NB: this talk section has been cross-posted to Talk:Bill O'Reilly controversies#Glick interview, since that article has an exact copy of the same text cited here.


[edit] Glick interview

Regarding this section:

O'Reilly has since maintained that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. While available transcripts do not support O'Reilly's claim...

According to a partial transcript here, Glick's words were:

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan --
O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
GLICK: -- didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did! The al Qaeda people were trained there!
GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghani people?
O'REILLY: See! I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So, what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had NOTHING to do with it!
GLICK: The Director -- senior -- as Director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had NOTHING to DO with it!
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

I think it doesn't take much analysis or guesswork to realize whom Glick was referring to. "The Director - senior - as Director of the CIA." George W. Bush, Junior, was never Director of the CIA. George H. W. Bush, Senior, was. Glick seems to have been referring to Bush, senior.

Are there any objections to correcting the information in the article? Kasreyn 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added this information, since no one has objected. Feel free to rewrite for clarity, but if you feel the information should be removed, please post here and discuss it with me first. I feel it's important to not allow O'Reilly's constant wild misunderstandings and jumped-to conclusions to distort this article. Glick was clearly referring to the first President Bush. Bill is clearly smart enough to understand that. Kasreyn 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

At least one user has seemed to be confused by this, so I will make it more plain: Glick was almost certainly talking about Bush, senior. Some have claimed that the CIA was involved in training Mujahadeen fighters to resist the Soviets. It would appear that Glick's remark is along these general lines. I cannot think of any other sensible reason for Glick to mention the word "senior" and "as Director of the CIA" unless he was referring to George Bush, senior, properly known as George H. W. Bush, who was director of the CIA before he became president. George Bush, junior, properly known as George W. Bush, has never been director of the CIA, so it would be nonsense for Glick to be referring to him. Kasreyn 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stanley, I don't understand why you removed so much content. I can understand that quoting too much from transcripts is sort of overkill and not very professional-looking, but shouldn't we find a way to keep the content? As it is, the article looks a little amputated... it mentions O'Reilly inviting Glick on his show, then it cuts to "post-show controversy", and avoids mentioning what actually happened on the show. Just providing a link to the transcript is not good enough. WP isn't a link farm. If something is notable, we should find a way to report on it. Kasreyn 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasren, I honestly do not believe that any description of the interview is necessary--I understand that wikipedia is not a links farm, but simply directing interested readers to both the transcript and video is not flooding the page with links--perhaps we can provide a brief description, such as "a debate that erupted into a heated argument between Glick and O'Reilly transpired throughout the course of the interivew", but any attempt at elaborating on O'Reilly's or Glick's demeanor, "who interrupted who," etc. is inherently POV--as I stated in the edit summary, let the readers, not the editors, decide what happened in the course of the interview. Stanley011 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
I have to firmly disagree. If it's worth mentioning that an interview took place, it's worth noting what took place during that interview. I'm certain a way can be found to present the information in an NPOV manner. Your argument that a link is sufficient and the "readers" will decide is flawed: it could be applied to anything we report on at Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to have anything that would limit it to being applied only to this case. So, by your reasoning, all of Wikipedia can be reduced to a collection of links with no summarizing or description, and the "readers" will decide for themselves. The problem is, if we do that, we will lose all our readers, and rightly so, because we won't be an encyclopedia any more. Kasreyn 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. We SHOULD elaborate on why the interview was significant, either historically or culturally, or both, but giving a blow by blow description of it is unnecessary, and cannot possibly be done in an NPOV manner. Stanley011 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Whyever not? "this person said this, then this person said this, in response to which this person said this." Seems NPOV to me. I don't advocate a blow-by-blow of the entire interview, but specifically of the bits which are controversial. If we're going to say that the interview is controversial, don't we need to include some content from it to justify that? Kasreyn 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that because we're going to say that the interview is controversial, we need to include some content from it to justify that. So long as we clearly provide and point to the links of both the transcript and video, the readers will be able to decide why the interview has been widely referred to as "controversial." Including some content from the interview in the article would inevitably lead to the editor SHOWING the reader WHY the interview was controversial (read: why the editor thinks O'Reilly or Glick was wrong) and will thus violate wikipedia's NPOV policy. Stanley011 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

If all the appropriate information is contained in external links then what’s the point in having an article at all? The information about the interview is going back in. Miller 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenklatura

The people from Afghanistan should be referred to as 'Afghans' not 'Afghani(s)'. Chris66 10:51 4 Aug 2006

[edit] YouTube

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/Talk%7EJeremy_Glick_%28author%29_dc53.html"