Talk:Michael Savage (commentator)/strawpull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all I'm disgusted that an admin is participating in an edit war. I shouldn't be the one to be trying to diffuse this situation.

The intention of this talk page is to discuss the placement of the "gay poet" poet section and eventually reach a consensus. There seems to be two camps right now. I'll create two sections, indicate your support in the appropriate section. We'll see how it goes. Please, remember WP:CIVIL. The point here is to create a great article, not push a POV. ---J.Smith 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. Oh, if anyone has a more ideas, feel free to add them in there own sections. ---J.Smith 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Concept 1: Maintain the section in chronological order

[edit] Concept 2: Move the controversial section to a separate section

  1. I happen to support this one. The "beat poet" section has been denied by Savage and it should be set aside so we can explain the controversy a bit better. If we leave it in the main chronology then were are implying a bit that we support one side over the other. ---J.Smith 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. I support this too. Probably the worst structured biography I've come accross in Wikipedia. Can you imagine biographies like this one contained in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's POV articles like these that brings down Wikipedia's reputation. Ask John Seigenthaler Sr what he would think about this biography. ---Hugh_308 17:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, what do you expect when the entire database is virtually governed by liberal wackos, who happen to be Savage's worst enemy?  :-$ Salva 19:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Keep commnets on topic and please no attacks. Remember WP:CIVIL. ---J.Smith 19:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Savage's worst enemy is his own warped mind.
Uh, last time I checked, Dr. Savage has the 3rd most listened to radio program in the entire nation. "Warped"? By whose standards? Certainly not America's!
  1. Conditional Support This whole section is basically hearsay and has no place in an encyclopedic article. There are no credible sources for the accusations other that a very far left website quoting one of Savage's "enemies" making salacious accusations. And an image of a letter that could have been written by anybody posted on a website called MichaelSavageSucks.com. This is the definition of Weasel Words and would most definately not be in the Britannica. I would rather see this whole "he-said, she-said" section deleted. But if the consensus is that this section has enough "merit" to remain, it should be in a separate section or article.--WilliamThweatt 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insert your idea here

When Weiner refers to liberals as "filth, scum, parasites, rats, vermin, etc," is there any wonder that he is hated? I have collected a large archive of audioclips of his program. Is there any way that Wikipedia can host them so they can be heard? If Weiner suffers any discredit, he brings it upon himself with his sneering rhetoric. Better for people to hear it for themselves so that they can be their own judge. Jeff Silberman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.240.163 (talk • contribs)

I agree. His hate speech should be provided as an example.
  • He is quite "outspoken". But that's not really the point here:) Try Wikipedia-source perhaps, altho it might be a copy-vio. ---J.Smith 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A few other alternatives:

  1. Simply delete the weasely, un-encyclopeadic, POV content or
  2. Move the whole "San Francisco Beat Poet Scene, Fiji Homoerotic Letter, Naked Swimming" controversy part to a whole new article, The Savage-Ginsburg controversy. Somebody will most surely then nominate it to the AfD page. If is survives AfD then it will stay and be developed.--WilliamThweatt 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)