User talk:WindyCityRider
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clearly you and I have a difference of opinion with regard to the Gary Radnich wikipedia page. I stated my own rationale for my own revision on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Radnich">Gary Radnich "discussion" page</a>.
To summarize, our disagreement is over this text, which you believe should be part of the page and I believe is inappropriate.
"In 2003, the SF Weekly described his radio program as "amateurish" and "incomprehensible" while awarding "Best Sports Talker" to his KNBR colleague Tom Tolbert.[1] In 2005, Art Spander panned Radnich for his support of Larry Krueger's racist comments about Giants' skipper Felipe Alou.[2] In 2006, the SF Weekly named Radnich "Best Sportscaster", noting that his broadcasts are "spontaneous" and that he "knows sports"[3]."
My problem with the text is that it violates Wikipedia's neutral-POV policy. The article on Radnich is a stub, and it's inappropriate in such an article to go to the extent you did in searching for criticism of him.
The above paragraph has two main sources for its criticism, and the inappropriate-ness of each source can be illustrated.
1) With regard SF Weekly--you cite it for calling Radnich "amateurish" and "incomprehensible" while awarding Best Sports Talker to Tom Tolbert. Yet this award is nowhere cited in Tolbert's wikipedia page.
2) With regard to the Art Spander criticism. You say Spander "panned Radnich for his support of Larry Krueger's racist comments." But nowhere does the word "racist," nor any part of Spander's criticism, appear on Krueger's wikipedia page.
These flaws would not be solved by editing the pages of Tolbert and Krueger. What I'm showing, in the above, is that these articles are cited by you only because they are critical of Radnich. Absent the fact that they agree with a point-of-view that you're trying to promote, they have no place in a stub like the one here.
In addition to all that, your citation of the Spander article is done in a very misleading way. That article is all about Krueger--with one sentence mentioning Radnich in passing more than halfway through the article. Yet the article is cited by headline in a way that readers are misled to believe that Radnich got himself in hot water for racist comments. Use of the word "racist" in any context is dangerous. The manner it's used in here is so reckless as to suggest the intent to mislead and libel a public figure.
