Talk:Bernie Miklasz

Is his real name Bernard?
It is hard to find info on Bernie, so if anyone has a good source, feel free to add to this page or leave a link here on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section
I've removed the controversy section because it was a) not sourced, and b) not at all controversial. He had an opinion on the Rams QB situation, and he blocks people on a forum. Neither of those things are controversial or notable in the slightest, as far as I can tell. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The very subject of Warner v Bulger,and what happened by whom and when is very controversial in the St. Louis sports world. Thousands of links to the controversy can be provided, but here is one that is 100% unassailable in sourcing  http://assets.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1462874.html  So Step 1, can we put to bed the notion that there was no controversy?


 * Miklasz stance and action in the controversy are also well know. I've sourced numerous writings from the subject of the Wiki entry himself, which is unassailable according to the rules of Wiki.  So Step 2, can we agree which side of the controversy Bernie was on?


 * A journalist actively moving to limit and/or prevent freedom of expression is not controversial? Its exactly why Google is contemplating a move from China.  Again, several links can be provided in addition to other Bernie sourced documentation.  Step 3, what burden of proof should I satisfy?


 * Step 4, can we agree all references to "Voted Most Influential Person in all of St. Louis Sports" are poorly sourced? The documentation for the award is from a freely distributed "ragazine" owned by sports marketing group with many direct ties to Bernie:  http://stlsportsmag.com/wordpress/?p=327 Sdiver68 (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree about the influential award, feel free to remove that. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your link about Warner vs Bulger doesn't even mention Miklasz. I don't doubt there was quite a lot of discussion about that QB switch, you might even be able to stretch it into calling it a controversy. However, you haven't shown what makes it a controversy for Miklasz. It seems like it was just his opinion, which sportscasters always have. As for the forum posts, I don't see the notability there either. No one is guaranteed freedom of expression on someone else's forum (or Wikipedia, for that matter).


 * I agree with you on the sourcing on the "Most Influential" link. Dayewalker (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So the standard here is you have the right to remove information, completely within the rules of Wikipedia, which meet all the evidence requirements of Wiki? Just because you don't agree that Miklasz's opinion is controversial doesn't mean others share that opinion. In fact, again I've linked to several references showing the controversy. Sure, no one is guaranteed freedom of expression, but pointing out that a journalist is engaged in censorship behavior merits public scrutiny, no? Or is there a rule here that you can only post things that will be looked upon favorably by the subject? If so, I'll need to redact most of the George W. Bush entrySdiver68 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It goes back to significant coverage in reliable sources. The references you linked to are self published sources.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, simply showing the situation was controversial doesn't mean his comments were controversial. He's a sportswriter with opinions, why is that notable? Wikipedia isn't for personal opinions on what people have said, it's for reliable sources.


 * Also, saying someone's actions deserve "public scrutiny" is very clearly original research. If there's no reliable source discussing it, and yet you still feel it needs to be pointed out, that's just pot-stirring. Dayewalker (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Self published material is a reliable source for the person in question if its written by the person who published it. Period. End of Story. No more discussion. Any further undos will be reported. Feel free to edit toward the truth, however, as you see fit.Sdiver68 (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't get to make those rules, Sdiver68. Decisions here are made according to Wikipedia policy and consensus, neither of which you seem to have right now. I have reverted the section again, since you haven't responded to any of the questions above as to why this section is notable in the slightest. Feel free to report any of us to the relevant noticeboard, I'd suggest the edit war board. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And neither do you, consider yourself reported not only for the edit war but for not understanding reliable source rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Dayewalker_and_Omarcheeseboro_reported_by_sdiver68_.28Result:_.29Sdiver68 (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting us, makes things easier Never mind. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Forum posts are not reliable sources. What is the source that's being used to indicate Miklasz was involved in a controversy? -- Neil N   talk to me  04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Otherwise, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source" -- Neil N   talk to me  04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't doubt what's being suggested here by Sdiver68 actually happened. However, I can't see how it's notable in the slightest. There are no secondary sources indicating any controversy actually happened. A sportsguy giving an opinion, and a forum mod throwing people off a forum. Neither of those things is notable. Dayewalker (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... in my country there's a nationally known sports commentator who ocassionally makes controversial comments. Coverage of these comments are in his bio because they were widely covered by reliable secondary sources. This doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting twist. I'm sorry but I'm horrified at the thought of a print and radio journalist who actively denies others free speech that did not violate the T&C's of the forum.  If that's not notable, I'm not sure what is.  The example I linked 2 was just 1 such example and I have proof of others that would stand up in court if it ever came to that.  If it was the case that Dayewalker was objecting to that part, why the complete undo?  A simple edit leaving the Miklasz-Warner controversy in the article would have solved the issue.  By the way, when talking about events which occur on a public forum, about a person who promotes himself through social media such as Twitter, blogs, facebook, etc.. I find it odd that public forums would not in themselves be considered reliable sources. Sdiver68 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be notable if other third-party reliable sources covered it. The forums are not reliable sources for what Miklasz did as the posts are considered self-published. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that for now. Your take, Neil, on the Warner-Miklasz controversy where I linked back to numerous posts made by Bernie himself? Sdiver68 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

{unindent) Can you please give the source where the Warner-Miklasz controversy is described? -- Neil N   talk to me  05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the section I wrote below. While they are forums, they contained direct copy and paste, attributed material back to the original.  If need be I can scan the original print versions of each as stltoday.com has taken the electronic versions down from the site due to this controversy. Sdiver68 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies Bernie supported the removal of Kurt Warner in favor of Mark Bulger.

References:

http://www.mombu.com/sports/st-louis-rams/t-bernie-miklasz-article-on-bulger-1532831.html http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=59761 http://www.clanram.com/forums/f11/bunch-bernie-posts-3370/


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're linking to Miklasz article (which makes no reference to his views generating controversy) and two forum posts which cannot be used as sources for anything here. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) It's a nearly decade-old quarterback controversy for the St. Louis Rams, the same kind of thing happens pretty much every year in about 30% of NFL cities. It happens. Keeping track years later of which sportswriter expressed an opinion one way or the other isn't notable at all, unless the controversy is discussed in reliable sources dealing with the controversy. Merely showing that the writer wrote something at one point doesn't make it notable or controversial. Dayewalker (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies, revisited
Controversies section is back, addressing all editor complaints of relevance and reliable sources Sdiver68 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's been removed again. As you were just blocked for edit warring a controversy section onto this page, I'll suggest politely you bring your additions to the talk page for discussion before adding them to the page.


 * Addressing your points, the Warner discussion isn't a controversy still. Again, merely pointing out Miklasz expressed an opinion doesn't make it a controversy, especially seven years later. Voting for McGwire (or Bonds) isn't a controversy, as a lot of sports writers did it. Again, it's just an opinion, not a controversy. A quote from him about the internet isn't controversial, unless you can show in a reliable source that it's a controversy.


 * The press conference with LaRussa is the only one of those things that might possibly be thought of mildly controversial, but in his own interview, he admits it wasn't a big deal.


 * Again, this is a biography of a living person and as such, requires a high bit of scrutiny. As you seem to be dead set on adding a controversy section to this BLP, please bring your additions here to gain consensus before adding them. Dayewalker (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you follow my new links? Each of them was from a reliable source.  1)  A column by Bernie himself.  2)  Direct interview with Bernie referring to La Russa clash  3)  Article in the Mercury News, a newspaper with full editorial review  4)  Youtube, actual video of the event  5)  Riverfront Times article, again another published newspaper with full editorial review.  6)  ESPN


 * http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=4904467331&topic=3011 - voting for McGwire and defending the vote
 * http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2009/04/17/qa-with-bernie-miklasz-of-the-st-louis-post-dispatch/ - La Russa spat, using the internet as a weapon
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g64Ae58SvEk - youtube la russa spat
 * http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2002-12-18/news/faded-love/1 - RFT article alluding to controvesy
 * http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/news/story?id=2725461
 * By the way, I told the suspending admin I was going to reedit with new links, he was fine with it. In fact, we have an ongoing discourse about your edit war behavior.  How are you going to defend your latest revert?  Earlier you stated and I quote "Keeping track years later of which sportswriter expressed an opinion one way or the other isn't notable at all, UNLESS the controversy is discussed in reliable sources dealing with the controversy. Merely showing that the writer wrote something at one point doesn't make it notable or controversial."  Now in each case I have a reliable sources discussing the controversies, so now you've reversed course??? Sdiver68 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I told the suspending admin I was going to reedit with new links, he was fine with it." is misleading - what I actually said was "Not my concern. I'm not even watching the article." (I'm here now because of Dayewalker's user talk message.) I've made further remarks to you by email. Dispute resolution is that way; WP:NPOVN and WP:RFC would be likely candidates. Rd232 talk 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I did follow the links, while I don't doubt that any of them say what you indicate, none of them show that it's a controversy.

Let me try and simplify this, let's look at one of the proposed additions as an example. I know that choosing Marc Bulger over Kurt Warner was something that was a big deal at the time in St. Louis (and the NFL). However now seven years later, why is this still a notable event? NFL teams swap out quarterbacks all the time. I'm sure there are sports writers in Arizona that supported benching Warner a few years ago in favor of Matt Leinart, we don't include that in their bios.

Sports writers write, and give their opinion. Just because the opinions are wrong sometimes doesn't make them notable, and just changing quarterbacks doesn't make it a controversy. Dayewalker (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the reliable link to the Riverfront times? Here let me QUOTE it for you:


 * "Miklasz quickly reversed course and stomped on the gas pedal, flaming Warner and Martz in his column and on his nightly call-in show on KMOX (1120 AM). And in an instant he started sounding like a jilted fan, voicing mistrust and anger that a pro athlete would dare be so single-minded about playing and competing that he'd hide an injury to stay on the field."


 * "C'mon, Bernie -- you could light charcoal with that flame. And your broadcast comments would be perfect for a little country weeper backdropped by some pedal steel and twin fiddles -- faded love and St. Kurt done us wrong."


 * Rush Limbaugh has a controversial incidents section here on Wiki. Consistency demands Miklasz have one as well.  Just because YOU don't think it's notable that a future Hall of Fame QB was ushered out of town due partially to the ranting demands of Bernie doesn't mean it did not happen and should not be documented. Sdiver68 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the link, I understand what you're saying. My point here is in regards to the Warner situation. Why is it a controversy? Why is it notable enough seven years later that a sports writer's opinion is still "controversial?" Dayewalker (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a seminal event for a sports reporter to have helped usher a Hall of Fame QB out of town years before his Hall of Fame type playing days are over, as RECENTLY proven by Warner's playoff performances. It's also a seminal event in his career to have a public shouting match with a future Hall of Fame baseball manager, enough so that Bernie cannot do a personal interview without being asked about it.  It's also very current news and controversial that he voted for McGwire for the Hall of Fame. Sdiver68 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to Warner, you preface your comments with "I think." You do understand that's completely original research, don't you? For the rest of the world, it was a QB controversy that's come and gone, same as every other year. What you're doing by saying his comments were controversial is saying in your opinion, he was wrong.


 * For the record, Warner's not a Hall of Famer. But I guess that's a controversy we can discuss later. Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Except I backed it up with an article from the RFT, "I think" and "the world thinks" are not mutually exclusive. You are not negotiating in good faith.  I've met your requests above and you add new hurdles to clear. You have not "walked away" as your own user page suggests. Sdiver68 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking me up. Since this began, I've never denied that this sportswriter said these things. I ask you again what makes a seven year-old quarterback controversy notable enough to mention on a BLP? Dayewalker (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was notable enough to be covered by reliable sources, including a print newspaper. That was you own burden of proof and it was met.  In addition WP:WELLKNOWN demands this be included Sdiver68 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Policies do not make demands, because they always need to be interpreted and applied. WELLKNOWN says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article". You need to show that it is notable (as well as the other points), which is the point Dayewalker is making above. If you can't agree on the notability, that's where the dispute resolution comes in. Rd232 talk 09:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bad Faith hurdle has been cleared. I have repeatedly shown where the information is notable and being discussed by numerous outside parties and reliable srouces.  Good faith would be to raise objection, have those objections met, and then let go or seek dispute resolution while the edit remains.  In this case, Dayewalker has raised objection, had those objections met, and raised yet more objections. Sdiver68 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I've removed this material yet again, as there is no consensus to add this, and BLPs have a high standard for inclusion. It seems like we've reached an impasse on this one. I agree with Rd232 above, and would suggest the next step be an request for comment. That will bring in other editors to consider both sides of the discussion.

I'll be happy to start an RFC if you'd prefer, but I thought I'd offer you the chance to make it out yourself and give your side first. Dayewalker (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is 'Controversies' section relevant in biography of internet savvy sports media personality?
Is the controversies section of the linked revision appropriate for this article? See above for discussion and revision history. The latest revision (WITH Controversies section) addressing all prior editor criticisms is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Miklasz&diff=338748928&oldid=338666707  Sdiver68 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Summing up the opposition above, which includes my own point, the "controversy" section is merely opinions stated by the sports writer. There has been no notability established for the issues involved (Kurt Warner losing his QB job to Marc Bulger seven years ago, the writer being one of several who voted for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame, etc.), and thus no "controversy" exists, only opinions. I've tried to explain this on the talk page for quite a while and we've gone around in circles, so I'd be very interested to see what other editors think about the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Summary of my position: After the latest round of edits for reliable source objections, the sole opposition is the editor directly above.  If you read the whole talk section, you'll find the above editor objected to the Controversies section based on several wiki principles which I believe were misapplied.  After several rounds of jumping those hurdles to satisfy Dayewalker's own requests for evidence, his sole remaining argument is "notable".  In links above and prior edits, I've shown multiple clear reliable source evidence of the controversies which are very well known in the St. Louis sports world and mentioned in several national publications.  Without the Controversy section, the "biography" stands as a fluff piece without mention of his work product thus I feel it's vital to neutrality to balance the article.  Note other media opinion personality Wikis, such as Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman, contain sections analogous to this section.  Finally, as long as the reliable content is retained I've offered to let other editors rewrite the piece but instead each consensus seeking rewrite has simply been undone. Sdiver68 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * crickets chirping Sdiver68 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dayewalker. There is no reason to believe what was posted is controversial. Looks like someone is trying to push a biased pov here. Richard  ( talk ) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)