Talk:Bernie Ward/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ward should be listed as "was a radio talk show host on KGO" not "is a radio talk show host on KGO" because he is not currently on the air and will not return until the completion of his criminal trial, which is expected to last more than a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickywiki (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
While it seems pretty certain that he will be terminated because of the child pornography indictment, he is still on the WGO website and has not been terminated, so he still "is" a radio host until further notice. Bluefield (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV Discussion
Regarding the statement, His aggressive "arguments", rudeness, and uncivil behavior is disquieting for a radio show that is supposed to be focused on God and religious issues. Even on the Sabbath, Ward is known to talk down to callers, and berate those that don't agree with him. Since 2000, talk of "God" is often and repetitively replaced by monologues slamming President Bush.
Seems POV to me, anyone else have some thoughts? --Cubic Hour 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have listened to Mr. Ward, off and on, for over 15 years. While he has a heart of gold, and does some very good charity work, he is known to "throw red meat" during his weeknight program (10 PM - 1 AM). This pattern, whether natural or a choice (to gather ratings), has transfered to his Sunday Morning God Talk program. I have heard many a caller call up and ask perfectly reasonable questions, and after a little give and take, if they don't reply with what Ward considers an appropriate answer, yes, he can become downright mean. Yes, I have heard him talk over, talk down, interrupt, and embarrass callers - over and over again.
- Example: When Mel Gibson produced and directed "The Passion" (of the Christ), people called up to discuss the merits of the movie. Ward was more interested in telling them that "he made the wrong movie", and he was saying it at almost a screaming level. He wouldn't let callers finish their responses. (I don't have any other concrete examples at hand.)
- In contrast, the fill-in host when Ward was on vacation, was polite, warm, and inviting. He discussed scripture, and did not talk down or ridicule callers. It is night and day. This host (I forget his name) would quote the bible, the Koran, and would discuss the issues raised by callers. Yes, I also often hear him discuss politics on Sunday morning, not religion, so that also rings true. It appears that several external articles were linked that cite his uncivil comments towards the Jewish faith - direct examples of his 'uncivil' behavior. He has made 'uncivil' comments towards them on at least two occasions (cited). (I think Ward said that the Jewish religion was 'inferior' to the Christian religion, but I don't have his 'reasoning' at hand.)
- Therefore, I think that labeling his God Talk show "rude", and "uncivil", are both fair, and some might say generous. Windex66 08:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windex66 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Here is a concrete example, which is linked in the Articles section, of how Ward can be uncivil. In the 2001 article where Ward apologized to Jews, the writer wrote:
"During his program on Wednesday, Sept. 12 -- the day after the terror attacks -- Ward compared the tactics of religious fundamentalists to those used by Nazis. Fundamentalists, he said, included "the ultra-Orthodox" in Israel."
This is but one of numerous examples of how Mr. Ward is 'uncivil'. Windex66 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windex66 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
- That's simply an opinion with example offered for comparison. However, Bernie does get rude with some callers in his evening show. His rudeness is average or slightly less than average for talk radio. --2z2z 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to refer to you to the Rush Limbaugh page as a better example of how to deal with an obvious biggot. As it stands, I'm going to go ahead and delete the parts that are blatently libelous later in the day, barring changes. Wikipeida needs to be very careful how it deals with living people. Perhaps you can add back in references to media who feel otherwise, saying something to the effect of "There is controvery ... and some feel... that his behavior is uncivil..." Instead of just "he's uncivil." Also, I'm personally uncomfortable with the "Even on the Sabbath" remark. It implies that everyone should abide by the rules of one particular religious group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubic Hour (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 May 2007
Per your input, offending items removed or toned down. Additional sources and quotes cited, per your suggestions. (I googled more background info that I was familar with.) [I'd like to refer to you to the Rush Limbaugh page as a better example of how to deal with an obvious biggot.] Also, I am not a Rush fan... but why would a bigot have one of his best friends be black? and also marry him? (Clarence Thomas.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.166.145.2 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 May 2007
"Anti-Jewish" statements
If you can't give me an adequate explanation of how these statements are anti-Jewish or suggest a proper re-categoriazation then I'm deleting them.
Ward compared the tactics of religious fundamentalists to those used by Nazis. Fundamentalists, he said, included "the ultra-Orthodox" in Israel. *[12]---I believe he's attacking all religious fundamentalists, including the ultra-orthodox but not singling out Jews.
He also believes that Muslim Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists are the same. *[13] --what does this have to do with Jews?
On CNN with Wolf Blizter (September 30, 2002), discussing the possible military action against Iraq, he asked Ward: "Does the American public actually believe that Saddam Hussein would let the U.S. know the details of its weapons program. People should start waiting for hard evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq or of an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda. They're not going to get any." ---typing the above question in full is a waste of space.
Ward replied: "If they do not get any, then there is no reason to do any of this. This is a war of choice, just as Vietnam was; this is a war of choice.... He [Hussein] has not shown any threat to anyone; he was kept right in his own little box. ... This is exactly the point: The point is that one, we do not know what he has, two, whatever he has presents no direct threat to the United States whatsoever. You know what it presents a threat, though: Israel?" *[14]
--I don't even think this can even be construed as anti-Israeli it's a statement of opinion related to fact. nobody denies that Iraq was a threat to Israel, Israel admits this, but whether it was a threat to the U.S. is debatable. either way you can't conflate criticism of Israel with anti-jewish bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moah (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2007
UPDATE
Because I received no response challenging the relevance of the aforementioned statements regarding what were labeled "Anti-Jewish Statements" I edited them out. If the author wishes to recategorize the statements from a title less inflammatory and completely inaccurate as "Anti-Jewish Statements" then bring it up. I also added a more accurate title to the only statement that could be perceived as offending to Judaism and re-titled it Controversial Statements Regarding Judaism. Upon reading the "Anti-Catholic Statements" section which is inaccurate as well I edited just the title accurately to reflect that the statement is targeted specifically at a Bishop, not Catholics as a whole.
Added back 'Controversial Comments' section, as well as founding TeamPussy
I have toned down Ward's comments regarding the Jewish faith, and added them under the subtitle "Controversial Comments" or such. (Apparently, one person toned it down, and then another deleted these references.)
Saying that Judaism was "inferior to Christianity" was felt to be anti-Semetic in many Jewish quarters, but I didn't use the term anti-Semetic - the reader can draw their own conclusions.
Comparing Muslim Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists is also very controversial. (CF aren't killing thousands of people, they just wear ugly clothes.)
I have seen some smaller editorial comments where editors felt that quoting Ward didn't accurately portray a 'complex person' or position. Indeed, these comments do reflect his off-the-cuff, abrasive style.
I do agree with many of your previous comments toning down some sections. However, it also seems as if someone is really trying to sanitize his biography, taking away most controversial comments or references. Since I need to cite sources, I can't add some of his more controversial comments, as they haven't been covered in the liberal Bay Area (he's on the Left). Cheerio.
(fyi, these days the SF bay area isn't liberal. it's about centrist, based on long term historical average.)
Bush claims to represent TVC Christians, and as commander in chief of the USA's armed forces, one could claim he's killed thousands. Meanwhile, Islamic Fundamentalists claim they are defending their religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations.
abuse toward callers is part of the talk radio/entertainment shock-jockism. 'sh(l)ock talk' has been the winning formula popularized since the late 80's. eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr, 'the savage weiner' (a bernieism for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)), Laura Schlesinger, Howard Stern, Don Imus,,,, .
A"controversial comments" section is appropriate (albeit perpetually messy) for these type of entertainers. 'controversy' is the core of their commercial appeal. 2z2z 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Article cleanup
OK, this article has been quite trashed for a while. Not just the bias, but the incorrect use of WikiMarkup is pretty sad. While I'm trying to edit the article to improve the existing content, I did remove some text from the "GodTalk" section that was pretty biased in it's current form, and unsourced. We have to be very careful with articles on living persons, and I'll not be reserved on deleting obviously troublesome non-compliant text. (People, please sign your comments) Cheers! --NightMonkey 07:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
wikisyntax is a bit mysterious (and tiresome to perfect) unless you're a regular edit/contributor. I'm sure wikiware coders are always working to improve this :-)
here's a cleanup candidate: Scripps Howard Award for Excellence in Journalism i think should be actual name of scripps.foundation award i couldn't find history of a previous name for the award. but an about.com page may be the most popular "source" for the award's mis-naming?2z2z 00:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ok http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/03/10/NEWS15723.dtl , linked from the ever popular http://home.att.net/~qwoodard/KGOHistory.htm, seems to correctly match bernie to the award name "National Journalism Awards". 2z2z 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
easier to ask .. get permission (introductory paragraphs)
wikipedia page claims Grace Hopper is likely originator, and that wording is probably the version of wording that bernie uses. ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#_note-4 2z2z 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
An attribution to Rear Admiral Hopper, and an explanatory context pertaining to survival in a bureaucracy -- both of which have been clarified on-air by the talk-show host himself -- were added to this section in July, but someone has since taken it upon him- or herself to delete these disambiguating items. Can anyone offer me a reason for removing this information that does NOT indicate an intent to suggest falsely that this "enigmatic" signature line betrays an amoral or immoral mind-set on Mr. Ward's part? -- The facts are available, just call +1-415-808-0810 during Bernie's program and he'll confirm them for you himself.
In the very same introductory section, someone who frequents this page also seems intent on keeping the out-of-date self-description "unabashedly liberal" prominent, by deleting the truthful updated statement that since 2006, Mr. Ward has retired from his discussions the terms "Liberal"/"Left" and "Conservative"/"Right", having opted instead to describe himself and various others as "Progressives" and somewhat pejoratively, his traditional opponents as "Regressives". These are by now the well-established vocabulary used on his program. I'm not a mind reader or a psychoanalyst, and I have some mixed feelings about Mr. Ward myself, but in all honesty it appears to me that someone is obsessed with some personal old hobby-horse of their own here, and is willing to keep the article in an obsolete state in order to satisfy their obsession. -->May I ask that the next time this introductory section is updated, it be left alone, unless there is a compelling reason to hide these facts? DThrax 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, after waiting 9+ days for feedback about the immediately preceding comments, I have restored the essentials of my former changes. I wish to reiterate here, and for my part, I cannot do so strongly enough, that I mean nobody any offense in making these updates; and that while these statements (pertaining as they do to a radio program) are hard to support from written/printed sources, they do accurately reflect frequent clear statements made by Mr. Ward on his radio program. DThrax 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
two linked pages moved or gone
'catholic league catalyst' pages (wikiped out-links 14/15 and 16) are currently 404's or something like that2z2z 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I used the Internet Archive to pull up the now-gone web-pages for referencing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)