Talk:Andrew Wilkow

Untitled
Not sure whether it merits a mention here or not, but this is absolutely hilarious. I found it while checking on notability when the article had a prod tag. -Colin Kimbrell 05:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike Stark, the guy who asked Wilkow the petri dish question, is a troll who makes a living making prank calls on conservative radio hosts. Stark asked the question knowing damn well that whatever answer Wilkow gave, it would still be wrong. As Wilkow himself explained, if he chose to save the petri dishes, which contained fertilized eggs, from a clinic fire, he would be considered insane for leaving the two-year-old girl to die. Keep in mind that in the question Stark asked, Wilkow couldn't save both the petri dishes, and the girl, and therefore had to choose between either one. And, if Wilkow chose to save the girl from said fire, then he would not be a considered a real pro-lifer in the eyes of Stark, because Wilkow left the petri dishes behind.

In short, it was an impossible question to answer. 69.118.97.26 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure that Mr. Stark is a troll, and I'm certain he doesn't "make a living off of prank calls" (that's a hobby, not a profession). Either way, what Colin may have been suggesting is that this incident, and the fact that Mr. Wilkow got excessively angry (the source of the humor) be incorporated into the article. I'm not sure how that can be done in a NPOV matter without weasel words, though. --Benfergy 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that much of Mr. Wilkow's fame has originated with this call, I decided to include it in the links section. williss


 * I'm not sure that it can.


 * Also, the contention that "much of Mr. Wilkow's fame" stems from the call of a professional instigator-yes, there are leftists, and even leftist organizations, which derive a living from the practice of tape-recording conservative talk shows and confronting conservative talk show hosts under assumed names-rather than the fact that he hosted a talk show on the most-listened to radio station in the country for over a year, is patently absurd.


 * In all of the discussions of Andrew Wilkow's career-whether they involved criticism or praise-this is the first time that I've seen this topic crop up.

Just a quick edit made...The article says Mr. Wilkow was "unborn to an unwed mother".....i'm just going to take the "un" out of "unborn" Ruthfulbarbarity 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph about not having his picture taken is unsourced, speculative, and possibly libelous if untrue. Please provide a source if you decide to put the paragraph back in.StreamingRadioGuide 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of show?
(comment moved here from article:)

his show on sirius patriot 144 is the wikow majority not the andrew wilkow show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardlpryor (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 March 2008

"Sodomite"
Arclightzero, please do not delete referenced and relevant information about a subject without even giving a reason as to why you're doing so. Whether or not you are a fan of Wilkow, it is not debatable that he said what he said. I also don't think anyone would seriously argue that these statements aren't inflammatory, that they aren't designed to offend, or that they don't say a lot about Wilkow's personality as a radio host and his personal positions on homosexuality. Obviously when Wilkow said what he said, he wanted people to listen. I don't understand why you'd want to conceal his dislike for gay people from Wikipedia readers. Especially if Wilkow wants it made public so badly. If he's worthy of an article, than this quote is worthy of inclusion in the article. 64.131.172.76 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That single statement on a single show really bothers you, and possibly rightly so, but it's your own POV/bias that has caused you to insert it into the article. It simply is not encyclopedic and is worded to be an attack on Wilkow, and is an attack on Wilkow, and violates various Wiki policies regarding living persons, etc. I'm removing it right now.
 * Go get yourself some experience on Wikipedia, more than the 5 edits you have now, and do it on pages that are not controversial for you. Then come back and edit to your heart's content. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, that statement does bother me. But I also think it serves a useful encyclopedic purpose in terms of illustrating the subject's political viewpoints. If you're going to delete that section of the article because it was "my own POV/bias" that caused me to insert it into the article, then by the same logic you should delete the entire article, because I'm sure the only reason anyone put it up was because of their own POV/bias in favor of the proposition that Wilkow is a topic worthy of an article. As for your "Go get yourself more experience" remark, it just goes to show how often Wikibullies tread on what are supposed to be bedrock WP principles. I have a handle and extensive experience creating and maintaining here--I just don't happen to be signed in at the moment. Go reread WP:BITE before the next time you go waltzing off to revert someone's edit simply because you've judged them as having "insufficient experience." I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but I stand by my position that this quote from Wilkow is verifiable, documented, relevant, and encyclopedic. If your objection is to how it's framed, then present what you think is an NPOV way of introducing it. Otherwise you're just shooting down information that, for all we know, you object to because of your *own* POV. 64.131.172.76 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the above poster. I'm signed in now, and if I don't hear back from you, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, I'm going to restore this material from this account, which, presumably, is experienced enough to negate your prior objections to the addition of the quote. Iamblessed (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize for not thoroughly explaining why I deleted the "referenced and relevant" information as I did; however LegitimateAndEvenCompelling explained it perfectly. I'm not sure that your rationale for adding information that you consider inflamatory or offending has much weight to it since this is Wikipedia, not Media Matters. However, if you would like to add this to an encyclopedia entry, then do so by creating a "quotes" or "controversey" section in the entry (for examples refer to the Rush Limbaugh entry). Do not just add it into the main body of the article. It does indeed look like you're inserting your own POV/Bias. The quote you cite has nothing to do with the main encyclopedic body.--Arclightzero (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted it again. The newbie's major response has been to attack me ("Wikibullies", "next time you go waltzing off"), imply bias ("that statement does bother me"), make snide comments ("delete the entire article ... because of their own POV/bias in favor of the proposition that Wilkow is a topic worthy of an article"), and mislead ("extensive experience creating and maintaining here (89 edits)"). This is Wikipedia. Such behavior is inappropriate. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It takes an extraordinarily sensitive and thin-skinned individual with a very vivid imagination to construe "Wikibullies" and "the next time you go waltzing off" as a "personal attack." It also takes a profoundly undeveloped sense of irony to accuse me of "attacking" you and then without flinching call me a "newbie." Furthermore, "that statement does bother me" is a statement of my position on the issues. I fail to see exactly how it construes an "implied bias." As for whether or not the articles I've created and my corpus of work here qualifies me to say that I have "extensive experience," you're NOT the one who gets to decide what "experienced" is. So basically, rather than respond to the points I have raised, you are simply making irrelevant and untrue statements and continuing to assert your bizarre position that am somehow too inexperienced to edit Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I am reverting this once more before calling in outside arbitration. Just because I don't have as many barnstars or whatever as you do doesn't mean that your word stands on experience alone. This material is worth adding to Wiki and I'm not going to let your POV or your ego or your stubbornness or whatever it is, exactly, that's spurring you along here, to sideline controversial yet documented information about a political personality. 64.131.172.76 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted again.


 * Look, I tried to provide a little guidance. Now I'll provide more.


 * The way you argue your point by pointedly going after people will never, ever get you very far on Wikipedia. You will get reverted almost every single time by dozens of editors if you continue to behave the way you are even after I pointed out how you are behaving.


 * Look, everyone here wants to build Wiki pages. We want you to build them as well. But there are rules for doing so. Those rules are sometimes best learned by experience. I used to be a newbie too. Soon I realized, however, that plowing through others to get what you want is never a successful strategy. You need to calm down and work cooperatively with others. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be successful at helping build Wikipedia.


 * For example, every newbie here is called a newbie. Newbies are newbies everywhere, for that matter. Don't take it personally or think it was meant in any kind of a bad way. Relax. I like you. You have fire and intelligence. You'll make a great editor. Just please try to be a little calmer without the threats about running off for help for being called a newbie, etc. Okay?


 * Now instead of merely reverting with what would be your third personal attack, consider what I have suggested above, or consider rewriting what you have added in proper Wiki fashion. I note that someone has added an external link to the issue about which you are concerned, so your point is not completely absent from the article, and it likely came to his attention because of you. Good job. Please, try to relax and join the wiki community as a partner, not as an adversary. It's not fun for anyone to be adversarial. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is a simple solution to this. Is there mainstream media coverage of this disgusting hate-filled rant? If not, then as much as I would love to expose this asshole for the bigot he is, Wikipedia is not the platform for doing so.

Unfortunately, I took a look, and it looks like it is only being covered by a couple of bloggers (one for Salon, the other for Queerty). Blogs have long been barred as a reliable source, so as much as it pains me to say so, I think we have to let this one go.

That said, allow me to soapbox a bit here and point out that the Salon blogger is absolutely right: WTF happened to the Right in this country?! I've never been a fan of social conservatives myself, but it seems like they've really gone off the deep end since the election. Ah well. Soapboxing over... --13.12.254.95 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, aside from no comment on the soapbox. Come to think of it, that link that was added to the incident, if it's a blog, I'll remove it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)