Talk:Michael Graham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | 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] AfD result
[edit] Archives
- Archive1 - Unsigned comments and commentary up to December 2005.
- Archive2 - January -> early March 2006
[edit] My Attempt
Now that I've had some time to mull it over and have a chance to do this w/sourcing:
In July of 2005, Graham used Islam and terrorism as the basis for a multi-day discussion on his WMAL talk radio show.[1] This discussion prompted over one hundred complaints to the station from CAIR [2] regarding Graham's statements, ultimately prompting WMAL to suspend him. After Graham declined to comply with the station's requests in order to get on air, he was let go. [3] The situation prompted angry editorials from Graham [4] as well as appearances on national television programs to discuss the firing.
---
Graham attended a rally to protest the Real ID Act, sponsored by Casa de Maryland in May of 2005.[5] He was photographed in an INS shirt, and was blocked from entering the event even as he showed ABC Radio credentials, with officials citing public safety. An altercation ensued, and police were called, with a second altercation occurring following their arrival. After questioning, Graham was allowed to enter the event with his shirt turned inside out.[6]
--
I'm not sure how to deal with the other sections - the Columbine thing seems rather minor and non-notable in the whole scheme of things, and the righttalk portion seems minor and too speculative. Thoughts? Also, sannse, was the original removal considered a WP:OFFICE situation, just for reference? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow reply - I've been mostly away. That certainly sounds a lot more neutral to me, I suggest we go with that and see what the reaction is. If the remaining sections are too minor to do similar with, then I'd say drop them.
- The Foundation mail is the stage before the office. If I can't sort it (or one of the others working on the mail) then we pass it to Danny or the legal team (although some things go straight to them, depending on the route the complaint comes in on). So this wasn't WP:OFFICE, but would have become so if things had not been sorted otherwise. That's the way things work at the moment, but WP:OFFICE is a very new thing and might need changes to get it to work well. It's probable that some of the info-team will need to be able to call on the office rules on occasion in the future -- sannse (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks for the help and info. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Later discussion
I put a lot of effort into this page back in December of 2005. I got into a back and forth with another guy who wanted to put a negative spin on Graham. I was eventually very satisfied with an article that went point by point to explain the facts, supported with sources, and providing proper context, of the "Islam is Terror" and "Real ID" incidents. Then is one stroke, Jeff decided the article was poorly written and wiped away all the detail and we're left with vague statements that lack detail or context that would allow a reader to be truly informed of the event (that the four shows followed the London bombings, step by step of CAIR's statements and WMALs reaction, with all the links). I just don't know if I have the patience to try to revert things. I am discouraged that the article just sucks so bad right now.Blcartwright 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. The article as it waswritten was a POV hatchet job, with nearly 2/3rds of the article focused on overly detailed accounts of things that had very little bearing on anything. Even with it trimmed down, the Wikipedia Foundation folks forced us to trim down the controversy section even more de to unknown reasons. If there are things that you feel are missing, feel free todetail them here, and we can work together to try and add them in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will go back and make a list of points I think are relative. If not for the controversy, he probably wouldn't even be on Wikipedia, no one would care enough. I don't think it was a "POV hatchet job" as people from differing viewpoints went back and forth until everyone was happy. Yes, the controversy section was detailed, but to give context. Why did he choose that time to make the Islam comments that got him fired? What is CAIR, and what did they have to say? It gave the reader the opportunity to come here, see both sides presented, and have links to all the relevent documents.Blcartwright 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, as a published authorand a radio host up here in Boston, he'd certainly be on here, as I would have put the article up if it wasn't already here. That's how I tripped up on it - I was going to write it myself. I suggest taking a scroll back, BTW, my attempt at making the criticism section worthwhile was removed by Wikipedia lawyerly types, one level below WP:OFFICE. The current section is what was approved by the bureaucrats, and is unlikely to be expanded further without very good reason - and this isn't my choice of action, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- You did make an edit in January that stated the article was badly written, and then made large rewrites, condensing the article. I have since read thru this discussion and did see the intervention by the Wiki staff. I am still disappointed because I worked hard on what I thought ended up being a good discussion of the controversy - I think I learned a lot by the back and forth editing with someone of a different viewpoint - but now that there was some letter of complaint Wiki wussed out and we have a bland article that gives no detail or context. In comparison, I have been part of the John Murtha article as well. In going back to read it after a few months, it has been edited and updated, but I can still see the bulk of my work there, and I am still satisfied with the overall article. Not so here.Blcartwright 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Upon rereading the version that was here before I rewrote it, it wasn't really that good. It wasn't sectioned well, had poor structure and flow, and the controversy sections were nearly 75% of the article. It was a complete disaster, and I hope you realize that a well rounded article covers more than just 3 pages worth of information on a guy getting fired when he's written 4 books, hosts a high-rated radio show, and, you know, has an entire career. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- You did make an edit in January that stated the article was badly written, and then made large rewrites, condensing the article. I have since read thru this discussion and did see the intervention by the Wiki staff. I am still disappointed because I worked hard on what I thought ended up being a good discussion of the controversy - I think I learned a lot by the back and forth editing with someone of a different viewpoint - but now that there was some letter of complaint Wiki wussed out and we have a bland article that gives no detail or context. In comparison, I have been part of the John Murtha article as well. In going back to read it after a few months, it has been edited and updated, but I can still see the bulk of my work there, and I am still satisfied with the overall article. Not so here.Blcartwright 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, as a published authorand a radio host up here in Boston, he'd certainly be on here, as I would have put the article up if it wasn't already here. That's how I tripped up on it - I was going to write it myself. I suggest taking a scroll back, BTW, my attempt at making the criticism section worthwhile was removed by Wikipedia lawyerly types, one level below WP:OFFICE. The current section is what was approved by the bureaucrats, and is unlikely to be expanded further without very good reason - and this isn't my choice of action, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will go back and make a list of points I think are relative. If not for the controversy, he probably wouldn't even be on Wikipedia, no one would care enough. I don't think it was a "POV hatchet job" as people from differing viewpoints went back and forth until everyone was happy. Yes, the controversy section was detailed, but to give context. Why did he choose that time to make the Islam comments that got him fired? What is CAIR, and what did they have to say? It gave the reader the opportunity to come here, see both sides presented, and have links to all the relevent documents.Blcartwright 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Jeff, let's keep things in perspective....Graham is hardly "high rated". The guy's show isn't syndicated, he isn't even listed on the Talk Radio Heavy Hundred (which is the industry standard), and his drive time slot in Boston has lost market share since he took it over from Jay Severen. Speaking of his four books, two were self-published vanity-press tomes, the third actually was picked up by a publisher, but failed to crack 100k sales, and never went into a second printing. His latest is only released in e-distribution. You tout visits on national televised shows, but I'd bet a paycheck that Michael Graham hasn't seen the front of a television camera since the controversy surrounding his firing deminished almost a year ago. I agree with Blcartwright...were it not for the controversies, Graham would hardly merit a mention on wiki. As I said, let's keep things in perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
- Considering Jay's share, it's nothing to sneeze at. No one is saying he has importance on par with a Hannity, but it doesn't mean we need to abandon the idea of a balanced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Graham's station, WTKK, rated a 2.8 in the latest Arbitrends of the Boston market. That put WTKK at 12th place in the overall Boston radio market, and in last place out of the three talk stations listed. Graham draws the lowest numbers out of the talkradio drive slot competition in the market. Sorry, but that don't sound too "high rated" to me...now, please excuse me while I sneeze.
- Compared to what? There's the #1 sports radio show in the region on across from him (what I end up listening to), a growing WBCN show, etc. Context is key, not that it makes a difference in the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I repeat for those hard of hearing. According to Arbitrends, WTKK is in LAST PLACE among talk radio stations listed in the Boston market with greater than a .4 market share. Jeff, regardless of "context", the numbers simply do not support your opinions. Sorry.
- funny, yuo didn't say that before. Interesting that you have to preface it with "greater than .4 market share though." Regardless, none of this is relevant to what's in the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing funny about it, Jeff. Would you like to know why? If you knew anything about Arbitron, you would obviously know that they do not report shares below a .4....but that would require doing research to find out. Like sarcasm, it appears that doing research is not one of your strong points.
- no, I *did* know that. Your insult has been noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, Jeffrey...Let's get "relevant" and discuss the "context". I have two burning questions for you. Can you tell me the date of the last appearance made by Michael Graham on The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Real Time with Bill Maher, or Fox & Friends? Has he been on ANY of them since the controversy surrounding his termination by WMAL subsided? If Graham is so "High Rated", as you state, why is it that Chris Core, the Local D.C. talker who currently holds Graham's former timeslot at WMAL holds a coveted spot on Talkers Magazine "Heavy Hundred" while Graham can't even make the list? Could you answer those questions, please, just so we can get a little "context" on Graham's fame and the reasons for it?
- no, I *did* know that. Your insult has been noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing funny about it, Jeff. Would you like to know why? If you knew anything about Arbitron, you would obviously know that they do not report shares below a .4....but that would require doing research to find out. Like sarcasm, it appears that doing research is not one of your strong points.
- funny, yuo didn't say that before. Interesting that you have to preface it with "greater than .4 market share though." Regardless, none of this is relevant to what's in the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I repeat for those hard of hearing. According to Arbitrends, WTKK is in LAST PLACE among talk radio stations listed in the Boston market with greater than a .4 market share. Jeff, regardless of "context", the numbers simply do not support your opinions. Sorry.
- Compared to what? There's the #1 sports radio show in the region on across from him (what I end up listening to), a growing WBCN show, etc. Context is key, not that it makes a difference in the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Graham's station, WTKK, rated a 2.8 in the latest Arbitrends of the Boston market. That put WTKK at 12th place in the overall Boston radio market, and in last place out of the three talk stations listed. Graham draws the lowest numbers out of the talkradio drive slot competition in the market. Sorry, but that don't sound too "high rated" to me...now, please excuse me while I sneeze.
- Considering Jay's share, it's nothing to sneeze at. No one is saying he has importance on par with a Hannity, but it doesn't mean we need to abandon the idea of a balanced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, let's keep things in perspective....Graham is hardly "high rated". The guy's show isn't syndicated, he isn't even listed on the Talk Radio Heavy Hundred (which is the industry standard), and his drive time slot in Boston has lost market share since he took it over from Jay Severen. Speaking of his four books, two were self-published vanity-press tomes, the third actually was picked up by a publisher, but failed to crack 100k sales, and never went into a second printing. His latest is only released in e-distribution. You tout visits on national televised shows, but I'd bet a paycheck that Michael Graham hasn't seen the front of a television camera since the controversy surrounding his firing deminished almost a year ago. I agree with Blcartwright...were it not for the controversies, Graham would hardly merit a mention on wiki. As I said, let's keep things in perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
-
-
-
-
No response, Jeffrey? I posed the question to you a good two weeks ago!
[edit] August 2006 editing
Jeff, you replaced my edit with the prior wording which read "In July of 2005, Graham used Islam and terrorism as the basis for a multi-day discussion on his WMAL talk radio show.[9] This discussion prompted over one hundred complaints to the station and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued action alerts to its subscribers encouraging them to contact WMAL to urge that "Graham be reprimanded for his anti-Islam statements"[10], ultimately prompting WMAL to suspend him." I think this is not factual. The complaints were not about islam and terrorism being discussed. The complaints referred to his specific reference to islam being "a terrorist organization" that is "at war with America." I suggest you read the referenced article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
- I have read it. The wording you continue to revert to infers a very different and very negative point of view, which is why your wording was rejected by the foundation folks in favor of what was proposed - and ultimately added - on top. There's a reason why the wording is as it is in the article, and it's imperitive that you understand that. Meanwhile, please get a login. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, the Post article does not state that the complaints were a result of the "discussion". THey were the result of his use of specific terms "Islam is at war with America" and "Islam is a terrorist organization". Until you can show me where the complaints were a result of the discussion of Islam and terrorism, I will continue to revert it to the first paragraph of the Washington Post article. NPOV cannot superscede the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
- I offer a compromise. Are you willing to change your sentence from "Graham used Islam and terrorism as the basis for a multi-day discussion" to "Graham commented on the perception of linkage between terrorism and Islam as part of a multi-day discussion" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
- How is that different in your mind? Also, please get a login. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it is a more accurate descriptive of what the referenced article states. CAIR was not complaining that islam and terrorism were being discussed, their complaint was as a result of Graham's attempts to tie terrorism to islam as a whole. Likewise, Graham was not suspended and eventually fired for discussing islam and terrorism, he was suspended and fired over how he chose to discuss the topics. Are you willing to accept the compromise wording, or can you offer another solution?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
- Right now, this discussion is about moving off of the compromise wording as come to via different versions being placed here on talk. Thus, especially since the Foundation was involved, we have to be careful as to how we move from there. I don't believe your version is any more accurate than what was agreed to, as a matter of discussion, and Graham was suspended and eventually fired not because of how he chose to word the topics, but because of his lack of desire to back off and his choice to not abide by management's ruling. I am, in fact, willing to accept the compromise wording as it was approved months ago. I don't see your replacement wording as anything but a rephrasing that carries a more POV weight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe it is a more accurate descriptive of what the referenced article states. CAIR was not complaining that islam and terrorism were being discussed, their complaint was as a result of Graham's attempts to tie terrorism to islam as a whole. Likewise, Graham was not suspended and eventually fired for discussing islam and terrorism, he was suspended and fired over how he chose to discuss the topics. Are you willing to accept the compromise wording, or can you offer another solution?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.189.62 (talk • contribs).
- How is that different in your mind? Also, please get a login. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to link number 11, the second washington post article.
"Washington radio station WMAL-AM fired talk show host Michael Graham yesterday after he refused to soften his description of Islam as "a terrorist organization" on the air last month." and "According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews" and that "the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam."....The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington."
Graham was suspended and eventually fired over his comments, not the discussion.
Are you willing to accept the compromise wording I have offered, or can you offer another solution? 151.200.189.62 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're not offering a compromise wording, you're attempting to move off of the compromise wording. The solution, I believe, is to not change it, as the version you're attempting to change was approved by someone speaking for the Foundation. Considering the entire section was blanked following the rewrite of the section (which, BTW, you and I had no real issues with the intro at that point), I see no reason to move from the agreed upon language at this point and run the risk of POV issues. What was there is accurate and should be changed back as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, and request that you send it up for arbitration. 151.200.189.62 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Seeing that you neither accept or offer compromise, I will change it to the wording I have offered pending further decision from wiki authorities. 151.200.189.62
- I don't know what there is to disagree with. We have a compromise wording, and you're attempting to change it. Considering the care we have to take, this should be a no-brainer, but apparently not. Feel free to take it to a request for comment if you insist on dragging this on further, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- noted. 151.200.189.62 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, are you and 68.50.149.214 the same editor? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- So why revert war instead of discussing it like you "noted?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, I refer you to Graham's own comments on this topic which were published in his August 9th 2006 Usual Suspects column (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A16052). In that column, Graham himself stated the following: "One year ago this week, I was fired from my talk radio job by ABC/Disney for saying on the air — and in the pages of this newspaper — that "Islam is a terrorist organization." Graham continued, "That's what I said. ABC ordered me to apologize for it. They insisted I perform community service as a form of penance for it. I told them I would never apologize for telling the truth, and they fired me."
- noted. 151.200.189.62 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what there is to disagree with. We have a compromise wording, and you're attempting to change it. Considering the care we have to take, this should be a no-brainer, but apparently not. Feel free to take it to a request for comment if you insist on dragging this on further, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Graham was let go not for "discussing" islam and terrorism. In his own words, he was suspended because of his comments that "Islam is a terrorist organization", and eventually fired for refusing to apologize and perform penence for saying it. I cannot see any other way to put this....why do you continue to want to sugarcoat it? Now, are you willing to work towards a compromise wording that finds a middle ground using Graham's own account of the controversy? 68.50.149.214 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- You continue to misunderstand the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- you continue to delete valid edits to this page. Please give a reason why this information is not correct so we may discuss it. The information presented above is proper reasoning for the change. I understand that you would prefer to keep your wording, but you must be able to articulate WHY you believe it to NOT be valid. 151.200.189.62 14:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- We must be careful regarding how we present this section. You ignore the approval up above, you opposed the actions of the Foundation. The information does not fit the correct tone we need to reach. I've said it again - I had no issue with the intro as it was written before the Foundation stepped in. As the Foundation had to step in regarding this article, we shouldn't change the tone of the intro just because we feel like it. Please read how we need to handle the tone of these things at WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Flawed or not, these policies have to be followed until they're fixed. And get a login handle, your work and home IPs give the impression of sockpuppetry, and I don't want you to be blocked because someone doesn't understand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- In its current wording, this article does not correctly reflect the that it was Graham's statements and actions that caused the controversy, not the discussion of the topic. I have presented Graham's own words on the matter above as my reasoning for the need for inclusion. Graham's own words on the matter counter the tone of the intro, making the intro read as though it has been pared too far away from neutrality. The statement on the controversy does not currently even contain the reason for the suspension and firing which were Graham's statements that "Islam is a terrorist organization" and "America is at war with Islam". People who registered complaints did not complain about the discussion of the topic of "Islam and Terrorism", they complained about Graham's specific statements and characterization. There is no dispute that Graham made the comments, and there is no dispute that those comments were the reason behind the complaints. There is no dispute that he was fired for disregarding management requests that he apologize and make ammends to those who took offense at his statements. There is no dispute that Graham agrees that he was fired for refusing to renounce those specific statements. I understand your desire for NPOV, however, presentation of the specific statements, or at least acknowledgement of the fact that people complained about Graham's statements, not the discussion of the topic, is necessary for a reader to obtain a true and fair understanding of the issue. It seems that you and I agree on most of this....Can you please work with me to find some means to incorporate the fact that it was Graham's specific statements, not the discussion of "islam and terrorism" that caused the complaints and eventually led to his dismissal? If there is some way to work this into the body instead of the intro I would be satisfied. I would appreciate your help in finding a way to include this that meets your NPOV concerns. I will leave the page as-is while you and I work on this. 151.200.189.62 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the wording explains it accurately. Islam and terrorism were the basis of the multi-day discussion. This is factual and acccurate, and caused complaints from CAIR, as CAIR cited four different direct quotes, as well as more general complaints as seen in current footnote 10. He was suspended based on that - accurate. He was later fired for not following station policy and disregarding the management directives - accurate. It was not any specific statements that got him into hot water, it was his entire discussion that prompted the complaints and ultimately led to his firing based on his handling of the situation. The topic - Islam and terrorism - generated the buzz, and it should stay as approved because the tone is proper and the wording is accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, and to quote from the CAIR link you cited, their position was: "Such hate-filled and inflammatory remarks only serve to encourage those who would turn bigoted views into violent or discriminatory actions against ordinary American Muslims,” said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “Reasoned discussion on issues related to terrorism should be encouraged, but extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric harms our nation's image worldwide and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.” Hooper said CAIR is asking American Muslims and other people of conscience to contact WMAL advertisers and express their concerns about Graham's remarks." Emphasis on EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT GRAHAM'S REMARKS. To sum up, CAIR said they supported and encouraged reasoned discussion on issues related to terrorism, but denounced Graham's specific remarks. Even the title of their release proves my point that their complaint was not about the discussion, but was specific to Graham's remarks, stating "DC Radio Host Says 'Islam is a terrorist organization". I am willing to work with you to reslove this, but I do not feel the current wording provides an accurate or balanced viewpoint. Absolutely no source claims that any complaint was raised over the discussion of the topic. However, all sources do note -- and specifically quote -- Graham's comments as the source of the complaints. Please - let's work together to find common ground on this. - 151.200.189.62 18:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, CAIR was talking about the show. Michael Graham was the host of the show. Your emphasis aside (which is your emphasis, and not the emphasis of CAIR), the current Foundation-vetted version reflects exactly what happened. Nothing here is convincing me that we need to adjust the tone negatively off of the carefully-approved version. Graham runs a talk show, anything said is "his comments." It was the topic of discussion that got him in trouble. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies about your misunderstanding the emphasized text...actually, the text that CAIR did emphasize in the action alert was "Ask WMAL to reprimand Michael Graham for ‘hate-filled' remarks", which also supports my position...thanks for clearing that up. CAIR did not protest the show, Jeff...CAIR did not protest the discussion either. What they protested was Graham's COMMENTS. To quote the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201255.html announcing Graham's dismissal, "According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews" and that "the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam." The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington." Get it, Jeff? The COMMENTS drew complaints, not the DISCUSSION or the topic, or the show...it was the COMMENTS jeff....why are you being so bullheaded about this? Do me a favor...Please quote me the specific text from the CAIR action alert that leads you to believe that CAIR was talking about the show in general or the topic f discussion and NOT the specific comments made by Graham. I am trying to understand your position, but I do not believe your position on this is in any way supported by the cited text. Please quote the part of the CAIR action alert that supports your position. 151.200.189.62 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't misunderstand you, don't worry. What context were the comments in, anonymous one? You continue to misunderstand the issue and rationale here, I don't know what else to tell you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, You are young. I am sure that once you get a few years under your belt you will come to realize that standing blindly and bullheadedly behind your initial position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not the same as being right. I have presented you with my points and asked you to clarify yours. That is how two adults civilly begin a dialogue that can lead towards understanding and compromise. How do you respond? With sophomoric platitudes. With the attitude you display, it is easy to understand why so many wikipedians strongly opposed your bid for promotion. I ask you once again...Please quote me the specific text from the CAIR action alert that leads you to believe that CAIR was complaining about the show in general or the topic of discussion and NOT specific comments that were made by Graham. I am trying to understand your position, but I do not believe your position on this is in any way supported by the cited text. Please quote the part of the CAIR action alert that supports your position. As for your "anonymous one" crack, what difference is to anyone that I do not log in and create a pseudonym? What is the difference between the annonimity of a screenname like badlydrawnjeff and the annonimity of an ip address that bothers you so? Let's act like adults and see if we can make a little progress here, okay? I await your response. 151.200.189.62 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The condescending nature of this comment indicates plenty. The case is the same - the current wording is accurate, as I've demonstrated, and the tone must remina neutral to a fault due to the Foundation intervention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, I ask you for the third time...Please quote me the specific text from the CAIR action alert that leads you to believe that CAIR was complaining about the show in general or the topic of discussion and NOT specific comments that were made by Graham. Above, you stated "CAIR cited four different direct quotes, as well as more general complaints" What were the "more general complaints", Jeff? Can you qoute where in the text these "more general complaints" exist? Comeon, Jeff...Admit it....it's plain as day. CAIR was protesting Graham's comments, not the topic of discussion, and certainly not the show. Now, let's work together to find a compromise wording that meets your NPOV concerns and accurately reflects what actually occurred. 151.200.189.62 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The condescending nature of this comment indicates plenty. The case is the same - the current wording is accurate, as I've demonstrated, and the tone must remina neutral to a fault due to the Foundation intervention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Jeff, You are young. I am sure that once you get a few years under your belt you will come to realize that standing blindly and bullheadedly behind your initial position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not the same as being right. I have presented you with my points and asked you to clarify yours. That is how two adults civilly begin a dialogue that can lead towards understanding and compromise. How do you respond? With sophomoric platitudes. With the attitude you display, it is easy to understand why so many wikipedians strongly opposed your bid for promotion. I ask you once again...Please quote me the specific text from the CAIR action alert that leads you to believe that CAIR was complaining about the show in general or the topic of discussion and NOT specific comments that were made by Graham. I am trying to understand your position, but I do not believe your position on this is in any way supported by the cited text. Please quote the part of the CAIR action alert that supports your position. As for your "anonymous one" crack, what difference is to anyone that I do not log in and create a pseudonym? What is the difference between the annonimity of a screenname like badlydrawnjeff and the annonimity of an ip address that bothers you so? Let's act like adults and see if we can make a little progress here, okay? I await your response. 151.200.189.62 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't misunderstand you, don't worry. What context were the comments in, anonymous one? You continue to misunderstand the issue and rationale here, I don't know what else to tell you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies about your misunderstanding the emphasized text...actually, the text that CAIR did emphasize in the action alert was "Ask WMAL to reprimand Michael Graham for ‘hate-filled' remarks", which also supports my position...thanks for clearing that up. CAIR did not protest the show, Jeff...CAIR did not protest the discussion either. What they protested was Graham's COMMENTS. To quote the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201255.html announcing Graham's dismissal, "According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews" and that "the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam." The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington." Get it, Jeff? The COMMENTS drew complaints, not the DISCUSSION or the topic, or the show...it was the COMMENTS jeff....why are you being so bullheaded about this? Do me a favor...Please quote me the specific text from the CAIR action alert that leads you to believe that CAIR was talking about the show in general or the topic f discussion and NOT the specific comments made by Graham. I am trying to understand your position, but I do not believe your position on this is in any way supported by the cited text. Please quote the part of the CAIR action alert that supports your position. 151.200.189.62 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, CAIR was talking about the show. Michael Graham was the host of the show. Your emphasis aside (which is your emphasis, and not the emphasis of CAIR), the current Foundation-vetted version reflects exactly what happened. Nothing here is convincing me that we need to adjust the tone negatively off of the carefully-approved version. Graham runs a talk show, anything said is "his comments." It was the topic of discussion that got him in trouble. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, and to quote from the CAIR link you cited, their position was: "Such hate-filled and inflammatory remarks only serve to encourage those who would turn bigoted views into violent or discriminatory actions against ordinary American Muslims,” said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “Reasoned discussion on issues related to terrorism should be encouraged, but extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric harms our nation's image worldwide and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.” Hooper said CAIR is asking American Muslims and other people of conscience to contact WMAL advertisers and express their concerns about Graham's remarks." Emphasis on EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT GRAHAM'S REMARKS. To sum up, CAIR said they supported and encouraged reasoned discussion on issues related to terrorism, but denounced Graham's specific remarks. Even the title of their release proves my point that their complaint was not about the discussion, but was specific to Graham's remarks, stating "DC Radio Host Says 'Islam is a terrorist organization". I am willing to work with you to reslove this, but I do not feel the current wording provides an accurate or balanced viewpoint. Absolutely no source claims that any complaint was raised over the discussion of the topic. However, all sources do note -- and specifically quote -- Graham's comments as the source of the complaints. Please - let's work together to find common ground on this. - 151.200.189.62 18:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the wording explains it accurately. Islam and terrorism were the basis of the multi-day discussion. This is factual and acccurate, and caused complaints from CAIR, as CAIR cited four different direct quotes, as well as more general complaints as seen in current footnote 10. He was suspended based on that - accurate. He was later fired for not following station policy and disregarding the management directives - accurate. It was not any specific statements that got him into hot water, it was his entire discussion that prompted the complaints and ultimately led to his firing based on his handling of the situation. The topic - Islam and terrorism - generated the buzz, and it should stay as approved because the tone is proper and the wording is accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- In its current wording, this article does not correctly reflect the that it was Graham's statements and actions that caused the controversy, not the discussion of the topic. I have presented Graham's own words on the matter above as my reasoning for the need for inclusion. Graham's own words on the matter counter the tone of the intro, making the intro read as though it has been pared too far away from neutrality. The statement on the controversy does not currently even contain the reason for the suspension and firing which were Graham's statements that "Islam is a terrorist organization" and "America is at war with Islam". People who registered complaints did not complain about the discussion of the topic of "Islam and Terrorism", they complained about Graham's specific statements and characterization. There is no dispute that Graham made the comments, and there is no dispute that those comments were the reason behind the complaints. There is no dispute that he was fired for disregarding management requests that he apologize and make ammends to those who took offense at his statements. There is no dispute that Graham agrees that he was fired for refusing to renounce those specific statements. I understand your desire for NPOV, however, presentation of the specific statements, or at least acknowledgement of the fact that people complained about Graham's statements, not the discussion of the topic, is necessary for a reader to obtain a true and fair understanding of the issue. It seems that you and I agree on most of this....Can you please work with me to find some means to incorporate the fact that it was Graham's specific statements, not the discussion of "islam and terrorism" that caused the complaints and eventually led to his dismissal? If there is some way to work this into the body instead of the intro I would be satisfied. I would appreciate your help in finding a way to include this that meets your NPOV concerns. I will leave the page as-is while you and I work on this. 151.200.189.62 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- We must be careful regarding how we present this section. You ignore the approval up above, you opposed the actions of the Foundation. The information does not fit the correct tone we need to reach. I've said it again - I had no issue with the intro as it was written before the Foundation stepped in. As the Foundation had to step in regarding this article, we shouldn't change the tone of the intro just because we feel like it. Please read how we need to handle the tone of these things at WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Flawed or not, these policies have to be followed until they're fixed. And get a login handle, your work and home IPs give the impression of sockpuppetry, and I don't want you to be blocked because someone doesn't understand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- you continue to delete valid edits to this page. Please give a reason why this information is not correct so we may discuss it. The information presented above is proper reasoning for the change. I understand that you would prefer to keep your wording, but you must be able to articulate WHY you believe it to NOT be valid. 151.200.189.62 14:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The never-ending battle
I'm not sure I agree with your belief that it meets it. Your prior comments haven't demonstrated a proper concern for it, and I still feel that the tone issues exist with your current edits. With zero attributation and no idea where else you're coming from, not much else can be said, and I can't imagine anything extra coming from it. If you feel that strongly, try an RfC, but I think this is not a good road to head down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think RfC may be a good route, Jeff. Go ahead and request it. No disrespect intended (truthfully), but I feel that you might be a touch too overprotective of the wording of any edits you have crafted, which makes the opportunity for two individusls to reach any consensus without external input challenging and frustrating, if not downright impossible. I concur with the idea for RfC. Speaking of attitudes, in your future interractions on other pages, maybe you should consider putting your own in check before selecting the title "The never-ending battle". First, it strikes me as a touch smarmy and juvenile. Second, edit wars require the active participation of at least two to happen. Before you type something like thst again, I suggest you step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and give yourself a moment to think about your own behavior for a change. 68.50.149.214 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. If you want the RfC, be my guest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
