Talk:Michael Savage (commentator)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Racist?

Does it seem like he's racist to all non-white people specifically black and Latino people? Recently his "rap" song made it seem like all black people were idiots.Runescape rocks 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Response: It seems that the "rap" segment was more of a comment on the recent "rap generation" which is composed of people of many different skin colors. He seems concerned that if this is the best lyrical content that such artist can put out our future is in serious question. I would also remind you that not all rappers are black or Latino.


Can't we make some comment about this guy being a racist.....he's made 1000's of racist comments —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.15.142.92 (talk • contribs) .

If you wish to add such claims, vandalizing the article is not a good way to go about it. Please do not add nonsense again in the future. And for your information, the article already has text indicating that Savage has been called a racist. You could have at least done a text search. Kasreyn 07:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bio

Michael Savage was born an immigrant's son in the Bronx. There are endless stories about his childhood, so I won't bother even trying to tell them. That's all I can think of.

"Ferlinghetti views Weiner's reincarnation as Michael Savage as 'total opportunism,' the crowning achievement of someone who was 'always looking to make a fast buck' and 'always trying to think up new schemes to get famous.' " because it wasn't sourced

-mrdthree

OK, sounds good. —Kenyon (t·c) 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to move the previous statement to the criticisms section. Also I changed the number of years from two to four in the statement: "When he was not granted an interview due to lack of qualifications--less than four years of experience in radio." This is consistent with the statement in the next section that he began as a substitute host in 1992. -mrdthree

Response: So what if he is racist, its a free country, he has the right to be racist

Radio

Actually, I remember him starting on KGO radio as a substitute host, before getting his own show on KSFO.


Savage made his debut on March 21, 1994. I can't prove that, but he did celebrate twelve years in radio on March 21, 2006. He has also stated that March 21, 1994 was his debut date and that he was a fill-in for the "overnight" "hate whitey" "hate America" guy. He is clearly referring to Ray Taliaferro, who has been the overnight host on KGO for years. Maybe somebody can find an article on this. Politician818 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Education

I could have sworn that I heard him talk about how he had a Ph.D. in anthropology. What the hell?

Can you supply citations for him being a noted epidemiology and nutrition expert? -- The Anome

Google for - "Michael Savage" epidemiology - brings up:
http://www.radioprogramrecorder.com/Savage/SavageGuide.htm
Quote: He has Master's degree in medical botany and one in medical anthropology as well as a Ph.D. in Epidemiology and Nutrition Science.
Evercat 13:33 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

He took the introductory graduate level epidemiology course (one semester) at UC Berkeley at the same time that I did. He went on to take an interdisciplinary Ph.D. with professors from epidemiology and nutrition science on his committee, but that's a far cry from being a "noted epidemiology expert." I believe that the research from his Berkeley Ph.D. consisted of his plant collecting trips to either Tonga or Fiji. I'm sure that you could order copies of his dissertation somewhere.

This seems to be a bit Anti-POV. I'd try and fix it myself, but I don't like the guy either. Cvaneg 20:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you could explain what makes you think that facts about his college degrees are NPOV, it would be greatly appreciated. (You typed Anti-POV. I'm guessing you meant Anti-NPOV.) --RW 00:10, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

The UCBerkeley alumni website (http://cal.berkeley.edu) states perfectly clearly that Michael Alan Weiner got a PhD in Health & Medicine Science in 1978. Anybody who is a Berkeley alumni or is otherwise affiliated with Berkeley can check the alumni website and see for themselves. Berkeley offers no degree in "nutritional ethnomedicine". I think that the Berkeley website is far and away the most definitive authority on what degrees that Weiner (Savage) has Sakhalinrf

MSNBC firing

The call that led to Savage being fired from MSNBC was a prank call by some clown who calls himself "East Coast Bob." He is known for trolling television and radio talk shows. I doubt that "East Coast Bob" is actually gay. I am therefore updating the article to reflect this.

Problems with the quotes

Was a consensus now made to remove the quotes? If so, hoorah! Most of them were taken way out of context anyway. Equinox137 4 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Where are the links which prove the accuracy of the quotes? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 07:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The quotes section is malformed in comparison to the same type of section at Ann Coulter. There are no links. Is someone trying to pull a fast one by omitting links? It has been over ten days, and I am still waiting for an answer.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 23:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the quotes are taken out of context. A job of editors to clear that up though. You can make everyone look like the devil this way! Keep up the good propaganda!

Yeah, Quotes 7, 8, and 9 are taken way out of context. I would appreciate it if someone could give these quotes a bit more context and provide web sources for the quotes. --RW 05:55, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Notice of intent to delete quotes 09.19.04

If my above inquiry about missing quote links continues to go unanswered, I will be unable to dialogue prior to making edits to the quotes section. As it stands now, I am planning to delete most (or all) quotes which have no links. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 23:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sources are cited at the bottom. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:08, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The "sources" cited are not links and in that regard differ from every other Wiki article which I've edited or read which had quotes. Please support this method as being valid here, or else I still intend to delete the quotes. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 01:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are perfectly valid sources that are not available on the internet. Books, for example. Libraries are full of them. This is simply not a valid reason to delete something, and I object to deleting anything on that invalid basis. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh, that's odd. Quite frequently, both Gamaliel and Neutrality have made clear that the only references they accept are actual links to web sources which they consider valid. All of a sudden they've changed their minds? I'll have to remember this and hold them both to this new standard next time they complain to me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 01:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Untrue. Please show me where I claimed that non-web sources were unacceptable. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was that only those actual links which I have used as a reference which you guys consider valid escape your wrath. Perhaps I could have said that more clearly. It is true that I have not tried to use non-web references, so, of couse, we have not locked horns on that -yet. Even so, it's interesting to see that you have taken the position that such non-web references are ok. I'll have to start perusing my bookshelf more carefully for tidbits which make interesting anecdotal highlights. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 01:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. Allow me to be clearer as well. I think that it is acceptable to object to the validity of a questionable source. I do not think that it is acceptable to object to a source merely because it is not web-accessable. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Cite sources. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Leave quotes alone. Instead balance them out with POSITIVE quotes, which, granted, may be hard to find (Personally I think that he makes conservatives such as me look bad.) but should be included for NPOV balance. Alkivar 04:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar, can you post book and page number of that quote you changed? Thanks :) --kizzle 05:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I didnt change the quote. I changed the reference TARGET . The poster had Red Diaper Doper Baby as a reference to Jews when in fact it is a reference to liberals in general. Read the context in any of his books, and you'll see. Alkivar 02:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, I know what you mean. I was just curious to read for my own sake what he wrote. If you know the page #, it would speed my search up. :) --kizzle 06:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Another notice of intent to delete quotes

If valid web links are not provided for these sources, and if these negative quotes are not balanced out with positive quotes, then I will delete the quotes section as it clearly violates NPOV rules. The deadline is January 25, 2005. --RW 00:48, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You don't get to set deadlines. If you think this article needs "positive" quotes, then find some, and insert them yourself. If you think that particular quotes should go for whatever reason, then we can discuss that here. As noted above, the lack of a weblink is not a valid reason to delete a quote or fact. Non-web sources are perfectly valid and acceptable sources. Gamaliel 01:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good, we have some web links for those quotes now, thanks to whomever added those. Now we have to find a site that has some positive quotes to balance it out. Maybe some quotes about how much he likes puppies. (Actually, I'd be satisfied if the quotes were just put in a larger, less damning context.) --RW 00:05, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

I don't unerstand what the issue is here. Do you people not believe that he would say those things? And if he's said them, what need is there to "balance them out with positive quotes"? Those ones do a very good job showing what kind of person he is.

Easy with the attacks on Savage. This shows right here that it is a POV from you. There are plenty of good wholesome pro-America and God quotes from Savage, including pro gays (He has gay friends, and most gays like him and listen to his show.), women, and many other people. Just because he has the GUTS to call people on the carpet and not kiss up to them doesn't give you the right to make POV quotes. Savage never attacks immigrants, just illegal ones who disrespect America. Is something so wrong with that, or are we supposed to be abused?

Tsunami quotes

  • Why is the last quote dated January 32, 2001? That's three years before the tsunami. Was it a different tsunami? Saopaulo1
There is no such thing as January 32. It was a mistake. It is from this past tsunami.  ALKIVAR™ 10:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice of intent to delete quotes June 12, 2005

  • Why aren't these all in wikiquote?

Minor Edit

  • Header of 2nd Quote amended from "On MSNBC which led to his firing:" to "Spoken on MSNBC which led to his firing:" I felt that the former header gave an unintended impression that he was talking about MSNBC. Feel free to amend as necessary.
  • Subsequently amended to read: "Spoken on MSNBC, thus prompting his firing:" I felt that this was an improvement. Once again, please feel free to amend as necessary.

Problems with external links

These links don't provide a NPOV. jm51 01:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. You can use ~~~~ to show name and date. Alkivar 01:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also these links are balanced. Some are positive. Some are negative. You're gonna have one HELL of a hard time finding any sites other than Mike's homepage that show him in a positive light. Alkivar 01:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Seven of nine show Savage in a negative light. One is neutral. The other is Savage's home page. jm51 01:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do a Google for yourself on Michael Savage. You get his homepage (positive) and no other positives in the first forty results. I personally like the guy, but even I admit that there ain't a whole lot of positive shit about the guy. Alkivar 02:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Seven of nine is not a NPOV. Maybe they should be deleted or put in a rebuttal section, like on Michael Moore's page.
I think that you're missing my point. There WOULD be others to balance it if I could FIND any. Rather than simply debating POV with me, how about you HELP me balance it?
The same goes for the quotes section also listed as NPOV. If I could find any decent neutral or positive quotes/ coverage to balance it, it would already be on there. Rather than removing 60% of the page content (and risk its shot at our <sarcasm> wonderfully designed </sarcasm> VfD system), I feel that it's better to simply leave what's there to remain. From a simple glance, one should KNOW that it's POV. Alkivar 06:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
http://www.thesavagenation.com/ http://www.geocities.com/thesavagenation/savageunderground.html How are those for a start? quotes: "I guess people love my show because of my hard edge combined with humor and education." "Those who listen to me say they hear a bit of Plato, Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, Moses, Jesus, and Frankenstein. I pull many of my life experiences, including that of father, son, husband, brother, ice cream factory worker, busboy, lifeguard, writer, scientist, and my huge library of books." -- michaelsavage.com How are those for a start?
really good, thanks thesavagenation.com was linked before. I think that it probably got deleted in one of the defacements. Nope, it was deleted as obvious advertising spam. Site is nothing but click thru banners for amazon.com.Alkivar 01:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is ridiculous. Almost any website for a media personality may have a few links connected with it. Maybe you're anti-capitalist, but that in no way can justify removing the main link. There are plenty of stories, links to 3rd party news sources as well as biographical info. on Savage and his political philosophies. Wikipedia should be about letting people decide for themselves, but it seems you want to deny them that opportunity and only allow others to see Savage through the Wiki filter.

I don't know about Rammstein, but I've never heard of Metallica or Motley Crue being liberal or socialist.

I think that Lars Ulson of Metallica spoke out against the war in Iraq. As for Rammstein, they like to do homosexual acts on stage, which wouldn't agree with Savage's beliefs. 69.42.5.198 02:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Claim to have coined Islamofascism

I've put together a timeline of claims of coining the term Islamofascism: User:Chalst/islamofascism. Michael Savage has repeatedly claimed to have coined the term. When did he first use it? I have a partly documented usage from Oct. 2002, but I guess that he used the term earlier. Is anyone able to tell me when first? Thanks ---- Charles Stewart 13:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was used over a decade earlier by Malise Ruthven (in an article published in The Independent of 8 September 1990. --Dannyno 14:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he no longer claims to have coined "Islamofascist," although he still maintains that he coined or popularized "compassionate conservative." -mrdthree

Savage still claims that he coined or at least popularized the term "Islamofascist."

NPOV edits April 28, 2005

I could not find any solid proof that "Islamofascism" was coined by Christopher Hitchens. To quote the reference: "which was coined, I believe, by Christopher Hitchens" Speculation does not belong in a Wikipedia article.


I also could not find any proof that "compassionate conservatism" was coined by Marvin Olasky. The earliest article which I could find relating the two was dated 2000. Savage coined the term in 1994.

69.42.5.52 01:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a link to Christopher Hitchens or his publications? Or that of Marvin Olasky? I would check those links out, so please help me out people! This is common in the talk radio industry to adopt catch phrases and words to describe a political issue or debate. --Mike D 26 10:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Metallica conservative leanings?

There is a problem with this statement:

"Their lead guitarist Kirk Hammett has called into Savage's show to say 'We support what you're doing,' and James Hetfield, Metallica's lead singer, reportedly despises liberals [6]."

Neither of those has been confirmed independently. I actually heard the show the day when Hammett called in to say that he supports what Savage is doing. The call was very awkward, and the total length was maybe thirty seconds at most. Later Savage conceded that he didn't really know that that was even Kirk Hammett.

More than likely it was just a Metallica fan listening to the show making a prank call. Although I'll personally admit that it did sound quite a bit like Kirk Hammett, given the awkwarndess of the call and the "surprise" nature of it, I would hold it with a bit of speculation. Someone may consider deleting it.

24.75.129.14 5 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

I personally think that the members of Metallica are against war. If you hear their early songs such as "One," you will see that they are against war and how it affects people. Lars Ulrich did in fact speak out against the war, so I doubt they support what Savage is doing. Look up some old Metallica lyrics dealing with war. You will see that they are pretty much opposed to it. As for Rammstein, the vocalist has stated that they do not have political beliefs, though they seem to lean left. Look at the lyrics to the song "Amerika," and you will see that they are kinda poking fun at America and American culture. I think this should be looked into.

      • CLARIFICATION: While all that may very well be true, James Hetfield has voiced conservative beliefs, such as being anti-gun control and pro-life. I know for a definite fact that Lars Ulrich and Kirk Hammett are very liberal, but the jury is still out on Hetfield. Just because he wrote anti-war lyrics fifteen to twenty years ago doesn't mean anything today. Hetfield has expressed numerous times that he's changed dramatically over the years, and he has also said how much he and Ulrich differ on many issues and philosophies. In fact, so much so that Lars and James are infamous for their neverending heated arguments that almost broke up Metallica for good. These arguments, surprisingly, have little to do with music but simply life in general. This fact is well documented in the documentaries A Year and a Half in the Life of Metallica and Some Kind of Monster.
From what I know on pop musicians and their political leanings, Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi and Steven Tyler are highly appealing to some neo-Conservative fans. However, these music artists claimed themselves as liberals until recently on some Newsweek articles. I wish to collect enough verifiable articles, but Newsweek web site requires me to sign for a account that's not free. So far, Mike Savage has interviewed only with the Metallica band on their right-wing/neo-conservative fan base. --Mike D 26 11:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I find using the fact that Hammet said something about politics a decade ago as reason to cast doubt as to the identify of the person calling to support the show flimsy reasoning. First of all, Hammet is not a politician and so not subject to the "You can't change your mind or you're a waffler" rule of American politics. Aside from that, <pov>Metallica are a bunch of garden tools</pov>, at least as far as their views on social matters are concerned. But I digress.

I'm going to remove the "speculation and original research" (god, I hate when people parrot that babble, but here I am....) and remove everything. Suffice it to say that until Hammet confirms or denies this, the nature of the call is ambiguous.Yeago 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bumper Music

Thanks to whomever added in the bumper music track ID's. I've been trying to identify those tracks for a while.

Mixx941 22:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Norbert Wiener?

Hi. Some reviewer on Amazon says that Michael Weiner is the grandson of Norbert Weiner. It seems incorrect, since I can't see Norbert's descendants being that nuts. He had two daughters, so the name Weiner should have been erased by marriage; but he does look awfully similar. Does anyone know?

If you are going to discuss people with Germanic surnames, you will have to pay diligent attent to the position of the "e"s and the "i"s. Norbert Wiener's name is derived from the city of Wien (Vienna) in Austria. Michael Weiner's name is derived from the alcoholic beverage that is made from grapes.Lestrade 18:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

How do we deal with the following situation on Wikipedia?

Hello all. I'm wondering how we would handle the case where a public figure like Savage makes a demonstrably false statement, but the fact that he made the statement is not demonstrable. Even though millions may have heard the statement, there is no "source" that anyone can point to for the statement unless someone has a tape of the show.

As an example, Savage had a caller on September 12, 13, or 14 (?), 2005 who mentioned Ayn Rand. Savage told the caller that Rand was from Russia and that Ayn Rand wasn't even her real name (all true, but kind of funny since Savage is a Russian Jew like Rand and Savage isn't his real name). Anyway, he went on to say that Rand was a socialist. This is like claiming that Jesus was an athiest!

I don't think that this article accurately captures an important aspect of Savage's show, namely its style. He commonly makes contra-factual statements like the one above and will cut off callers when it becomes apparent that they are more informed or more educated than he is. To add this to the article would not be POV because it's an objectively demonstrable fact, but it's only demonstrable if one happens to have tapes of a lot of his shows. That's why I'm bringing up here instead of editing the article. capitalist 09:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I can also attest to having heard that particular show where Savage incorrectly asserts that Rand is socialist, presumably because she was born in a country under the veil of communism/socialism. Frankly I was shocked. I am only incidentally familiar with Rand, but I do recall that she was an objectivist, which I believe is diametrically opposed to communism/socialism.

--208.190.154.22 19:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm an Objectivist myself, which is why that particular comment caught my attention, but Savage does this sort of thing frequently in regard to a variety of different topics. I actually enjoy listening to him rant for the most part, but his factual errors can be annoying. I'm sure that there are other on-air personalities who do similar things, and I'm wondering how that kind of thing is addressed on Wikipedia. If I were to add something to this article that says "Savage freqently makes false claims and factual errors during the course of his show and will cut off callers who try to correct him," it would be attacked as POV because there is no "reference" for this statement. capitalist 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
If you could source another site that deals with Savage's factual inaccuracies, post it. Otherwise it's original research.


Taking how he exaggerates in a cultural reference (and having been raised Jewish, and still am Jewish), one of the things you need to understand is exaggeration. When he says she's a socialist, she *might* be in his mind a socialist. But, if you're raised in a Jewish home, where your parents are East Coast Jews, you'd know that she might *not* be a socialist, but your dad just *thinks* she is. It's the same thing with grandma, for instance, saying that you're going to giver her a "heart attack". I realize that cultural references aren't really verifiable, but there are cultural instances (for instance in African American culture and gay culture) which are not particularly verifiable, yet are something that is implicitly understood by other members of the culture.

Mike Savage, if he's Jewish in any way, serves as an outlit for comedy and ethnic "self-humor" on his radio program. Savage plays down the stereotype of Jewish people had politically leaned to the left, but regular listeners knew well he's a conservative commentator. Savage plays the fool to draw in the ratings and demonstrates the stupidity of ethnic and religious stereotypes. Because one is Jewish don't make him/her more likely to adhere in liberal and Democrat policies, but the majority of American Jews vote as Democrats. Mike Savage knows this too well and made him worried, but he's not rejected his Jewish roots over their political preferences. His autobiography the Savage Nation discusses the impact of liberal political activism on the American Jewish community throughout history. But Savage warns his "fellow" Jewish people that liberalism sold them out and the omnipresent far-left opposes the support of Israel, Savage knows that if this was clearly proven, in Savage's opinion can make the majority of Jewish voters turn away from the Democrats and take sides with the Bush administration. He's not a "self-hating" Jew like what some people believe, Mike Savage wants to influence all Americans, including his own ethno-religious group, to vote on the right. --Mike D 26 11:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Wikipedia

Wikipedia was mentioned about halfway through the first hour (around 15:34 PDT, UTC-7) of Michael Savage's September 29th broadcast as a source for information on Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

Wikipedia bio of Michael savage was mentioned on the show sometime in Feb. 2006. General response to bio was imbalanced but not outrageous.

Wikipedia bio was mentioned week of July 23rd on The Savage Nation. He called out many factual inaccuracies including his place of birth (bronx or brooklyn), radio network (Clear Channel) and a couple other things. A caller informed him that he could have staffers help correct his wiki. Savage is against Wikipedia in it's current form.

Homoerotic?

Removed word "homoerotic" from phrase "one of those letters describes a homoerotic encounter with a young Fijian man" I read the link to the letter and felt the label of homoerotic was far-reaching. In many cultures outside the United States and the western world men hold hands, such as in Africa and Polynesia. It is not considered homosexual behavior, hence the term "When in Rome do as the Romans do."

Perhaps that's what is getting Savage into trouble (image of McDowell as Caligula needed here). MotherFunctor 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I created this section to stop the deletion war which I was not a part of. The controversial paragraph mentioning Allen Ginsberg belonged in an uncreated criticism section but was in Biography and Education. It was clearly out of place and so I created the controversy section and that is where it now is. The paragraph should be safer from deletion being put there. Ironman55 23:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I restored the disputed paragraph because it belongs in the proper chronological section of his biography and I disagree that it was out of place there. We shouldn't move it because of anon vandalism nor should we dump anything that could be percieved as negative about a subject of an article into one section near the bottom. Other than the Ferlinghetti quote, I don't see that paragraph as negative or controversial, but I guess Savage partisans can't bear the thought that he might be gay. Gamaliel 06:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How's Savage anti-semetic? The guy gave an really honest coverage of the mainstream Religious Zionist view of Gush Katif--in my readings and hearings of Savage, he's been very supportive of religious Jews and very critical of non-religious Jews--he has also cut off a Nazi from his radio show for being non-supportive of Israel and has called for Xians all over to support the Israeli state. He may be (note the "may be"; I'm not saying he is or isn't.) a little extremist, but I don't think he's anti-semitic. yodamace1

I agree. I remember him criticizing Hollywood for supporting what he saw as a detestable portrayal of Jews in the movie Meet the Fockers, where the family of one of the central roles, played by Ben Stiller, were sex-crazed perverts. Savage was very angry at this analogy. Salva 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The original change was correct, so i put it back in a "Controversy" section. The paragraph doesn't belong in the biography section because it's clearly disputed. The bio section should simply list the events of the person's life that were done publicly and are beyond dispute (ie birth place/year, education, family, career stages, etc.).


I think the Ferlenghetti statement is a criticism, not a biographical statement. At best it is psychologizing. It should be moved to the criticism section

The "meet the fockers" movie is tongue-in-cheek humor, but qualifies as politically incorrect to some who object to this type of humor. So has the political humor of Mike Savage and in many radio segments, he plays the "Jew" based on some anti-Semitic canards he may been familiar with. Repeatedly, Savage attacks Nazism and fascism as unfit ideologies and he's certainly not the only one. He wrote on his opposition to the far-right and connections with fascism in his autobiography. Savage warns the "danger" of Socialism could bring forth a repeat of the rise and advent of the Nazis. Other conservative commentators from Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck to Bill O'Reilly have compared Nazism with socialism, in which Savage and his colleagues highly opposed, and gone as far to trace the roots of National Socialism to occultism, paganism and the believe in "space brothers" or UFOs, the high usage of drugs in the personal lives of prominent Nazis and environmentalism gone to the extremes. Again, with historic research and documentation, the conservative radio agenda dispises not glorifies Nazism. It's like to call a Liberal or socialist a "Communist" or "soviet agent", also are disparaging terms and politically an attack motive. Controversial, but at times I am convinced, the point Mike Savage made is he's not an anti-Semite, not a Nazi admirer and not a fascist in practice, as much he calls Nazism a whole array of names on his radio show. He justifies his claims of Socialism and Nazism, with his own words: "I think, therefore, I cannot be a Socialist". --Mike D 26 11:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is way too negative

Are you kidding me? This is in no way an unbiased look at michael savage. When i got to the "criticism" section i laughed because i just read so much of it. lol

The article needs a major overhaul and maybe some protection from those who have obviously infiltrated it.


Is there anything in particular that you find to be biased? I see nothing of obvious bias. Trilemma 22:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, just too many to recount. For one, someone had put up a quote from Savage's fiction about the character questioning his sexuality and subduing the urges like hiding under the deck of a ship while it's storming above. They attributed that quote to Savage himself (lol wow), so i deleted it.

Wikipedia is not the place for an offended liberal. They have no concern for honesty.

Who wants specifics? Trilemma if you need to have the specifics on the unbiased nature of this liberal leaning article pointed out to you, then you really do have a problem. You cannot read one paragraph without having to be referred to something "evil" about Savage. But since you want specifics, here are a few:
1. The "Articles" section at the end of the Savage are all articles that attack Savage, and some attack him brutally.
A. Some of the articles even claim Savage is anti-Semetic. This is a scream! Anyone who listens to his show would clearly see that he is the biggest supporter of Israel there is. He advocates "taking the hand cuffs off Israel" in order to allow them unleash on the Middle Eastern neighbors. The only time he speaks negatively about Jews is when he believes that a Jewish poilitician advocates a position that is dangerous for Israel.
2. I had to remove a direct, uncited attack on Savage regarding his employment while he earned his PhD (playing underground erotic videos)
3. Most Wiki articles leave the controversies to sections outside the "Biogrpahy and Education" section; this one obviously does not. The ideas about him swimming naked with a homosexual should be removed and incorporated into the controversy section. Therefore I have removed the statements about this until an interested liberal wants to effectively incorporate it into a section about controversies.
4. This article covers Savage's opposition almost religiously yet there is very little in depth discussion about Savage's political views. Obviously, out of those ten million listeners, a large percentage of them listen because of his political views. The section of this article that highlights the ideas he advocates has been conveniently neglected as the article currently stands. (Gaytan 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Mike Savage jeers anyone of the Jewish religion or background who objects to the right of Israel's existence. That's all, he will verbally attack them on his radio show. Also he will blast any liberal and radical activist (i.e. Cindy Sheehan for her anti-war protests, including the fact Iraq under Saddam Hussein threatened Israel) as an open hatemonger of the Jewish people (to diametrically oppose Israel, Zionism and the Jewish spirit, even to Mike Savage, would qualify as anti-Semitism to himself). It's an oddity for radio talk hosts to intermerge pro-Israel views and criticism of Jewish politicans at the same time. Also to note Savage's infamous comments on Fijian men and the segment when he "wished AIDS" on a gay caller, I doubt really if Savage has not liked homosexuals or he's shouting things out of jest (to mean, for fun and shock value) for high ratings. Anyways, one can oppose the homosexual lifestyle on personal grounds, without actual hatred for the person who's homosexual (the saying "Hate the sin, but love the sinner). Savage only expresses he's not an ally to the gay rights movement, then he never promoted his listeners or his own view harming any person who is openly gay. The article needs to expend and cover what Savage believes in, his political stance on other controversial issues like the war on Iraq he truly supports, and what he advocates in order to create or take part in political causes. --Mike D 26 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Update on Savage's 2008 predictions

On May 4, 2005, Savage stated that he believed Laura Bush was the only chance for the Republican Party if Hillary Clinton ran for president.

He just said tonight on his show that Hillary has lost her standing chance with the Democratic party and that John Kerry will likely be the greater contender for the primaries. I also heard him say shortly thereafter that there is presently no Republican candidate that would be able to defeat him because Kerry has learned from his 2004 mistakes. Salva 03:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

October 10th, 2005

I removed:

On the October 10th, 2005 broadcast of his show, Savage spoke to a caller, "Tom from San Diego," and became venomously angry when the caller claimed that Savage was "the biggest hypocrite in the world" because he had never actually been in the military. After some back-and-forth, Savage ultimately yelled "Give me your address and phone-number so I can come fight with you!" The caller simply replied by telling Savage that he was "all talk." Savage then booted him from the show and said that Tom was never to be accepted again onto the Savage Nation talk show.

Which appeared at the end of the MSNBC section. Obviously this makes no sense for the outburst to be under that MSNBC heading and really doesn't fit into the article currently unless someone wants to create a section highlighting various outbursts by Mr. Savage. Matt Yohe 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitism?

"including Anti-Semitism, which is surprising due to his Jewish parentage"

I have been listening to Michael Savage for some time now and now where is he ever anti-semetic, if you refer to Jewish people. If anything Savage talks about Jews being a superior chosen race, so I'm going to take this statement out until someone comes up with more proof.Silverbackman0076 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There ya go. FYI, in case I am wrong, you're probably going to be seen as meatpuppet of Silverback due to your political beliefs and user name. Karmafist 03:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I happen to have listened to one of his shows about the time that "Meet The Fockers" came out and he was openly slandering the actors who were supposed to be representing jews (ie. ben stiller, and dustin hoffman) because they were openly insulting them with inuendo and the like. i see this as proof that savage is anything but Anti-semetic, but i would not go so far as claiming that Savage "talks about Jews being a superior chosen race." Mfarquhar 04:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist I don't understand what you are saying but I am not a big fan of Savage (although he is interesting to listen to from time to time). I know for a fact he never talks of anti-semitism, the exact opposite. Mfarquhar he was not making fun of jews if you listened carefully enough, he was trying to speak against anti-semetism. If you have never heard Savage talk about jews being the chosen people you obviously know nothing about Savage. Taking out anti-semetism until real proof comes up. By the way the site that was posted makes no sense. Making fun of someone doesn't make you a racist unless you condem someone because of their race. Those sources and are bias and do not make sense.Silverbackman0076 07:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've listened to Savage for years and it's clear that the guy has a Jewish problem. He almost never acknowledges his Jewish background, despite hundreds of opportunities to do so, where it would be very relevant to the discussion. Here's a guy who bares so much of his personal life, yet never owns up to his own Jewish identity, or that of his parents - weird. In contrast, when talking about the liberals he hates, he almost always emphasizes THEIR Jewishness - only he does it in classic anti-semitic code - talking about their background in Brooklyn, talking about Madeline Albright's "brisket," mentioning NYU Law School, etc.. I've heard him cross the line many times - he would say things like, "Just listen to these senators' names who are the worst offenders: Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold." When he rails against the Supreme Court, it's always the Jewish justices (Ginsburg, Breyer) that he mentions. Kennedy and Souter are hardly ever mentioned. What's his point? That liberal Jews, IN PARTICULAR, are ruining our country. The animus he has towards liberal Jews has no bounds, apparently. Yes, he supported the settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, so it's clear that he supports some Jews, but only those who adhere to an extreme right-wing version of Zionism. (For him, Ariel Sharon is a traitor to the Jewish people!) So, it kind of makes sense that he would have a special hatred for Liberal Jews, but when he constantly emphasizes the New York Jewish background of his enemies in his talk-show, where the majority of listeners are not Jewish, he's doing a lot to promote anti-Jewish attitudes and stereotypes. In a way, he's really just the flip-side of the typical far left ideologue of Jewish background who can't stop singling out Israel as the source of all evil in the world. Like the intro says, there's certainly a lot of psychological nudity exposed on his show, and his deep conflicts over his Jewish identity are always bubbling to the surface. (gedawei, 11-17-05)

So, to me gedawei's comments don't describe anti-semitism but rather a dislike for liberals(jews or otherwise) (pluck, 11-18-05)

Also, just because he hardly acknowledges his heritage doesn't mean he's anti-jew. There are lots of people who never mention their heritage for a variety of reasons. -- 2nd Piston Honda 17:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Savage is no anti-Semite. Just listen to the remarks he makes on his show. He attacks the liberal Jews because he believes that that advocate policies that will remove Israel from the map. He believes in saving Israel. This is rediculous to even argue this point. Savage does not understand how any Jew can support ideas that will lead to the destruction of Israel, just like he doesn't understand how liberals in America support policies that will erode America's border, language, and culture. So he just tags it as "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". Therefore I have removed the linnks to articles that claim Savage is an anti-Semite. Whoever chooses to put them back up will need to create some kind of section in the article to discuss this debate. Since most of us are agreed that he clearly is no anti-Semite, then there is no need to add this section to the article. Let one of the liberals add it. If they do, then we will just have to come up with a huge list of pro-Semite quotes made by him. Personally, I think it's a waste of energy since the the proof is heavily on the side Savage being a pro-Semite. (Gaytan 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Yea I agree. Although I disagree with Savage on many issues, there is no way this guy is an anti-semite! In fact he is obsessed with Jews and seems in love with the Jewish race. He may even believe that superstition that they are "God's chosen people". Zachorious 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been listening to him for years, back when he was on during the night. I have heard him criticize liberal Jews, but he criticizes liberals in general. Does this make him an anti-Semite? He was born and raised Jewish, but according to him he's a Universalist. I also don't see any compelling argument that he considers Jews to be a "superior" race.

Need a revert here

"On the January 19, 2006 broadcast of his radio show, he called for the internment of roughly 380,000 American citizens for the length of the war on terrorism, comparing the action to measures taken by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. He included Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and all non citizen Muslims in his list of those to arrest." This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He said we should go to every mosque and ask if there are any non-americans there and see if they're suspicious, and only then should we put them in internment camps. The number provided (380,000) was when he was comparing how many were interned in WWII and used the population growth as a model for what that number should be today. It was in no way a definitive statement on how many he thinks should be interned, and therefore is not even important enough to mention. Lastly, i don't think he called for Hillary, Howard Dean etc. to be interned, and even if he did, he always makes exaggerational statements to be half humorous, half truth. This section needs to be fixed. -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly sure he did call for various prominent democrats to be interned. But, it was an over-the-top half-humorous comment relating to his belief that the democratic party is the enemy of American way of life, apple pie and baseball. ---J.Smith 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


On another note, does the section even need to be there? Are we going to start listing everything he says? -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The goal is to elaborate on his "Personal views and criticism", as the heading suggests, and to provide illustrations of both. We're not adding copious amounts of information, but merely specific examples. Most radio personalities like Savage have similar sections. Trilemma 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Such a section is a good idea, but it should be brief. Brevity is the soul of a good encyclopedia. ---J.Smith 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Savage Name

Savage has often cited Aldous Huxley as one of his favorite authors. The main character of Huxley's "Brave New World" is a man called "The Savage" who awakens after a hundred-year coma to find that the world he knew has disappeared, replaced by a socialistic beehive where expediency rules. The Savage is prone to rant at the inhabitants of the Brave New World, because to him they are all insane. Though Savage -- the talk show host -- has never acknowledged it, it seems that "Brave New World" is the likely source of his stage name. If it isn't, it's an interesting coincidence.

Unfortunately to include this would be speculation and non-encyclopedic in nature. HOWEVER, if you find a reliable source that states that as where the name comes from it could be worked in.  ALKIVAR™ 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That does seems like the most likely source... but it would need to be cited. Otherwise... It's original research. ---J.Smith 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC):
Big fan of his, huh? Hmm, don't ask how I guessed... I must be a telepath. ¬_¬
My guess is, he decided no one would buy a "talk radio tough guy" named Wiener. Just like Ralph Lauren decided no one would buy fashion clothes designed by a guy named Lifschitz. Kasreyn 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually no, I don't really like his style. ---J.S (t|c) 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, J.smith. My reply was intended for the anonymous commentator you were replying to. Must have added an extra colon. Sorry, Kasreyn 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it Lipschitz, and not Lifschitz? I'm pretty sure it's Lipschitz.

Savage Anti-Semitism

As someone who has recorded the Savage Nation for over two years, I am an expert on Michael Weiner. The articles concerning his anti-Semitic rhetoric footnoted at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry recite specific quotations. I can provide the audioclips of any quotations therein cited in order to substantiate them and to shed light on their context. Is it possible to provide links to such audioclips? I would be happy to send them to anyone should they provide me their e-mail address.

Michael Weiner is NOT an anti-Semite; however, there is no doubt that he engages in rhetoric which if uttered by a non-Jew WOULD be considered anti-Semitic. Unlike other conservative Jewish talk show hosts, Weiner will not publicly acknowledge his Jewishness. He has never disclosed it publicly and conceals his ethnicity-- allowing only that he is the "son of Russian immigrants." Consider Weiner's appearance on the "Hannity and Colmes" program where Colmes confronted Weiner about his Jew-baiting:

COLMES: I have a concern about some things I have read about you and have heard tapes of you say-

SAVAGE: Good-

COLMES: referring to Madeleine Albright as "Madame Brisket," talking about Joe Lieberman "throwing his bagel into the ring"-

SAVAGE: yes-

COLMES: referring to ACLU attorney, the mythical, "Mark Nobody-berg." There are some people who might infer anti-Semitism from those comments. Can you put that in a context that makes sense?

SAVAGE: Yes, I'd be very happy to. There's no greater supporter of Israel and the Jewish people than the man you are looking at, number 1. And number 2, I am proud to tell you that both I and my children would have qualified for admission to Auschwitz.

COLMES: Well, I understand what you are saying, but can you understand why some people might be upset by those statements?

SAVAGE: They should be upset- they should be upset that people of Jewish backgrounds don't seem to get it. They still back liberal causes when liberalism threatens their survival-

COLMES: But those phrases people can read into that something that seems a little ugly.

SAVAGE: My job is to wake people up. Harken, awake. My job is to make them understand that sticking to tailfins 1959 may cause us the end of America, as we know it. The Jewish people have been targeted. These people must be in the vanguard, not in the posterior of the movement to save the Jewish people. (1-8-2003)

Notice that Savage would not directly defend his ethnic slurs but rather claimed that his motives are benevolent. Colmes should have asked Weiner how is it that baiting Jews with ethnic slurs will convince them to abaondon their liberal beliefs? Isn't it sufficient to ridicule their liberalism? What is the point of ridiculing their Jewishness? Moreover, Savage would not publicly acknowledge that he is Jewish but, rather, made the bizarre claim of being "qualified for admission to Auschwitz." Why does Weiner conceal his Judaism while insinuating that so-and-so liberal is Jewish by making gratuitous references to what they eat, where they live, e.g., "Brooklyn," how they talk, how they look, e.g., "hooked-nose," etc. Even his conservative radio colleafue, Bill O'Reilly, is under the impression that Savage is a Chrisitian. Consider the following exchange on the "The O'Reilly Factor":

O'REILLY: I don't see it quite the way you do, but I'll get to that in a minute. Now, you're not a church going guy. That was another thing that caught my ear as I was riding around.

SAVAGE: Not at all.

O'REILLY: You don't go to church. You're not a real strong God guy. So why are you so...

SAVAGE: Wait, wait. No, no. Bill -- Bill -- Bill, I'm a very strong God-believing man. I just don't go to houses of worship, except maybe once or twice a year, because whether you -- well, whether people accept it or not, I am in touch with God all day long.

O'REILLY: All right. That's fine. That's your belief.

SAVAGE: I talk to God....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97475,00.html

Notice how Weiner did not correct O'Reilly's misapprehension by stating that he is a Jew. Moroever, Weiner cleverly uses the phrase "houses of worship" and not "synagogue" in order to perpetuate the mistake. Why? Could it be that his Jew-baiting rhetoric would lose its sting were it known to his largely Christian demographic?

      • CLARIFICATION: Though Savage is, by blood and DNA, a Jew, he is not a practicing Jew. He's an Universalist. Thus by him saying "houses of worship" rather than "synagogue" didnt mean he was hiding his Jewish heritage.

The point is that Weiner is NOT a Christian. O'Reilly thinks he is. Weiner should have corrected O'Reilly by stating that he is a Universalist (though I have NEVER heard Weiner claim that he follows this religion). Weiner certainly holds himself out to be a Christian. He often refers to "our churches." He has stated on numerous occasions that he is not Catholic, but NEVER that he is not Christian. On at least 2 occasions when Weiner was reading on-air verbatim from articles written about his impending TV show on MSNBC, he substituted "Savage" where the article stated his birth name, "Weiner," and furthermore did not read those parts of the article which mentioned Weiner's Jewish ethnicity. I have the audioclips in my archive to substantiate this claim. Whereas a liberal's Judaism never escapes Weiner's notice and insinuation, any references to his own ethnicity is strictly taboo.


Universalist? I need a link proving that. Savage has read from the Old Testament, he has never read from any other Bible on his show! The Old Testament alone is what he refers to. And that is the only Bible that is recognized by Jews. The New Testament is not recognized by Jews.


Why were the links to the articles detailing Savage's ant-Semitic rhetoric deleted from the External Links Section? Who is covering up Savage's history of Jew-baiting rhetoric? It should be re-inserted:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=375 http://www.fair.org/extra/0307/savage-anti-semitism.html. http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/720ManBehindSavageNation.htm (Savage called a "Jew hater" by one who knew him). In order to confirm the information in these articles, please contact Mr. Jonathan Bernstein, the Regional Director of the Northern California Anti-Defamation League at (415) 981-3500 ext. 221, as well as Professor Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee in New York at (212) 891-1444. These anti-Semitism experts are well aware and troubled by Savage's pattern of anti-Semitic rhetoric:

1. Referring to Jews as "Brooklynites" and "Red Diaper Doper Babies" who should be "deported." 2. Caricaturizing Jews as "curly-haired devils out of New York City" 3. Claiming actor Richard Gere has an "Uncle Hymie" in his family. 4. Baiting Jews as "corned-beef eaters." 5. Savage has called National Public Radio's Terry Gross "Terry GrossBERG" and CNN's Wolf Blitzer "Wolf BlitzBERG." 6. Here is a list of Jews which Savage has called by name a "Red Diaper Doper Baby":

Ed Asner (12-9-02) Jed Rackoff (judge) (12-10-02) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (12-11-02) Minna Samuels (protestor) (4-7-03) Stanley Cohen (attorney) (5-1-03) Stanley Rosenblatt (5-21-03) Senator Charles Schumer (5-22-03) Ronald Carp (attorney) (6-6-03) Howard Simon (ACLU) (6-9-03) Howard Marks (ACLU) (6-9-03) Lawrence Kahn (judge) (7-18-03) Jack Glazer (doctor) (7-23-03) Richard Cohen (SPLC) (8-23-03) Norman Solomon (attorney) (9-3-03) Mark Rosenbaum (ACLU) (9-22-03) Mark Schecter (professor) (9-23-03) Julie Bergman (12-1-03) Jamie Mandelbaum (12-1-03) Ariel Emanuel (12-1-03) Naomi Foner (12-1-03) Robert Greenwald (12-1-03) Lyn Lear (12-1-03) Julia Dreyfus (12-1-03) Darcy Pollack (12-1-03) Daniel Stern (12-1-03) Ann and Jay Sures (12-1-03) Marge Tabankin (12-1-03) Earl Katz (12-1-03) Glenn Fine (journalist) (12-19-03) Marsha Peckman (lawyer) (12-31-03) Lanny Davis (1-30-04) Mayor Bloomberg (2-3-04) Lee Rosenthal (judge) (2-3-04) Larry David (3-9-04) Norman Mailer (3-9-04) Congressman Peter Deutsch (3-9-04) Evan Wolfson (3-12-04) Janice Hepler (3-12-04) Susan Sontag (4-26-04) Donna Newman (lawyer) (4-28-04) Senator Carl Levin (5-7-04) Elliott Spitzer (lawyer) (8-7-04) Sandy Berger (8-7-04) Denise Lieberman (ACLU) (8-16-04) Jeffrey Fogel (ACLU) (8-16-04) Mark Silverstein (ACLU) (8-16-04)

I have audioclips of all of the above in my archive. Please e-mail me at Jeff@Silberman.com if you would like to hear them or any of the quotations referenced above.

With reference to the above, I'd like to pose an open question that's been puzzling me for some time. Why is it that on the article for Al Franken, a liberal pundit, there is no difficulty using the term Jewish-American in the header paragraph - and in fact, people changing it to simply "American typically get reverted - but on this article, the exact opposite seems to be the case?
Ummm... hello? Is Franken only allowed to be called a Jew because he's a liberal or something? Protecting Weiner's conservative street cred is not our job. If he's a Jew who mocks Jews, that's his own problem. We report factual, notable, and verifiable information and the reader can decide whatever they want. If they choose to decide that a Jew would be best qualified to attack Jews, fine. If they choose to decide that a Jew who attacks Jews is a massive hypocrite, also fine. But it's not our job to cover his ass. Kasreyn 11:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I hate monikers like Jewish-American they are balkanizing. If you want to say he has Jewish ancestry write he has Jewish ancestry, But I dont need to be Jewish to understand him. The ancestry of terms like Asian-American; African-American; Italian-american is liberal. Specifically, it is a tradition that really began in the mid eighties according to my memory and is part of the PC newspeak. IT is driven multiculturalists the vast majority of whom have an agenda of cultural (and moral) relativism. Therefore the audience of Al Franken likes liberal monikers like xxx-American; while Michael Savage listeners dont. I am going to revert it to american. As soon as teh ethnicity of every american on wikipedia is specified with the appropriate hyphenation in the opening paragraph, then I will stop reverting it and let it stand as Jewish-American. The infotmation about his heritage stands in his bio. If its a big issue of pride for you, then say so below and I'll restrain myself. Mrdthree 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
oooo-kay... I wasn't aware I was pushing the multiculturalist cabal's agenda forward... I think I need to go wax my moustaches or something to look the part.. Kasreyn 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


There's a lot of fiery rhetoric on here. I just want to reiterate that Savage is not anti-Jewish, anti-Semetc at all. He feels anger at Liberal Jews, and if one understands the cultural context of growing up as an East Coast Jewish person, it goes something like this. You are aware of all the other Jews around you and you want them to be *good*. In Savage's mind, these other Jews, like Boxer, Feinstein, et al are all Jews that are not doing the right thing. They do not understand that Jews are under attack, so, he is baiting them publicly. He is angry at their liberal politics. Like one would berate a child that they find is not doing the right thing, so is he berating these people publicly. It might be something that Jews do around the dinner table when talking about other Jewish neighbors, Jewish celebs, or Jews in the news that are not doing morally acceptable things.
I agree with your statement above. However, you are not willing to address the central thesis of my argument, namely, why does Savage bait "bad Jews" with ethnic and racial slurs? He can berate Jews by attacking and ridiculing their political and ideological beliefs, that is, their liberalism. But Savage attacks liberals by pointing out that they are Jews! Singling out the Jews among the liberals is anti-Semitic. If Savage singled-out Jews around the dinner table, that would be one thing, but doing so to pander to a predominantly Christian audience while at the same time CONCEALING HIS OWN JUDAISM is another. The latter I contend is reckless and can unwittingly reinforce anti-Semitic stereotypes. Can you understand this or is my point too nuanced?
Bravo! Well said. But I doubt the person you are replying to is going to see your comment, they seem to have moved on some time ago. Kasreyn 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree...not at all "well said". Let me preface this by saying that I'm not condoning anti-Semitism at all; neither am I particularly defending Savage...just vehemently disagreeing with the logic of your statements. Here's a list of my arguements:
  1. "Concealing his own Judaism": First of all "Judaism" refers to practicing the Jewish religion. Savage is ethnically of Jewish descent, but doesn't practice Judaism. I'm ethnically of Scottish descent, by not practicing Presbyterian or Catholicism, am I concealing my Scottish ancestry. Ethnicity is totally a separate issue from the religion one chooses to practice (or disagree with, for that matter).
  2. "Singling out Jews among the liberals is anti-Semitic": Savage does talk about Jews who are liberal, but he doesn't "single out" just Jews. On various occassions, Savage discusses people of all ethnic groups who are liberals. For example, he wonders why Black leaders who are very liberal get so much media time while Black conservatives get virtually none and are called "Uncle Toms". Is that being anti-Black? He often points out White people from traditionally conservative-value-oriented backgrounds (Irish & Hispanic Catholics, for example) that are liberals. Is he being Anti-White?
  3. "Savage attacks liberals by pointing out they are Jews": He doesn't attack them by pointing out they are Jews (unless simply pointing out their Jewishness is considered an attack). He is dismayed by the irony and hypocrasy of what he sees as the betrayal of their Jewishness (same for Blacks, Hispanics, Irish Catholics, etc). These groups, and especially their religions, traditionally hold to family-oriented morals and values that Savage believes the "true" conservatives try to advance (protection of marriage, pro-life, abstinence, merit-based advacement (as opposed to quotas), etc. etc.). He simply points out how flabbergasted he gets trying to understand why these groups (Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Irish Catholics, etc) largely support a party and an idealogy that is totally contrary to their historic beliefs. And he is particularlly sensitive about the liberal Jews precisely because he is a Jew. He understands their culture and beliefs and how contrary they are to liberalism.
Admittedly, he does it in his typical style of mocking, hyperbole, and bitterness, but that's what he does -- to everything and about everything -- don't mistake that for "Anti-Semetism" or "Anti-Catholic" or "Anti-Black" or "Anti-White"...it's purely and simply pro-traditional-Americanism and anti-liberalism.--WilliamThweatt 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Portgate

Savage claims it was his show that brought attention to the UAE port deal, or "Portgate" as he calls it. Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.89.103.34 (talk • contribs)

Is there an independent source that backs up his claim? Gamaliel 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This link is a column by a liberal who dislikes Savage and even he gives him credit for it. Frank Gaffney first wrote a column about "Portgate" but Michael Savage ran with it before anyone else did. Savage was talking about it for a full week before the major media (including NBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, CBS, etc.) brought it up.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11570948/site/newsweek/
Savage frequently claims to bring attention to newsworthy stories that are not reported by the mainstream media, such as an airplane malfunction story and a more recent story of an Arab student running over some students with an SUV. This can be included under the "personal views" section of the article, with sources.
    • There's definitely enough evidence there to merit mention in Savage's Wikipedia article.

Give Savage the discredit: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten11mar11,1,1033942.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true

article tags

I'm removing the tags because there appears to be no active editing or discussion regarding these matters. Such tags are not intented to remain on articles indefinately. Gamaliel 18:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the tags should be on this article. I understand they are not supposed to be permanently there, but the neutrality of this article IS disputed nonetheless. The only citation for the claimed homoerotic letter is an image on "michaelsavagesucks.com" which is not a neutral site, and from looking at the image close up it looks doctored. Look at how the body is crooked compared to the letterhead and if you zoom in and have a good monitor you can see the different shades of the background paper from where the message body is and where the letterhead is [1]. I know my camera is bad and I just took a picture of the monitor, but if you even look close on that between the area where the writing is and where the letterhead is you should be able to see a difference. I'm not claiming to be an expert analyst, but even from my untrained eye it doesn't look right...plus the fact it's only cited on a site that's all about Michael Savage sucking. The naked photo claim has no citation either, and the article has a general feeling of heavy bias against him. Mixx941 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Whynot upload the letter to wikipedia and add a thumbnail? ---J.Smith 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Michael Savage Sucks" page is not a neutral site and should not be relied upon for factual information. However, the letter is something that has been reported on by multiple news outlets. The New York Daily News article linked to in the very next sentence discusses it. I added another link to the NYDN to make it explicit. The Michael Savage Sucks page is only linked to because it provides an image of the letter, and for no other reason. I'd much prefer another site, and I'd gladly replace it if someone can find another image of the letter to link to. People can look at the letter themselves and make up their own mind, and so I feel that linking to this non-neutral site for that purpose is preferable to not having the image available for readers at all. Gamaliel 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is not correct to say the "naked photo claim has no citation." Multiple facts in the paragraph are taken from the Salon article, so the cite was added to the end of the paragraph. I've added a redundant citation at the end of every single sentence that employs information from the article. This is ugly and clumsy in my opinion, but apparently it is necessary. Gamaliel 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Too Much Criticism

I deleted many of the criticisms in this article, as those criticisms were not balanced by statements from supporters. Media Matters' quoting of Savage is always out of context, although BTW Savage doesn't fear those assholes. He has links to them on his own website. So I'm not "protecting" Savage, but there's obviously no neutrality in this article. Honestly, I don't know what GLAAD's problem with him is. Savage has clearly stated that he has no problem with gays but only their agenda. He seems to be friendly with many gays and has had friendly conversations with gay conservative callers. Savage also used a lesbian San Francisco police officer for security on the set of his TV show. Savage is also not a misogynist, as these people would claim. He's certainly not a racist for opposing illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not a race. They come from many countries. You'd think that liberals would like Savage since he bashes Bush so much. He's not a Bushbot. However, on the issue of immigration, it seems to me that liberals are the true Bushbots. I also corrected statements about Savage's stance on animal rights. He doesn't agree with PETA's philosophy. They're extreme. He's against cruelty to animals, but he doesn't agree that hunting is wrong or that animals have an inalienable right not to be killed by humans. He also believes that humans are superior to animals. (Why are animal rights whackjobs against humans killing animals, their equals, when other animals kill animals all the time?) Finally, Savage is not an anti-Semite. He will only use slurs against liberal Jews, and that is because he sees them as self-hating Jews or traitors to their race/religion. Savage has the deepest respect for real Orthodox Jews. Politician818 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC) To the person who deleted all of my changes, please tell me where you specifically disagree. As far as why Savage hates PETA, show me a citation that says that Savage agrees with PETA's stance against hunting and against eating turkeys on Thanksgiving. Savage does not agree with their philosophy. Politician818 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC) As far as the date of his debut is concerned, Savage had a twelfth anniversary show on March 21, 2006. That means that his debut was on March 21, 1994. It's that simple. There is no evidence whatsoever that he debuted in 1992. Politician818 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Stop deleting my changes. You're making this article non neutral. Politician818 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are getting removed because you keep removing sourced material (such as Ferlinghetti's comment about Savage, Schwartz's comment, etc.) and you also remove valid citation needed tags for unsourced factual claims, and you insert POV editorializing such as "ultra" liberal, which is a value judgement.
From those changes, and from your commentary on this talk page, it doesn't appear that you hold much regard for the importance of a neutral point of view on this encyclopedia. All I can do is urge you to please reconsider this attitude and refrain from removing notable, sourced material and replacing it with unsourced POV editorializing. The end result will not be an article conforming to your personal opinions; it's much more likely to be you getting blocked. Best wishes, Kasreyn 00:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 155.97.15.146

As for Metallica not liking Bush, neither does this guy (Savage). I heard him the other day saying it was a "sign of Fascist regime" that Donald Rumsfeld is able to "shut up his critics"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.146 (talk • contribs)

New comments at the bottom of the page please ---J.S (t|c) 05:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a straw pull active right now. Talk:Michael_Savage_(commentator)/strawpull Please leave your comments so we can resolve this ridiculous edit war. ---J.Smith 20:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Rule

I've hit my limit for today, and so has Politician818. Kasreyn 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm all for the article being neutral. A bunch of negative quotes is not neutrality, especially quotes that can't be backed up. It can't be proven that Savage carried a gun and screamed at his former liberal buddies. The point of that quote is clearly to make Savage look like a nutjob. That is not neutrality. I don't see how it violates anything to say that Taliaferro is an ultra liberal. Why is it opinion to call someone "ultra liberal" but not opinion to call someone "liberal"? If I get blocked, I'll just come up with a new account under another name anyway. Lol. This article must be neutral. It's unacceptable as it is. Kas is obviously a liberal who hates Savage, and it's disgusting how a person like that can control the content of this article. Politician818 01:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gamaliel 01:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

According to "some people," I guess that an article can have thousands of negative quotes without anything positive. That obviously doesn't seem right. I know that when I see something on the news and they only interview people who have one opinion on an issue, that's media bias. This article has bias. That's sad. That's why Savage blasted Wikipedia on his show. I'm honestly trying to help Wikipedia become a reliable, neutral, respectable source of information. Honestly, the grammar and spelling are awful. I'm constantly correcting articles. Folks, you only have to use the [[ ]] once per a particular item in an article. If 1996 has a [[ ]] around it already in an article, it doesn't need to in the rest of the article. I'm upset that even my grammatical cleaning up is being edited here. Titles of books need to be in italics. Titles of TV shows need to be in italics. That's proper grammar. The statement that we should let the people reading the article decide what they want to believe is not logical. If an article is totally negative, people will obviously decide to dislike Savage. Politician818 01:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I should have taken the time and effort to only revert your content changes. Your stylistic changes were, for the most part, improvements. Kasreyn 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the quote about how Michael Savage believes that everyone will go to heaven. Why was that put back in? There's no source proving that he believes that. I know for a fact that he doesn't believe that. He has said on many occasions that Allen Ginsburg is in hell. He even dedicated a sewer to Ginsburg after he died. Politician818 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If "everything" must be sourced, then articles should have nothing but taglines in them. There should be a tagline on his date of birth, one for the name of his Ph.D. thesis, a tagline proving that he has a Ph.D. (which he does), etc. For what it's worth, my statement about PETA, in which I said that Savage does not agree with PETA's philosophy, was deleted. But why does the statement that he does agree with their philosophy get to stay? I don't see a tagline next to that. BTW, why do liberals hate Savage so much? He constantly criticizes Bush. He should be well-liked by the left. The same should go for Pat Buchanan. Buchanan constantly writes newspaper opinion pieces blasting Bush, yet the libs still think that he's a fascist. Lol.Politician818 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of intent to delete quotes

According to the "no original research" rule of Wikipedia, which I just looked up, organizations like GLAAD, Salon.com, etc. on the far left or organizations on the far right are not reputable. Therefore, quoting Savage and using them as a source violates Wikipedia's rules, and I intend to delete those quotes. What if Salon.com said, "Savage is gay"? Politician818 02:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines in fact state that printing the statement "Bush is gay" and citing the Socialist Workers' Party newspaper would violate Wikipedia guidelines because the source is partisan (Clearly they hate Bush.) and therefore not reliable. It's the same here. How do we know that Savage said any of this stuff? Are we to take their word for it? If such organizations like GLAAD say that Savage is a misogynist and then quote Savage as saying something, how do we know that he said it? Why should we trust them? How do we know that Mr. Schwartz said such about Savage? I will try to find any "legal" way that I can to take garbage out of this article. However to be fair, before deleting a quote, I will specifically mention the quote in this discussion forum. Politician818 02:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC) MichaelSavageSucks.com is not a reputable source. The no original research page states clearly that you can't use a source with an extreme political bias against the subject of the article. Sorry. So out goes the letter that Savage supposedly sent to Ginsburg (citation #3). If you disagree, then please state why on this page. Politician818 06:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Salon.com is not a reputable source either. It has a blatant far left wing bias. Out goes the statement about Savage swimming with a Fijian man. Sorry. If you find the quote in the New York Times, fine (although personally I think that they're left wing as well). Otherwise, tough. Politician818 06:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC) That will be all for now. I'll be back later to remove more crap from this article. I will also put my own cited information into this article. Do not change my deletions without first typing something in this discussion room. Politician818 06:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record Salon.com is fairly reliable-- I trust them to report the facts accurately but with an unbalanced presentaiton, like any small news outlet. They are not far left, pacifica radio is far left. If you want to edit Michael Savage's Bio you are obligated to at least read the articles that inform it. Its pretty clear you havent. If you have issues with the credibility of the NYT your standards of 'reputable' need to be re-examined. Part of this process involves actually reading what you are criticizing. This means read the only sources I know of that explain who savage is and was.

Once you can name three poems by allen ginsberg then maybe you can delete some more junk.Mrdthree 07:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In general I agree, but Politician818 did bring something valid to my attention: I personally trust salon as a source, but the article overuses it. I'll try to find varied sources for the same quotes in order to avoid the appearance of giving undue weight to Salon. Kasreyn 07:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing cleanup

After doing some looking, I've found a few problems and corrected them. I've removed an extra copy of a salon.com link within a paragraph. I don't see why we need two links to the article in one paragraph when there are already 5 or 6 to it in the article.

I've also added a citation needed tag, and replaced the nydailynews source with a tag. The nydailynews story was "according to Radar Magazine", which on first glance, doesn't look very reputable to me: [2] Kasreyn 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote parts of the bio back sometime ago and most of the facts rest on the Salon.com article (even the stuff you tagged). I guess you could rewrite the bio with a theme of presonal and financial growth, adding a paragraph on his current success. Myy two cents is I dont doubt what salon.com reported people said.Mrdthree 07:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm working as we speak, trying to find non-salon sources. I'm also finding lots of unsourced material needing work. Kasreyn 07:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done for the night. I'll get back on it tomorrow. In particular, my goals are:

  • A reliable site with transcripts of Savage's shows. This is the gold standard.
  • Avoiding homogeniety of sourcing.
  • Major rewrite of "beliefs" section; Savage's beliefs are mixed in with criticisms of his detractors resulting in an unreadable mess.
  • Sourcing, sourcing, and more sourcing.

Any help would be appreciated. But please, remember that adding citation needed tags is better than instantly removing material, and replacing dead links or poor sources with citation needed tags (rather than removing the quote) allows other editors time to find a new reliable source. Kasreyn 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was confused why you removed the Salon reference; I guess I should have read here first. I restored the Salon link and added another one. I think it's clumsy to have all those links to the same thing, but if you look at the talk page history you'll see that it is necessary. Savage fans will protest that these facts are unsourced and remove them if you don't cite every single one. Also, you added a "citation needed" tag to a quote from the Salon article so that's just one more reason to add individual citations, to avoid that sort of confusion in the future. Gamaliel 13:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to keep that in mind from now on. In general, my main concern is that a legitimate complaint could have been raised that the article was overly reliant on a single citation. While the Salon article in question was definitely exhaustive in detail, and no matter what one believes about Salon's reliability, it's clearly not appropriate to base the entire article (nearly) on one source. It makes me wish I'd noticed that earlier. It's kind of embarassing that I've been watching this article for (iirc) a month or two and never caught that. ^_^;; Kasreyn 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I didn't the nydailynews secondary source because I couldn't find the radaronline story. It was removed because radaronline has a very, very disreputable appearance and I don't feel comfortable using it, even indirectly, on a serious encyclopedia. Would you object to my again removing this source? I have no intentions of removing the quote, & am still searching for a better source than radar news. Kasreyn 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Get the sources ready. Radio transcripts are available from the Michael Savage show. In fact this is the opportunity to contact the radio network, ask for some of the transcripts on his most ultimate radio segments and edit it down to what can fit on the Mike Savage article. If any request was politely rejected, then go on the web and search for Mike Savage quotes, news interviews and the like to use in Wikipedia. We want to improve the article and make sense on what the article discusses on not only the career, but what Michael Savage stands for. Another reason is to clarify and correct popular misconceptions of Savage on what he said or believes in (i.e. proof that he's not an anti-Semite and not entirely a Bush supporter). --Mike D 26 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Back

After a brief and unexpected Wikibreak, I'm going to try to make a few more improvements. I've removed a redundant line and added a cite needed tag to the universalist claim. Kasreyn 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

This section seems to add nothing of value. It details two claims by Savage about Wikipedia. Neither is sourced. Neither even seems notable to me. Mentioning Wikipedia isn't really a notable action, even though this happens to be Wikipedia - that doesn't matter. How is Savage mentioning Wikipedia notable in the context of an article on Savage? I'm tempted to remove this entire section. Kasreyn 01:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections and Popular Culture sections in all Wikipedia articles have no value. They are allowed to remain so that the "medicated" generations can find something of interest in accordance with their capabilities.Lestrade 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

.

Michael Savage and the Vietnam war

May31st, 2006, on the Michael Savage Show. Savage called into question the manner in which Sen. John Murtha(D) was awarded multiple medals during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.

Michael whiner called John Murtha <quote,unquote> "A dirty, yellow Rat"

Michael Savage never really delves into his own activities during the Vietnam war which is strange for a "super patriot". The reason he doesn't is pretty obvious, the Vietnam war didn't happen for Savage. The "super patriot" was probably too busy inhaling mind altering substances with some of the most rampant far left figures of that era.

I'd bet i'm not too far from the truth.

John Murtha (DEMOCRAT) is a Patriot. From his own experiences he understands full well that WAR can corrupt, even with the fullest of sincere intentions. Dirty, Yellow Rats like Michael Savage have never spent an hour in the thick of combat eyewitnessing the true horrors of all the worst that humanity can throw at each other.

Michael Savage (Super Patriot) is two a penny on the air.

If he were President (he claims he'd be better at the job than anyone in America, because he is the voice of America) you would find yourself living in a Totalitarian Hellhole because he is lower than a snakes belly!

User: Dean1970, Thur,June1,2006

Dean, how is this rant by you relevant to the article? But if you want to go there, John Murtha is not a patriot. He's a piece of garbage for condemning those eight Marines before a trial. He's already decided that they're guilty. No patriot would ever do that. BTW, it's coming out now that Murtha was never in harm's way in 'Nam. America would not be totalitarian under a President Savage, BTW. Totalitarian nations ban guns. Savage is pro gun. Again, Murtha never saw fire. He's a lying scumbag. Murtha will never be president. Never. But hopefully Savage will be president. If he were to run, he'd win. The Democrats couldn't call him an "idiot" like they do with Bush. Dean, nice grammar.Politician818 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Politician818 - Why isn't it relevant? What was your Patriot Idol doing during the Vietnam conflict? Michael Weiner went from Brooklynn to San Fransisco, not from Brooklynn to the nearest U.S Army recruitment centre (Strange for someone who hates communists).

And I stand by my "rant" 100 per cent. Totalitarian hellhole would be right. He would love to lock up everyone who disagreed with him. He's a maniac. From so many angles (I'll mention an example). He gets upset on his radio show because the TV show the Sopranos isn't violent enough, according to him its being feminized, lol. He wants his daily fix of violence, extortion and murder on high definition plasma, then he wants to preach about values being undermined in America on his radio show. I mention this because he has a morbid fascination with the Mafia, he once alluded how the Mafia was just giving America what it wanted, and their macho system of "respect to the Don" was as good a recipe for Governance of a Society as any "because they kept things in order"...you know, the flow of narcotics, gambling, prostitution and extortion. I guess the poor Mafia are just misunderstood and persecuted. Well, the Mafia are pro-gun at least!

Politician818, The NeoCon high priests are deluding only themselves if they think they can put their little groomed mouthpieces on the air and fool us all with their clever trickery. Some of us might not be classically educated with the ways of the world such as yourself, but we can still smell bulls@#t all the same. Good day to you, Sir.

Dean1970, June,15th, 2006

Michael Savage is not a neo-conservative, though. He's a paleoconservative in the mold of Pat Buchanan. He's certainly not a mouthpiece for Bush. I also think that you're taking Savage's enjoyment of the Sopranos a little too seriously. It's simply entertainment.Politician818 08:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He is absolutely not in the mold of Pat Buchanan. They are at different ends of the spectrum regarding Israel, and the middle East in general. I would say Michael Savage is in the mold of William Kristol (Savage regards him as a brilliant thinker)....William Kristol is a Neo-Con and a co-founder of PNAC. And like Savage, avoided Vietnam.

Also, I didn't call Savage a mouthpiece for President Bush. I called him a mouthpiece for the Neo-Con high Priests.

As for his enjoyment of the Sopranos, it may well be a harmless vice to him. But it was the tone and manner in which he stated that the Mafia in their early decades "just gave Americans what they wanted"...he seemed to be very serious in defending their style of "codes" and "ethics"...he has more than once attempted to inject a sense of morality into how the Mafia operates.

Dean1970 19 June 2006


Re: Media Matters

William, thanks for your compliment on my recent edits, but I have to disagree on this one. Media Matters self-identifies as progressive. To call them "liberal" is a subjective decision which qualifies as original research. There are quite a few articles on conservatives where I have seen the term "neo-conservative" added, and then removed. It was removed because the person in question self-identified as "conservative" and no reliable source described them as "neo-conservative". I would be willing to remove the liberal/progressive altogether and refer to them as a "media watchdog group". Why do you feel MM should be called liberal? Cheers, Kasreyn 01:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Kasreyn, it looks like my explaination in the edit summary was cut off (I have a bad habit of accidentally hitting the "return" key instead of the "shift" key when using my laptop). Anyway, I'm not adamant on this one, but I believe that terms like "liberal", "conservative", "neo-conservative", "progressive", etc aren't subjective and all have accepted definitions and can be applied in most cases without the need for sources. (As a very loose analogy, we can say "the sky is blue" without sourcing it, I believe we can say an organization that espouses liberal opinions is a liberal organization). "Media Matters" is an obvious liberal organization, and recently there has been an attempt by various liberal groups to co-opt the term "progressive" to identify themselves with the historical, more positive progressive philosophy. Basically, my objection is that the "Media Matters" attempt to re-label themselves is nothing more than transparent spin on their part in order to legitimize their opinions as more mainstream. To use their spin would seem to advocate it. And, generally, I too would be willing to remove the label altogether, but in this case (IMHO) I think it is necessary in order to keep the quotes in context. I don't like getting into controversial/political articles on WP, but I do try to make every article the best it can be and conform to WP norms. It's my philosophy here to call a spade a spade regardless of what the spade prefers to call itself.--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Kasreyn on this one. I feel that generally groups should be identified in the way they self-identify unless there is a compelling reason not to, like if the Aryan Nations started calling themselves "libertarian". Is anyone really being hoodwinked here with the liberal/progressive thing? Assuming I agreed with your assessment on the matter, that isn't to my mind a compelling enough reason to substitute our own judgement for the self-identification of the organization itself. Gamaliel 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not adamant on this one and I'll try to not to back myself into a corner but a couple things to think about: 1) to me, this is just as obvious, though not as egregious, as your example of the Aryan Nations, 2) I don't think this is a "judgement" call, "liberal" is a definable, quantifiable adjective; MM's opinions are either "liberal" or "not liberal" 3) if my logic (or attempts at logic) don't convince anybody, how about a preponderance of reliable sources...do the majority of notable, reliable sources (or any, for that matter) refer to MM as "progressive" (in the traditional sense)? Again, I try to stay away from these types of articles (in general); I'm not approaching this with an ideological agenda and I'm not trying to be argumentative, just want to maintain accuracy and integrity of the article.--WilliamThweatt 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Though I generally think in principle, groups should be allowed to define themselves instead of having the news media do it for them, a preponderance of reliable sources from different parts of the political spectrum might make the case. However, I still don't see what the fuss is about in this particular case. Gamaliel 12:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
William, I have to disagree on one point, and I would have done so sooner if I had read your remark sooner: liberal, just like conservative, is a subjective label which cannot be properly understood out of context. For example, in many European nations, a political party espousing the opinions and policies of the United States' Democratic Party would be called "conservative". Calling something "left wing" or "right wing" or "liberal" or "conservative" depends entirely on a subjective decision as to what the "center" is. It also depends on another subjective decision, to frame the field of possible political viewpoints as a one-dimensional construct, accepting as valid only a position on a left-to-right scale. Finally, there is the subjective decision to use terminology that is local to one country (America) rather than terminology that would be more understandable to a world audience. Liberal can refer to economically liberal (Republican Party - sort of) or socially liberal (Democratic Party). Conservative can refer to economically conservative (Democratic Party - sort of) or socially conservative (Republican). There isn't a single objective thing about calling MM "liberal". However, there is one, and only one, concrete and objective thing about calling them "progressive" - it is what they call themselves. Respectfully, Kasreyn 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, I'm happy to respectfully agree to disagree on this point. I will concede that in both a philosophical and temporal sense, these terms are relative. The spectrum of political beliefs is a continuum and where a stance on an issue fits into that spectrum is relative to the extremes of the spectrum in that particular era. However, being relative doesn't necessarily equate to being subjective. In the US, there is are clear-cut, diametricly opposed distinctions between "liberal" and "conservative" world views and they are easily defined. Consequently, it is easy to objectively say that "view A" is a liberal view (again when speaking in the context of US politics) and "view B" is a consevative view. To put it in a logic sentence: In US politics, X, Y and Z is a liberal view. Media Matters espouses X, Y and Z. Therefore, Media Matters is a liberal group.--WilliamThweatt 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well William, what about my suggestion of using "media watchdog group" instead? Why is it important to note that MM is progressive or liberal? Kasreyn 01:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not adamant about the situation in this article, it's more or less an academic execise to me. But I did touch on this briefly above. I think it's necessary to have the label to keep the views of Media Matters in context. We, who are trained in politics, may recognize exactly what Media Matters is, but not every reader of this article will; without a (legitimate) label, they may assume Media Matters is representative of mainstream thought. Although the situation was slightly different, I believe Kasreyn, herself, recently made a similar argument in the Ann Coulter talk page here (I just happened to have been watching that page as well).--WilliamThweatt 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this means I must concede the point, then. Well put. Thank you for being so polite in demonstrating my error. Kasreyn 01:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with William on Mediamatters' spin. Mediamatters self-identifies as "progressive" because mainstream America "self-identifies" liberals as hypocrites. That being said, I agree with Gamaliel, that the article should describe them as they describe themselves since nobody is stupid enough to believe they aren't liberal. (Where's a picture of lipstick on a pig when you need one?) Lawyer2b 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
While I don't think you need to couch your arguments in such a pointedly sarcastic way, you've essentially grasped the situation well. Kasreyn 04:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana

deleted "child...now a man..." quote and citation... the quote wasn't about his shift in views on marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.15.150 (talk • contribs)

deleted again. Mrdthree 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

inserted (again). I rewrote it slightly. The comment is obviously a reference to his change in views on all things, with specific mention of "herbal medicine", which, in his previous books under "Weiner", he claimed marijuana to be. The quote is relevant and properly cited. Just because Savage doesn't mention "marijuana" specifically in his quote, doesn't mean the quote doesn't cover his views on it. You have to read that whole section of the interview to get the context. Please don't delete it again until you attempt to justify its removal with more than one sentence.--WilliamThweatt 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I heard both comments on air. IT is improperly cited in that it is taken out of context. His reasons for being against marijuana are that its a gateway drug whose health damage exceeds its benefits. His statement I wasy a boy now I am a man realted to his being liberal.Delete in section. Can be reinserted in bio section reagrding being a liberal.Mrdthree 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy on Wikipedia?

Lately I've been busy on the Jesse Jackson article on Wikipedia trying to put in a ridiculous quote of his into the article, yet I've been repeatedly told that that violates NPOV, even though the quote is cited. Yet from reading this article on Savage, I see that the liberals have had a field day in printing negative stuff about Savage. A few weeks ago when I tried to take some of the stuff out, I was told, "Tough. If it's cited, there's nothing that you can do about it." I think that all of you guys who put negative stuff into this article should be helping me get that particular quote into the Jesse Jackson article, or can only negative stuff about conservatives be written on Wikipedia?Politician818 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, MichaelSavageSucks.com is definitely not a reputable website. Can someone please tell me how Salon.com is? Salon.com has quite a reputation for being a far left wing outfit. The bias is not a question. According to No Original Research, I'm really not sure that it's a reputable source. I think that there should be a discussion on that. Honestly, though, I don't really care that Savage said "faggot." I don't think that the liberals who've been doing a hatchet job on this article are going to get Savage's hardcore fan base to turn on him for that. It's obvious to me that you want everybody to think that Savage is gay, but it's not working. If "as long as its cited, you can't take it out" is the rule, then all of you guys should tell that to JpGordon, who has repeatedly taken out a quote that I've put in about Jesse Jackson in his Wikipedia article. Be consistent.Politician818 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Savage as bashing "immigrant protesters" violates NPOV. He was bashing illegal immigrant protesters. Not including the word "illegal" implies that Savage is against all immigration. Nice try.Politician818 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. You're right on that one. Kasreyn 05:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kas, the Democrats are economically conservative? Ha. Sure, the GOP isn't economically conservative, but how can a party for universal healthcare be economically conservative? The only voice for cutting government spending is coming from the conservative base from the GOP, although the GOP leadership isn't listening. To say that the Democrats are anything but fiscally liberal just isn't true.Politician818 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, economic liberalism means shrinking the government; it means getting the government out of the economy. It means laissez-faire. It means Ronald Reagan. At least, that's my understanding of it. From what I can see, the party that is in favor of reducing governmental regulation of the marketplace is the Republican Party, making them the more economically liberal. If "economically conservative" is an apt antonym, then the Democrats are economically conservative. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That is asinine. You are mixing and matching the various meanings and definitions of the word. It takes on different and frequently opposite meanings depending on its context.--Bhirsch 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Care to explain? Kasreyn 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Not particularly. Although I would if I thought you genuinely didn't know. Don't you have anything better to do than troll wp discussion pages? If I am mistaken, I apologize and advise you to brush up on political history (particularly Locke). Bhirsch 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I accept your apology. You've said nothing yet that would lead me to change my belief of what the terminology means. Kasreyn 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You are comparing two highly contextual terms in totally different contexts. Liberalism used to be associated with laissez faire. Today in the US, it represents laissez faire opposition. It used to represent an anti-socialistic stance. Today in the US, it represents a socialistic stance. The contemporary definition of conservative more closely matches the classical definition of liberal than does the current definition of liberal. In a broader sense, liberal just signifies opposition to the status quo. At any rate, equating Locke/Voltaire/Jefferson liberalism to a bunch of soft communists is, as I said, asinine. Bhirsch 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't see how the myopic misperceptions of Americans are particularly relevant (and I speak as an American, mind you). Just because the U.S. decides the sky is yellow and the sun is blue doesn't make it so. I also don't see how liberalism is "opposition to the status quo", since the status quo in a country can be policies which are liberal (in which case, conservatism would be the "opposition to the status quo"). Or, to be more precise, two given policies on the same issue can be compared, and it can be axiomatically determined which is the more liberal without needing to be aware of which supports the status quo; the liberality or conservativeness of a policy is inherent and not determined by such external factors. It's true that certain organizations in America have performed a very effective reframing maneuver, and have convinced many Americans that liberalism == socialism, but this certainly doesn't change the reality which most of the rest of the world still appreciates. It's also true that popular American conceptions of political philosophy are very crude and one-dimensional, and fail to consider multiple dimensions. Instead, many Americans mistakenly believe that the two main parties' arbitrarily chosen platforms somehow represent purified philosophical absolutes, or that they are diametrically opposed at all points. This is entirely preposterous. In a sense, my only point is that "contemporary definitions" of political thought add nothing new to political philosophy except confusion. There is nothing about "contemporary definitions" (ie. misunderstandings and deliberate distortions) of political thought which adds anything to the debate; they do not include new thoughts, but merely apply labels to old thoughts with the purpose of introducing structural bias into the discussion. Therefore it is superior to use classical definitions which are widely agreed-upon, rather than employing the narrow, politically motivated misdefinitions of a single country. Wikipedia is for the entire world, after all. Kasreyn 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kas, balancing a budget isn't conservative if it's a communist budget. And of course, the budget was only balanced under Clinton because of the GOP congress. I realize that this isn't relevant to the article, but I was just taken aback by your earlier statement.Politician818 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tracked sown some quotes to balance the tone of the article.Mrdthree 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
GIven that the vast majority of content relates to critics who complain about his point of view, it is necessary to include points of view that explain his appeal. He may yell about his dick to some GQ reporter but he has appeal. Just like George Carlin or Bill Maher, he is an independent minded individualist. Mrdthree 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kas, ok, I guess that we had a misunderstanding. What you call "economically liberal" I call "economically conservative." I guess that it depends on your point of view. Gamaliel, MichaelSavageSucks.com is not a reputable source.Politician818 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Gamaliel, I'm answering you right here in the talk section. I thought that we settled the issue of MichaelSavageSucks.com a long time ago. I'm also correct for capitalizing the "I" in Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. Verbs in titles are capitalized.Politician818 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it's not really a difference of opinion... economic liberalism and conservatism are what they are. The fact that the Democrats (ideally, which I why I said "sort of") are economically conservative and socially liberal, while the Republicans are (again, ideally) economically liberal and socially conservative, is widely understood. What has happened, though, is that they have convinced most Americans that anything done by a Republican or advocated by a Republican must be "conservative", and anything done or advocated by a Democrat must be "liberal". This is not true. There exist political parties in the world which are both economically and socially conservative, or both economically and socially liberal. The two major parties in America like to present themselves as fair representatives of two "sides" of the political field, but in reality politics has more dimensions than just one, and the American parties are fairly close together when compared to some other political movements in the world and in history. It is only our lack of distance and perspective that makes them appear so different from each other. Best wishes, Kasreyn 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Would Michael Savage, a part-time herbal medicine specialist, be called a hypocrite on his opposition to Marijuana? Will a staunch conservative radio show host has sometimes opposed president Bush on many issues? And how can a man called "anti-liberal" has constantly "think outside the box" to make some radical right-wing points? Mike Savage is an individual, not a follower of the conservative movement, he wants to make his points and speak his mind on what goes on in the nation and the world. The argument on who's or what's a "liberal", "conservative" or "moderate" will not be fully understood as long the sides bicker and argue, such as how forceful the liberal activists were on American life (i.e. political correct mores) and how "weak" the conservatives are in handling social problems by the government staying out of it (i.e. public social services). If you don't agree with Mike Savage, then change the radio dial and listen to someone else. I happen to stand for moderate Democrat causes, though more liberal on social causes, and cautious on how much the government can interfere in personal lifes. Does that make me a Republican or inside a "neo-Con"? Not really. I don't identify with those like Dennis Miller, once reported to be a flaming liberal, and not on the side of Ann Coulter with her radical right commentary said to defamed or insulted her opponents. How can we label Mike Savage "ultra-conservative", but he never entered the realm of Neo-Fascists, racists and authoritarians that may share his views? Savage carries on a mainstream political audience of the Republican party, then he may alienate the very party base he usually supported. I'm amazed he felt his parents' political opinions are misguided and the "Communist-Socialist-liberal" connection he speaks on his radio show is far-fetched. It's his opinion and I don't believe Michael Savage hates his parents. He loves them and appreciated for how they raised him.--Mike D 26 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

I've been removing a couple of quotation marks (see recent history), and here's my rationale for doing so: the quoted phrases for the most part are common phrases or words, like smear campaign and forgery. To insert quote marks for just two words at a time is kind of disruptive to the article, in my opinion. THe way it is now downplays the claims he makes as farfetched and mischaracterizations. If the article is going to paraphrase what he says, I think we should leave out the quote marks in order to not lead readers into concluding that his claims of forgery and smearing have no validity. It's not really necessary to quote common phrases like this, as opposed to "gay fascists", which I left quoted. After all, it's much easier to answer "What is a forgery?" or "What is a smear campaign?" than it is to answer "What is a gay fascist?". The first two are definitiive concepts, while the third one is ambiguous and very much dependent on Savage's independent thought process regarding what constitutes a gay fascist, and thus require quoting to emphasize that the term applies to what Savage considers is a gay fascist.

If you're going to use quote marks, find the whole phrase and quote the whole thing. Karwynn 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about scare quotes, but if these are somebody's exact words, they should be represented as such, and there shouldn't be an exception to that because they are relatively common phrases. I'd like to find the whole quote, but the Daily News article does not provide it. Perhaps you can assist me in hunting down the entire thing. Gamaliel 19:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm perfectly fine with the paraphrasing, assuming whoever put it up was competent and fair enough to put it in context. Not that I'm opposed to finding the exact words - I don't care either way. However, this practice of quoting tiny snippets, even if they are exact words, is scarcely practiced, and for good reason. Should someone go to the John Kerry article and put that he announced on such-and-such date that he was planning to "run for president"? Or that he challenged that guy he debated in the seventies as to whether or not he was aware of the "Geneva Conventions"? Or that he identifies himself as "Catholic"? I think it looks really distracting and akward to have all those quote marks in there, and if all articles were written by the standards you're using to keep them in the article, that's how it would look every time someone's claims or beliefs were mentioned. It would be too much, not to mention it would put solid, definitive, universal words like forgery in the same league as opinionated, subjective terms like "gay fascist". The quotes ought to emphasize that "gay fascist" is an accusatory label, rather than a word or phrase with an agreed-upon meaning, like smear campaign. What he is talking about when he says forgery and smear campaign is clear-cut; just by reading those words, you know what he is calling the letter or whateer it was. But in order to know who he means by "gay fascists", you have to have it explained to you.
So what I'm saying more concisel is this: The quotes on gay fascist add emphasis to it's subjectivity and are not needed for emphatical purposes on the other phrases. You seem to agree with me on that, correct? So the reason you think they should stay is that they are exact words, right? Well, like I said above, I think this is an unfavorable way of quoting - they should be done in snippets, otherwise there qould be stray quote marks all over the article. Are you willing to go all over the article, taking any reference to his words or stated beliefs and put quotation marks here and there by the dozen? I wouldn't like that, but I'd certainly be a little more understanding. I really think, since the sentence is a paraphrase, that these quotes are unnecessary and add an unfair emphasis to his words. Whether or not you intend them to, I really believe that they are functioning as "scare quotes". Karwynn 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The ideal solution would be to substitute a quote of at least one full sentence. But I have to point out again that the original source does not provide this, so we have to make do unless you wish to find an alternate source. Don't think I don't understand your argument, but if you are quoting someone you must put their exact words in quotes. I don't see any alternative to this. Note that I didn't put quote marks around the word forgery since I didn't see the word forgery in the Daily News article. I also looked in the Salon article and the GQ article and didn't see that claim there either, so I'm going to add a fact tag to it. Gamaliel 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gamaliel. Also, I disagree with your example of John Kerry announcing he is going to "run for President". There's a difference. Announcing that there is a smear campaign is a statement of opinion. Announcing that one is going to run for President is a statement of fact. Statements of opinion must be clearly cited and quoted to indicate they are not Wikipedia editorializing / original research. Statements of fact merely require citation. Kasreyn 10:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Believe me when I say I can grasp the concept of putting quote marks around someone's exact words. It's just very irregular to do so at bits at a time unless they're "variable" meaning phrases. THe fact that it's only his opinion does not need to be emphasized; it's made adequately clear by the sentencing, saying he denies it and calls it those things. Besides, if yoyu're going to "quote" his exact words like that, and that's your only reasoning (which I still don't agree with), you need to link a source. FOr now I"m going to revert, but I'll put some effort into finding that article and citing a whole sentence - quoting two words at a time is a sure road to contextual confusion. Karwynn 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The article the quote is taken from is linked to. See the footnote. Gamaliel 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, so it is! Well, I may not like it, but what can I do? In they stay.
Another hypothetical for you. Which is better:
Politician x once again referred to the vast liberal conspiracy...
or
Politician x once again referred to what he claims is a vast liberal conspiracy...
or
Politician x once again referred to the "vast liberal conspiracy"...
Option 1 does not make a full faith effort to be NPOV. It allows the mistaken impression that Wikipedia endorses the existence of the "vast liberal conspiracy."
Option 2 is NPOV, but wastes space with "he claims is".
Option 3 is equally as NPOV as option 2, but wastes less space by using quote marks.
I'd say option 3 is the best, unless you have no space constraints. However, most articles on pundits and politicians on Wikipedia are already pushing the upper limits on size. Kasreyn 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

MichaelSavageSucks.com a Reputable Source?

I honestly don't see how that website is worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article. There's a good chance that Savage's "letter" is a forgery. This website is not to be confused with the New York Times. Just by reading the name of the website, one can tell that it has it in for Savage.Politician818 08:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. MSS cannot be considered unbiased with regard to Savage. At the very least, if they are used as a source, they must be clearly identified as being an organization opposed to Savage wherever cited. Kasreyn 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

I will be cleaning up the grammar in this article in the next few days. I hope that no one takes issue with that. Better grammar will help Wikipedia become more reputable.Politician818 08:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Are all these quotes needed?

I've learned from my experience with the Jesse Jackson article that not every quote that a person has made is evidently worthy of being in a Wikipedia article, even if the quote is cited. Not all quotes are "newsworthy," I guess. It seems to me that this article is quite heavy in quotes, not all of which are newsworthy or needed, although many are properly cited. Savage's quote about taking a look at his genitals to see if he's a Jew is not newsworthy (as honestly, as a Savage fan, I've never heard about that quote, and I haven't heard the media making a big deal about it). That quote is also quite offensive. I feel like vomiting whenever I come across it. (Please don't think that my bias as a fan of Savage means that I'm against all the quotes. Just for example, what he said on his MSNBC show is obviously noteworthy.) It also seems to me that if someone who was apolitical and didn't know who Savage was were to read this article, he'd think that the beginning of the article was quoteheavy, as if written by people concerned more with quoting Savage saying negative things or quoting people saying negative things about him than with writing an encyclopedia article. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. Most encyclopedias will take an unbiased look at famous people without all the obscure quotes.Politician818 08:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I shall also make good on my promise by properly placing positive quotes about Savage.Politician818 08:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) It seems to me that the purpose of the quotes about Savage allegedly posing nude with Allen Ginsburg and his letter are intended to suggest that Savage is a hypocrite in that he opposes the gay lifestyle on moral grounds, yet he was gay himself. However, I don't think that Savage doing either of those two things (if he did) proves in any way that Savage is gay. So what really is the point of those quotes? Savage has pointed out on his show that in the old days most people swam naked, even in places like the YMCA (yuck). Evidently it's "healthier"???Politician818 08:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why they're notable is that, when he was younger, Weiner, if not gay himself, was at least tolerant of them (Ginsberg is really about as gay as you can get, you know), whereas today he expresses hostility and contempt for them. That sort of extreme shift in attitudes is very noteworthy. Kasreyn 09:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

67.160.229.147 and WP:3RR

67.160.229.147 continues to revert to reinsert his POV on Weiner. I would suggest that 3RR be enforced strictly with regard to this. I have no love for Mr. Weiner but this sort of revert warring is totally inappropriate and can't be tolerated. Kasreyn 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure if the anonymous user has technically violated 3RR (he seems to purposefully miss it by just minutes) but I have reported him here. Comments by other editors might influence the reviewing admin to take action.--WilliamThweatt 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt he's even reading his talk page, but you might want to notify him there in any case. Kasreyn 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased, Unprofessional Article

I've always admired Wikipedia for providing accurate, neutral information in their articles. However this article is a disgrace. Whatever your views about Micheal Savage are, keep whatever you write strictly unbiased and factual. It's fine to throw in a few controversies in the controversy section, but keep it limited and unbiased. This article obviously has a strong liberal bias against Savage and that is just as unacceptable as a conservative bias in his favor. This whole article needs some serious reworking to get it up to PAR with Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalheadkid (talk • contribs)

NPOV is not the same thing as neutral--there are people out there whom the balance of opinion is negative, and an NPOV article should reflect that. No one is guaranteed a mostly positive article--or even a 50 percent positive article. Nareek 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
One may feel Michael Savage has gone extreme in some political views, but one should follow the rules and don't let POV get in the way. I don't listen to his radio program, but got to know Michael Savage through his fame and notoriety. Then I wouldn't call him names or defame his personality, because I never fully agree with him. The article highlights his life and career, so we should leave at that. --Mike D 26 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is one of the worst articles on the whole of wikipedia. I'm ashamed at how so many of us can have our judgement clouded by emotion. Jmcshane 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been consistently amazed that otherwise intelligent people have allowed this hatchet-job masquerading as an encyclopedia article to continue to flourish. I believe this article could be just as effective and accurate without all of the scandal. One could use the article on another very controversial subject, Allen Ginsberg, as a template. I believe this article is as far from neutral as one could go. Even the article for Adolph Hitler is more neutral.

Sedition Act 1918

Michael Weiner wants the Sedition Act reintroduced, to lock up anyone who happens to disagree with the Neo-Con (a cocktail of Fascism and Marxist Lenninism) agenda.

Would Michael Weiner interpret, say, RockStar69.com as doing anything to facilitate and further a popular culture of Anti-American bias to undermine the war on terror regarding their monetary and unmitigated support for Rock bands who have leftist leanings.

The rock band Anti-Flag (part of the Taste of Chaos tour which Rockstar proudly promotes) has on its website and album cover a depiction of the Whitehouse, with hundreds of graves marked with white crosses and the words above the image in thick red letters "For Blood and Empire".

Doctor Savage really ought to think about all the teenagers who attend these concerts sponsored by Rockstar, their young and innocent minds being subverted by the Anti-American brainwashing that he claims to despise.

btw, Sedition Act 1918 was after Lincolns time, I can only assume the 1918 act (w/o proper research) was an attempt to repel the Soviet Russian/Communist sympathizers attempt to penetrate various departments of the U.S Government and U.S media.

Under the Sedition Act "The Russell Tribunal" would have been under scrutiny. The irony is infinite! Dean1970 July20th, 2006. (100% non-npov)

Wikipedia Article Talk Pages are for discussions relevant to the improvement of the article. Please limit your comments to constructive discussion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal agenda. I notice the bulk (if not all) of your contributions have been on the talk pages. Wikipedia is not a blog either. Your constructive, NPOV, additions to articles is encouraged and welcomed, but this sort of rant is not.--WilliamThweatt 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ashkenazi or Sephardic?

I was wondering if anyone had any information on Michael Savage's Specific sect of Jeudaism.

You are in error. Ashkenazi and Sephardic are properly considered ethnic divisions or subgroups of Jews, while a "sect" refers to a religious belief. One can be of Ashkenazi or Sephardic descent without being a believer in Judaism. Assuming you are referring to Weiner's ethnicity: I have no idea and don't see why it's particularly relevant. As he seems to make every effort to obscure his Jewish heritage (the better to market himself to his chosen audience), I doubt whether he is Ashkenazi or Sephardic matters much to him. Cheers, Kasreyn 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, in essence, with Kasreyn, in that since Savage is not a practicing Jew, but rather a Universalist, it doesn't really matter. However for the sake of arguement, it is highly likely that he is of Ashkenazi extraction. Ashkenazim are, by definition Jews originating (a term used loosely) in Germany and other areas of Cental and Eastern Europe. Coming from Russia as his parents did, it is most likely that they were Ashkenazim. "Sephardic" on the other hand, has two meanings. In its strictist sense it refers to Jews of the Diaspora who, from Roman times, lived in the Iberian Peninsula. In modern Israel, "Sephardim" is used more generally to refer to any Jew who is not Ashkenazi, this would then include Jews of Persian and Arab extraction. The only possibility that Savage could be considered a Sephardic Jew would be if his parents came from the extreme southern areas of USSR, such as the Bucharan Jews, which is highly unlikely. Also, the Ashkenazim speak Yiddish. The Sephardim speak Ladino (or if taken in the general sense, Persian, Arabic, Bucharan, etc). All refernces and words I've heard Savage use when speaking of his parents have been Yiddish. So it's a pretty safe bet that he is Ashkenazi.
It is ironic that you would insist that Weiner's religion is immaterial (since he is not a practicing Jew), for Weiner never rests in outing the Jews (non-practicing or otherwise) among the liberals by pointing out how the liberal speaks (by using a Yiddish ethnic voice), by commenting that the liberal hails from "Brooklyn," or that the liberal has an ethnic feature, e.g, "curly-hair," or "hooked-nose" or eats an ethnic food, e.g., "bagel," "corned-beef eaters," or points out the Jewish-sounding name or by reinforcing it by appending "berg" to it as Weiner did in referring to Wolf Blitzer as "Wolf Blitzberg" and Terry Gross as "Terry Grossberg." Weiner does not know if these liberals are secularists or religious, but he does know one thing- they are ethnically Jewish. As you say, it should not matter, but for Weiner, it does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.248.168.20 (talk • contribs) .
Well, I see your point, and for what it's worth I agree that it's ironic (or at the very least, hypocritically disingenuous) for Weiner to make such negative comments about Jews in the media. I wonder how that makes his parents feel? But, we can't treat that as something that makes his own Jewishness more relevant or notable, because that would essentially be original research on our part. Just because you and I think the guy is a slime doesn't mean we should make Wikipedia say it. Kasreyn 19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.248.168.20 (talk • contribs) .
Also, Kasreyn, the Ashkenazi/Sephardi distinction is indeed primarily an ethnic one, but there are major differences in traditions and practices as well, even including Liturgies, rituals, books and superstitions they revere. So in that sense, the terms do describe two different collective groups of Schools of Judaism.--WilliamThweatt 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Weiner" a Germanic name? It is related to the German word for "wine," which is "Wein." Germanic Jews are Ashkenazim.Lestrade 02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Excellent observation! That would have been much simpler to analyze. "Weiner" did originate as a Germanic name. Jews with the surname "Weiner", through various expulsions and pogroms throughout the centuries since the Middle Ages, ended up mainly in Poland, Lithuania, Byelorus, Ukraine and Russia. In these countries, sometimes the name was "Slavacized" to Weinerovitz. So I would say he is most definately of Ashkenazi extraction.--WilliamThweatt 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the entertainment or satirical reasoning behind his statements

If you've ever listened to Savage much, you know that many of these controversial statements he makes are made in half-jest and for merely entertainment value. He does it to prove a point, and to keep you laughing and listening. So shouldn't there be some mentioning of that in the article, to put his quoted statements into better context? 2nd Piston Honda 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What source will we cite that supports that characterization of Weiner's remarks? We need to cite a notable, reliable, and neutral third party who has described Weiner's remarks as being in jest before we can say so in the article. Kasreyn 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly why i didn't edit the article myself. It needs to be there, but we need a source. 2nd Piston Honda 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Weiner's apologists often claim that Weiner is joking. Weiner reports that interviewers routinely ask whether he is merely an entertainer. Weiner bristles at the notion of being so dismissed. He insists that he is serious as well as entertaining. Some would argue that his schtick is to sound serious when we all know that he has his tongue in his cheek. Weiner may be laughing on his way to the bank, but it is clear that the majority of his callers take him dead serious. That's the problem. Because Weiner will not openly acknowledge that he is joking, his listeners take him the wrong way. When Weiner calls a Jewish liberal "vermin," is there humor in that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.248.168.20 (talk • contribs) .
It's pretty obvious when he's half-joking and when he isn't. At least to a conservative it is. By the way, why did you attach "Jewish" to that question? And yes, many liberals are vermin. The ones who do everything they can to undermine the war in Iraq and then use troop deaths or other failures to drive their poll numbers up. 2nd Piston Honda 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps 87.248.168.20 attached "Jewish" to the question because Weiner has, in fact, referred to "Jewish liberals" as "vermin". I think that might have something to do with it. I, for one, don't find it even slightly funny. Kasreyn 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Why would it matter if the person was Jewish? Btw, stop using cheap debate tricks (in this case, playing coy).2nd Piston Honda 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How should I know why it matters that the person is Jewish? You might want to ask Michael Weiner why he felt it mattered that the liberals who were "vermin" were specifically Jews; he's the one that thought it up. All I know for certain is that singling Jews out and calling them "vermin" is not funny in the slightest. And I fail to see where I used a "cheap debate trick"; I was answering your question in the spirit in which it was asked. Kasreyn 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please try to stay focused. The quote by user 87.248.168.20 was: "When Weiner calls a Jewish liberal "vermin," is there humor in that?" Savage has called all kinds of liberals vermin. The question i asked of this user was why he/she chose to say "Jewish liberal" instead of just "liberal". 2nd Piston Honda 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you ask? You're not being coy, now, are you?  :P Kasreyn 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You're not being coy about why i asked are you? :) 2nd Piston Honda 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think it makes that much difference. Ann Coulter, who is probably alone in topping Savage in savagery, has claimed many of her statements are "jokes", but it hasn't reduced her popularity a bit that I can see, or her influence. I think people believe what they want to believe, and in this age of infotainment, intellectual lightweights like Coulter, O'Reilly, Savage, and their equivalents on the left, are being listened to more than serious political thinkers because their outrageousness is simply more entertaining. That's the state American politics has sunk to. Kasreyn 06:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Where will the political polarization end? Another civil war? We are a young country.


Gossip in the Bio and Education section

I have removed another attempt at inserting gossip into the Bio and Education section per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is based on the comments of one person (who has an on-going dispute with Savage) to the unbelievably-way-left Salon.com. Savage vehemently denies these slanderous/libelous statements therefore, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons you have to provide a more acceptable (reliable), mainstream source. If this were notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia (in the main Bio and Education section, no less), then one would expect to find more proof or sources.--WilliamThweatt 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Salon qualifies as a reliable source under WP:RS, as do the other sources like GQ and the Daily News which you removed. I'm restoring the material as this part of his bio is discussed again and again in articles about Savage. Gamaliel 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not "part of his bio". It is nothing more than gossip put forth by one person who was interviewed by Salon.com. How can you justify including that in a "bio". If I said, for example, "I believe he enjoyed bestiality", and Salon.com printed it, would that then qualify for inclusion in his bio? Of course not. At most, maybe it warrants a separate section to address the issue. But it is not a fact...it is an accusation against a living person that the living person vehemently denies. We can not include it in the biography section as if it's equal in legitimacy to "He attended Queens college". I don't believe in edit wars so I will refrain from reverting for a day or so to give you time to rework it into it's own section. Failing that I will revert again per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is POLICY on Wikipedia, not merely a guideline. Below I quote just some of the relevant sections of this policy:
  • We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.[3] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
  • Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.
  • Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

This last point is especially relevant here. Salon.com is a very partisan source and the only basis for the material to which I (and Savage, himself) object. I strongly object to the inclusion of this material, but will settle for the compromise of including it in a separate section. Failing that compromise, I will continue to revert and we will have to seek mediation.--WilliamThweatt 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A seperate section is no compromise, but an attempt to limit the impact of potentially unflattering material by sticking it in a seperate "controversy" section. Why is it controversial that he may have been a pinch hitter or yelled at some hippies he was once friends with? "Biography" does not mean "only good and flattering and happy details about this person's life", and if these details are indeed libelous or untrue then they shouldn't be in the article at all. I of course disagree with your silly characterization of Salon as some far-left gossip sheet unfit as a WP source and we're not going to find any common ground on that point. Most of the objectionable comments are linked to particular people and readers can judge the vaildity of those comments since a full context is provided. There's nothing here that violates WP:RS or WP:BLP. Gamaliel 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm only going to make one appeal here to keep this civil and not ratchet up the rhetoric. I have yet to attack you but instead have quoted policy and asked for your specific rationale. You, on the other hand, have not provided that rationale, nor answered my objection based on policy (simply saying "it's not a violation of WP:BLP" is not an argument or rationale) but have characterized my objections as "silly". You have also managed to mis-represent my arguments. Nowhere have I advocated including "only and flattering and happy details". The specific objections are the accusations printed at Salon.com regarding his allegedly posing nude and the reprint of an alleged letter supposedly attributed to Savage reprinted on a site titled "michalesavagesucks.com" (again see point number three above from WP:BLP about partisan sources). Extrordinary claims require impeccable sources. In addition there is a POV issue. There is blatant POV and there is subtle POV. Including what is nothing more that repeated accusations right along side facts like "He attended Queens College" gives the appearance that these two statements are of equal weight and is a form of subtle POV. As for "gosip sheet" what would you call it. Stephen Schwartz claims Savage posed nude with Ginsberg. Claims! Produce the photo or else it's gossip. And any "paper" that prints that claim without seeing the photo and without mentioning that Schwartz has a personal ax to grind with Savage, is irresponsible and obviously partisan intending to impune the Savage's reputation. It's a claim of a photo that's rumored to exists. Journalism 101, my friend. That's why you can't find any mainstream source.--WilliamThweatt 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
sfweekly story says the same thing about a photo as the salon (or schwartz says teh same thing to both papers). I think it means savage was a wild guy in the seventies. Plus I rewrote it so most of hte gossip is in the last paragraph, why not just erase that?Mrdthree 05:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Untrue, I've provided an excellent rationale: mainstream, reliable sources have reported on this information. I'm sorry that you dislike my disagreeing with you, but you simply can't wish them away as partisan tabloids and pretend they violate WP:RS. The guy used to hang out with hippies and use a photo of him naked with one of the country's most famous living poets as his calling card. This isn't gossip, this is a colorful biographical detail backed up with sources from mainstream publications. Did they get it wrong? Maybe so. Then we'll put up Savage's denial too. You do advocate including "only flattering and happy details" if you wish to strip the biography section of anything remotely provocative and put it in a "controversy" section. Frankly, I don't think there's remotely controversial or negative or unflattering about what Savage did (sorry, is alleged to have done) during his hippie days, but since his fans like to beat up hippies, it suddenly becomes "controversial". And if you want to talk about misrepresenting things, you are the latest in a long line of editors who is falsely claiming that michaelsavagesucks.com is being used as a source for this article. Not one piece of information comes from there. The letter was reported on by many mainstream publications and they are cited. Gamaliel 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I'd just like to point out that your POV is shining through loud and clear. I can't stand savage. But in this case, William seems to the the user here seeking truth over rhetoric. What serious, knowledgeable person would deny that Salon is a (mainstream) partisan source? The Savage article is packed full of negative facts about him, which there are plenty to choose from. How is William, trying to correct a few, trying to only have "flattering and happy details"? Shouldn't we strive for the truth over the possible here? Brittanica wouldn't look like this, that I can assure you.abbynormal1 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Opposing the removal of material cited with a mainstream source that qualifies under WP:RS is not POV. Gamaliel 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel, your behavior is not very wiki-like. Refusal to engage in constructive debate is reflecting very poorly on your character. Simply asserting that Salon.com is a mainstrain non-partisan source does not make it so and is not an argument. Provide your rationale. I have laid out my case, others have agreed, and you have not answered it. You can not take an unproven accusation that the subject denies and include it in a biography section right alongside legitimate biographical facts. Again accoring to WP:BLP such claims and accusations need highly credible, non-partisan sources. The bar is set much higher than what is required in WP:RS (simply "mainstream"). If you can't see this than you are indeed blinded by your POV as abbynormal1 suggests and should recuse yourself from further editing this article until you can abide by Wikipedia policy and engage in consensus-seeking, NPOV, non-agenda-pushing editing. Whether you think the allegations in question here are "controversial" or "unflattering" is irrellevant; Savage, himself, does and has denied them as untrue attacks against his character meant to discredit him. This makes it controversial, by definition, and also necessitates the stricter standards dictated by WP:BLP. --WilliamThweatt 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Savage never denied the photograph of him and ginsberg, he denied the homoerotic letters and postcards.Mrdthree 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's odd that you claim I am refusing to engage in constructive debate when here I am engaging in constructive debate. I'm not going to recuse myself because of your accusations or because we disagree on the nature of a source. Salon is a credible mainstream source. For example, Magazines for Libraries, a standard reference work in the field, describes it as "one of the finest publications on the web" and as an "outstanding resource". A source like this should not be dismissed because you think they said some mean things about conservatives. Gamaliel 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the photograph in particular, it appears in two mainstream publications, the person making the claim is a conservative, and Savage has not denied it. This is hardly a liberal hatchet job here. Gamaliel 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Link to the picture, otherwise you can't go forward with an allegation that could impact someone's reputation. Would you not agree that we need to see the picture first? 2nd Piston Honda 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But aside from that, why should this be in the Bio section? It should be in a controversy section. 2nd Piston Honda 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? There is no "naked photo controversy". It's just a biographical detail. The biography section is not just for things everyone thinks is positive. Gamaliel 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Until you show the picture, it's still controvertible. But even if it were true, is it important enough to be in the Bio? It seems to me to be a random event in Savage's life. Should i add other small events also? 2nd Piston Honda 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is important enough to be mentioned in at least two mainstream media profiles of Savage. So if there are other details that have been likewise mentioned, please add them. Gamaliel 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Can i cite mainstream media profiles that don't include it? Also, you would still have to show the picture, don't keep forgetting that. 2nd Piston Honda 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Poor Article

If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, these type of biographies should be eliminated. This is written like a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. Can you seriously say this is a balanced article? Please, list two positive sentences in the article.?Bgreimann

He tried to be as funny as lenny Bruce. He got an education. He hung with interesting people in his youth. Repudiated it and became a successful radio show host. What more positive bio could you want?Mrdthree 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Practically half of his "Bio & Education" section is a blatant POV smear against him. --Rambone (Talk) 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The citation of blatant character assassins such as Media Matters only lessens the credibility of the article. Citing Media Matters in Michael Savage's biography is like citing David Duke's website in an article about the Holocaust and calling it fair criticism. -Trega123 12:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
So many people on the left dislike MS that it is difficult to keep the bio positive. Maybe a good way to find arguments for keeping a bio positive is for you or someone to criticize a left wing celeb in their bio and see what defenses fall out. Good cases for criticism are Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! or Michael Moore. These bios are uncritical and these people are internet-researchable and it would be curious to see how their supporters respond to negative aspects of the folks bio or criticism from groups like Accuracy in Media (the counterpoint of Media Matters). Mrdthree 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Mrdthree, I think you've hit on a fundamental difference between the ideologies of the left and the right. Most true conservatives aren't into this sort of constant bashing and belittling of the other side. Of course there are a few exceptions such as Ann Coulter and her ilk, but even most conservatives recognize this about those sorts. On the other hand, it seems all the left can do is bash, belittle and attempt to discredit popular conservatives on a personal level instead of presenting logical refutations to their points of view. Conservatives, for the most part, recognize that it is much more productive (and important to the future of the country) to argue the issues than to attack the style/character, etc. of those you disagree with. Now....I know...even as you're reading this you're screaming "Monica Lewinsky! What about Lewinsky-gate?". So let me answer that in advance. The whole issue there that most conservatives had a problem with, was the perjury. And the left tried to reframe the issue, "the president's private life is none of our business" and gave him a pass on the perjury. We want to see fair, encyclopedic articles on all public/political persons, both right and left, so readers can listen to the ideals and principles espoused by the respective "sides" and judge them on the merits of their arguments. We don't want to see the sort of tabloid, yellow journalism that is rampant in this particular article. As somebody said above, the accusations and character assassinations currently in this article would NEVER even be considered for publication in the Encyclopedia Britanica or any other respectable Encyclopedia. So please don't encourage others to stoop to your their level on other articles.--WilliamThweatt 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Mmm... I love how little Limbaughs (oh, and the big Limbaugh) always think the other side is "screaming Lewinsky". The day I hear a mouthy Conservative (a very distinct young breed) hold an argument and not say 'Lewinsky' in the first 20 minutes I'll.... well. I don't know what I'll do, but I know I've got a long time to think about it.Yeago 23:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Do you actually believe this? "Sure, my side has crazy people, but the other side is all crazy people." In the same breath you decry "character assassination" you assassinate the characters of everyone with a political viewpoint different from you. Gamaliel 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Another prime example!
  • I don't recall using the word "crazy" or even implying it.
  • I didn't assassinate anybody's character, but simply pointed out a difference in tactics.
  • I wasn't writing about "everyone with a political viewpoint different from [me]", I was writing about extreme lefties (there are plenty of people with different viewpoints than me who aren't extreme lefties).
  • You subtly falsely accused me on these three issues in order to avoid addressing my main point: "We don't want to see the sort of tabloid, yellow journalism that is rampant in this particular article. As somebody said above, the accusations and character assassinations currently in this article would NEVER even be considered for publication in the Encyclopedia Britanica or any other respectable Encyclopedia. So please don't encourage others to stoop to your their level on other articles."
Way to go! Thanks for your help!--WilliamThweatt 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And this is a prime example of attempting to take the moral high ground while attacking your enemies. If they respond in kind or call your tactic for what it is, you just go "tsk-tsk, those silly <insert name of enemy here>, don't they wish they could be up here on this moral high ground with me where I wouldn't dream of attacking anyone." *eyeroll* Gamaliel 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if pointing out a difference in tactics between two opposing sides is an "attack" then I am guilty as charged. And if calling for a truely encyclopedic tone (for all the biographical articles) instead of accusations and inuendo is "attempting to take the moral high ground", then I plead guilty on that count as well. Oh, and by the way, you're still talking about me and not the article.--WilliamThweatt 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And your long rant about the tactics of the left is talking about the article? Gamaliel 21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Indirectly, yes. It was in answer to Mrdthree's odd "suggestion" to make this article neutral by ruining other articles. And it wasn't a "long rant" it was one medium-length paragraph, the first few sentences of which were pointing out the folly of Mrdthree's suggestion and giving the reason for his observation that articles on lefties aren't crap like this one. And you're still trying to discredit me instead of talking about the article.--WilliamThweatt 13:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in discrediting you. I'm just pointing out that your rant was hardly talking about the article. And no, I'm not talking about the article in this particular section at this moment, but then neither are you. Can we move on now? Gamaliel 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To a liberal, if a conservative points out facts against them, then it's an "attack". Conservatives just want to talk about the factual accuracy and logic of claims, but liberals can never seem to get past either the people who are arguing, the manner of the argument, the idea of the argument, or the motives they perceive are behind the argument. 2nd Piston Honda 09:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This argument isn't any less silly a month later. Let it go. Gamaliel 14:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Kasreyn 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: Incomplete Quote

I placed a cleanup marker where the article states

"I'm not going to deal with the salacious issues that these faggots come up with... If I know a gay, suddenly everyone's gay? It's disgusting!

Notice there is not a quotation mark at the end of the statement. It is unclear whether the article is paraphrasing or the author simply forgot the final quotation mark. -Trega123 12:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Savage Genocide Quote

Excuse this newbie if I am doing something wrong here but I have to point out that there are contradictory quotations in this article about killing 100 million Muslims. I happened to be listening that day and I don't remember him saying the word "peaceful" in that sentence, so I believe the second version of the quote is most likely the accurate one. I was shocked he was advocating genocide.

I think this should be checked and updated so people realize that this guy is a dangerous jackass.

24.80.172.102 08:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me...

What in the world is an old world lower-east-side finger tuck?Yeago 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we want to know. Gamaliel ~

"Finger tuck" IMHO refers to the fascinating hand-shaking choreography that urban non-whites use with one and other to demonstrate their common origns and thus mutual credibility. For example, starts with a hand-shake, followed by a repositioning of the hands for another grip, and so on. 70.107.119.221 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does Gamaliel suggest that others don't want to know? Why the presumption that is undesirable, or uncomfortable, or sexual? 24.44.93.71 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he misread "finger tuck" as something that could be typed with a key adjacent to "t"... Kasreyn 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Revere Society

Why is there a citation tag after "He founded The Paul Revere Society to protect these aspects of American society." ?? It's well known Michael Savage founded this group, and its stated goals are clearly visible on the site's webpage. --NEMT 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why not just add a citation for the appropriate page of the website? The Paul Revere Society is not as well known as you think it is and not all of us have heard of it or are familiar with its workings and goals. Gamaliel 03:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
werd.Yeago 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The official site seems to be down at the moment (or maybe just coded poorly). I don't see why citation is necessary, this isn't a contraversial or implausible claim - Savage talks about the PRS on his program frequently, and has it mentioned in most of his books and official site. What exactly requires citation, the fact that Savage founded it, or the fact that it was founded "to protect these aspects [borders, language culture] of American society?" --NEMT 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are you resistant to citing this information? Citations are not just for controversial or implausible facts. You evidently have some knowledge of this organization, so why not share that with the reader? Add some information or a citation. Gamaliel 05:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
All the relevant information is already included in the paragraph itself. By the standard you are applying here, every article should have exponentially more citations. We both know why you're pushing for the inclusion of the fact tag, by the way. --NEMT 06:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh. It really isn't a very controversial statement. The citation flag is the abused bastard child of Wikipedia. Its pretty straightforward.Yeago 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Because the information in the article is a vague unverified assertion and the reader has no idea where to go for more information. You are familiar with this organization, so why are you resistant to sharing information that you have with the reader? Gamaliel 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I should have looked at the article first. Thank you for adding a citation. Gamaliel 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem, should I add references to his publishers' web sites to prove he wrote all those books? --NEMT 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, collaborating with you is going to be fun! Gamaliel 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings accuracy

By all available accounting data, Savage enjoys an audience of eight million listeners a week. Savage claims that number to be a gross under estimation and believes the number is closer to twenty million. However, having personally participated in the collection of data that tracks ratings, the eight and twenty million numbers are quite misleading. A listener is not counted as someone who sits next to any particular station in rapt attention for the entire show. People's listening habits are averaged and tracked in fifteen minute intervals. So, if a person participating in an Arbitron tracking survey for any given ratings period they will write down every station listened to and the duration period they listened to the station. This is the only way in which information can be gathered today, using the diary technique. There is a company that hooks up antenna receivers at certain intersections that picks up station signals from passing cars that, for a fee, station owners can subscribe to. this comment was made by 71.223.40.21 in the article so I moved it here and will label it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.40.21 (talk • contribs)


Useless Trivia

I have decided to delete then entire trivia section, while also inserting some of the information into the appropriate areas. This entire section is useless. It seems like a half-baked last minute fart-in-the-air-conditioning to me. If someone feels that it is has a specific use, I have posted the text here:

  • On his February 10, 2006 show, he proclaimed that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is "full of crap" and that most of his entry is untrue. [citation needed] The subject was brought up because of a recent report that aides to politicians have been tweaking their bosses' bios to make them come across more favorably. During his show on May 24, 2006, Savage stated that he believes those who edit Wikipedia have finally gotten it somewhat right. He would later recant this statement.[citation needed]. On his July 28, 2006 show, Savage once again pointed out inaccuracies in his Wikipedia article. Savage cites the fact that it says he was born in Brooklyn AND the Bronx in the "Biography and Education" section. Savage also pointed out that the article states that his program was licensed under Clear Channel, which it never was. On September 7, 2006 when talking about libel, and how famous people can't sue for defamation or untruths, he once again claimed that his Wikipedia article was full of inaccuracies. On September 15, Savage once again slipped in that his bio on wikipedia is full of inaccuracies. He was angry that the article did not include his personal contribution of $5000 to the "Boys at Camp Pendleton".The article has since been updated.
  • Savage once criticized the Mortal Kombat series of video games, despite having previously used a sound clip of the game's villain Goro bellowing with rage to return from a commercial break. Given the generic nature of the sound, it was unlikely that Savage was aware of this, and the initial use of that clip has been attributed to an intern fooling around with the audio library.
  • Russell Goldencloud Weiner, Savage's son, is the founder and CEO of Rockstar, Inc., the manufacturer and marketer of Rockstar energy drink.
  • In 1998, Russ ran for a seat in the California legislature (State Assembly, District 6) on the platform of being a card-carrying Paul Revere Society member. Footage of the televised debate shows him pulling out the membership card, holding it up high, and speaking at length about his membership in the society.[36]
  • Michael Savage's fill-in guest hosts include former U.S. congressman "B-1" Bob Dornan, Rick Roberts, Peter Weisback and Douglas Urbanski (movie producer/manager of actor Gary Oldman.)

Color me invisible 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Its noteworthy that his son is the CEO of a famous brand, I would replace it, minimally as

  • Russell Goldencloud Weiner, Savage's son, is the founder and CEO of Rockstar, Inc., the manufacturer and marketer of Rockstar energy drink.
  • In 1998, Russ ran for a seat in the California legislature (State Assembly, District 6) on the platform of being a card-carrying Paul Revere Society member.
  • As of September 2006, Michael Savage claims his Wikipedia Biography is full of inaccuracies

This belongs in the radio show paragraph:

  • Michael Savage's fill-in guest hosts include former U.S. congressman "B-1" Bob Dornan, Rick Roberts, Peter Weisback and Douglas Urbanski (movie producer/manager of actor Gary Oldman.)

Mrdthree 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that we keep Weiner's comments on Wikipedia (assuming we can source them). To one of his fans visiting us for the first time, it would seem quite fishy that it is not mentioned. I would say that in the context of a Wikipedia article on a celebrity, that celebrity's stated opinions about the quality of his own WP bio article are definitely noteworthy. Ie., our readers probably deserve to know that the subject feels we haven't done him justice. Kasreyn 05:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this article moved?

I forget but I feel like when I used to type michael savage it came here. Mrdthree 03:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockstar Energy Drink

I think a mere mention of this product is worthy of a few lines considering Michael Savage is involved in the business. I also believe it unsporting of the Michael Savage fan-base to admit that even their powers of P.R spin are incapable of rose-tinting a section that would include FACTS about this company being involved with the pornography industry to sell its image and product. (hmmmmm, could Michael Savages' claim that this page is full of crap be a freudian slip?) Dean1970 28 September 2006

I think its reasonable to put a See Also link to Russ Weiners page or if Rockstar has a page. But I think you are totally right that his sons ties to the pornography industry are deserving of a mention. More of an irony than a hypocrisy though. Mrdthree 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Views on religion

I think Savage has repeatedly stated that he does not believe Islam is simliar to christianity and judaism. This would seem to refute the "religion is a wheel" claim in the views on religion section. Can anyone provide any evidence to support or refute this statement? If not, I propose deletion of at least this one sentence form that section. Jmcshane 05:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Savage's syndicate

Why does this article state that Savage is syndicated by Clear Channel? He's syndicated by Talk Radio Network (TRN). He even mentioned this Wikipedia error on his show last month. His flagship station is a Clear Channel station, but that's not the same thing.Politician818 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Dean1970 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Stand in hosts for The Savage Nation & Pornography Industry connections

One central theme for The Savage Nation seems to be how "the hollywood vermin" as Savage puts it are undermining values in a society where coarseness is becoming more and more acceptable. It would seem strange then, that Savage would choose Douglas Urbanski to fill in for him, Urbanski is the 1998 BAFTA Awards winner for Best British Film Nil by Mouth, a movie credited with containing the word "F@ck" a record 470 times and the word "C@nt" 96 times. A record that stood until 2005. Anyone see the irony here?

Also, I added info to the Rockstar Energy Drink page about this Savage family company being linked to the pornography Industry via Penthouse magazine, a company that has printed full nude photos of underage girls in the past (nowadays known as Child Porn). The irony, or hypocrisy here is that Savage regulary lambasts the porno industry, he refers to Comcast as Cumcast, he should visit RockStar69.com.

Dean1970 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Krystal Methodist

Michael savage has recently started to use the term "Krystal Methodist" or "Crystal Methodist" as a slang for....I don't know quite what.

On further research of the Savage family business Rockstar Energy Drink and their links to the pornography industry in which they collaborated with Penthouse Magazine and porn star Jamie Lynn for a 2006 SuperBowl party it appears that Jamie Lynn has starred in pornography flicks suchas "First Offence 14", "Pussy Foot'n 13" and "Krystal Method". Has Savage ever explained the origins of the term?

Dean1970 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)