Talk:Michael Medved

Pasted from article
Pasted from article:

Michael Medved has a daily talk radio show on 770 AM KTTH based out of Seattle, Washington that is syndicated in various U.S. radio markets. http://www.ktth.com/ Michael Medved recently authored a non-fiction book called Right Turns about his gradual conversion from a political liberal to a conservative. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400051878/qid=1108833454/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-2736321-4503945--

This needs to be integrated into the text in accordance with approved style. Ellsworth 18:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Medved recently published a self-bigraphical work called Right Turns (2005) explaining his gradual conversion from being a liberal-Democrat to conservative-Republican." I've changed self-bigraphical to autobiographical because a) it was spelt wrong and b) autobiographical is standard. Assuming, of course, that that is what the writer meant to say. -User:Jenmoa 23:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photo flipped
The photograph of Medved is flipped left to right. Wedding ring is on his right hand?
 * I suspect that it is not flipped, as it is a Jewish tradition to wear wedding rings on the right hand. (See Wedding ring.)   dbtfz talk 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but a cropped version of the same photo appears on his web site, and it's the other way around. Unless he posed twice, each time on a different elbow. Lexo 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neocon
Medved is a neoconservative, not a conservative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HowardJ87 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Michael and Bigfoot
Interestingly enough, he believes in Bigfoot. I'm not kidding. He has had a serious discussion of this topic on his program. There is a reference to this belief on this page http://www.ktcr.com/djs/michaelmedved.shtml

It's incredible that a man who believes in bigfoot be allowed to reach so many people through radio. That gives us an idea of how irrealistic his perception of the world is. If you add up the fact that he's a seriously stubborn person, he's admitted it in the past himself, results in a highly manipulating behavior. Like doing what he has referred to in the past "to argue into submission."


 * So your position is that people who believe in Bigfoot should somehow be prevented by legal or extra-legal means to talk on the radio? Interesting.  From your entire statement here I guess you would tend to want to prevent anyone who disagrees with you and who can ably defend his position from having a voice, am I right?  You're in good company, as this is a position held by many famous men such as Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao.


 * Was that the point this person was trying to make? "People who believe in Bigfoot should be barred by any means necessary from public speaking --by anti-bigfoot vigilantes if necessary!" Or... do you think maybe the person was simply expressing incredulity that, legal issues aside, a bigfoot believer would be regarded by his employers as the top qualified candidate to pontificate on our nations airwaves?  While you're pondering that, ponder this: what do you think of this newly proposed wiki rule: "Without infringing on their civil liberties, any kneejerk reactionaries who post flaming fascism accusations base on partisan politics should be openly mocked"?


 * The word "allow" from Wiktionary: "to grant, give, admit, accord, afford, or yield; to let one have; as, to allow a servant his liberty; to allow a free passage; to allow one day for rest". Who else to grant or give than some outside agent or agents?  I will admit that allow could suggest that he is being allowed by virtue of his listeners to be on the air, or by the owners of the radio network (who make good money through this particular big-foot believer, and so have strong motivation for allowing him to spout on), but it's a ham-handed way to put it.  The phrases "there ought to be a law" and "it should not be allowed" is very frequently uttered by those who want to enforce their preferences by governmental action, and the word "allow", in context, strongly suggests that.  Sorry if it bugged you.

I don't know if the person who made the first comment displayed here in the Bigfoot section wrote that comment a while ago, but I just saw it and it is ridiculous. If you want to discuss seemingly preposterous theories, let's talk about them. Since one can easily tell that you're a good liberal (good liberal - now there's an oxymoron for you; by this phrase I mean that you adhere to liberal beliefs and are eager to slander conservative views since there is absolutely no moral substance to your own views), I think it's safe to assume that you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory, am I right? To be concise, you probably believe that the U.S. government was behind the September 11th tragedy that occurred in "this greatest nation on God's green earth." There's probably more believable evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than this theory. And if you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory (unlikely), I'd bet money that you believe in human-caused global warming, despite the lack of evidence for it and the dangers of consensus science (if you want to read more on this, particularly the dangers of consensus science, type in "Aliens Cause Global Warming" in your google search engine, or you can also read online about the several innacurate, profit-driven,and exaggerated statements that led a British judge to rule that "An Inconvient Truth" should not be shown in schools). And if you don't believe in the two previous, unfounded theories - I think I would drop dead from shock if you didn't at least believe in global warming - I'm sure that you support abortion, namely the killing of 1.3 MILLION fetuses a year, which translates to an average 3,561 fetuses killed a day. I wonder who has the moral high ground on the issue of abortion - yourself or Michael Medved? Who would anyone with any sense rather, in your words, "reach[ing] so many people through radio" - a man who has very honorable beliefs (such as recognizing the sanctity of human life and being pro-life) and happens to believe in Bigfoot, or a person like you with fascist tendencies who supports the liberal ideas that will bring down this great nation and opposes the people trying to defend this magnificent country from the enemy within (liberals). - Posted by: God Bless America on January 8, 2008

Vietnam
Vietnam No Show - What a suprise!

Dean, Mar10,2006

What's your point? He was a democrat back then and he disapproved of the war. Are you trying to use this as rhetoric against conservatives?

[Unregistered, 3/15/05)

A couple of comments. First, this page is not a forum for political debate; it is for discussing how the article can be improved. Second, messages on this and all talk pages should be signed by typing ~. dbtfz talk 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Very interesting -- the man didn't fight in Vietnam but has been very pro Iraq-war. Sounds like a chickenhawk? Justforasecond 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Worth mentioning in his bio his lack of any civil or military service.--68.6.210.169 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He might be a draft dodger, but that should not be put in the article. First off, where is the proof that he took a job at a middle school to avoid the draft? Second, unless his anti-war views were something he was noted for, then why do you need to mention Vietnam? Should we mention under every persons profile that did not serve in Vietnam that fact? Just because he is pro-Iraq War does not mean have to mention he did not serve in Vietnam. If he was a noted anti-war protester that is different. Till somekind of non-biased source can be tagged to the POV statement abouit his draft-dodging, I am taking it out.--67.142.130.45 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any pro-Iraq war opinion leader (journalist, politician, celebrity) that escaped service in Vietnam should have this noted on his page. Justforasecond 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As an Iraq and 'Stan Veteran I think he should of served in Vietnam. However I don't think it is relevant. Even if I person is against the Iraqi War and they dodged the draft in Vietnam I think that is wrong. If you are able-bodied if your country is at war (declared or un-declared) you serve. How many pages would we have to edit?

If there is a source where Micheal says he avoided the draft by working at a middle school, than that can be added. Otherwise it is just a assumption.--216.52.73.254 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any pro-Iraq war opinion leader (journalist, politician, celebrity) that escaped service in Vietnam should have this noted on his page.  Why?  Because in the broad scheme of things people aren't allowed to change their opinions over time?  Or must forever be silent about it?  Bat-puckey.  As it turns out, Medved admits to the whole thing in Right Turns.  In pages 112-116 he describes how while attending Yale Law School he got a job as an English and science teacher at the New Haven Hebrew Day School expressly because they could get him a IIA occupational draft deferment.  They also never paid him, so it wasn't for the money. He could have claimed he was teaching because of his concern for youth and education, but he chose the honest course and admitted to an act that he clearly now considers shameful. Mike 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious "Criticism" Section
I know the Wikipedian method of injecting bias into articles is to cite "critics" of who or what is being described in the article. That way a user can contribute his POV and still distance himself from it when somebody cries foul: "Hey, I'M not the one who said it." In some forms, though, this criticism can potentially draw attention to material matters, even though that is usually not the user's real purpose. Let's take a look at what exists on this page now.

>>>Under the "Movie Reviews" section: "Other critics...[view] him as a shallow philistine." No source here to tell which critics, save for the user, think he is a "shallow philistine."

>>>A couple sentences down a "particularly egregious howler" is described, which is indisputably POV language.

>>>After that there is no source for which critics disagree with his ranking of the 50 worst movies.

>>>And the clincher is the thoroughly irrelevant, thoroughly out of context ad hominem barb attributed to James Wolcott in the same section. This quote tells us nothing in particular about what problems critics have with Medved, it's just a juvenile personal attack on Medved's general intelligence.

Like I said, the politically-motivated "criticism" sections can accidentally be of some constructive use, but what is put forth here are vapid cheap shots. And is there really even any reason to include criticism of somebody who is already a critic?

Section not all that dubious
Is the above commentator suggesting that critics are not criticised? Medved's opinions are extremely controversial and his accuracy has been publicly questioned. I've read more criticism of Medved than books or articles by him. The language should perhaps be toned down - 'error' being a reasonable substitute for 'particularly egregious howler' - but I see no reason to omit any mention of the fact that he's supposed to have made factual errors, or that a great many professionals in his field disagree with his assessments of the state of Hollywood, the 50 worst (or best) films, etc. Lexo 14:57 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" Section All That Dubious
Am I suggesting that critics are not criticized? Of course not, we can see here that this one is. My problem is with the vacuous nature of the criticism. As it was the criticism consisted of puerile ad hominem attacks rather than serious, substantive criticism of his work. And I don't mean too much personal offense when I say that people like you are what is wrong with Wikipedia, and why its controversial articles will always be an editing competition between partisan hacks rather than genuine encyclopaedia articles. Always looking for some way to tar the opposition with third-party speculation and by airing their dirty laundry under the shamefully transparent guise of full disclosure or comprehensive objectivity. Note how you put the ball in my court, making it about "omitting" information rather than what it really is--taking your enemies down a notch with comically unrelated talking points and party lines. Finally, and most importantly, you reject the notion that the section in question is dubious, then go on to admit at least one of the shameless indiscretions I mentioned. It appears we do not really have much of a disagreement in that respect.

Open letter to Medved on a blog
This is a letter he was emailed a while ago, to which he never answered.


 * http://jcbm.la.googlepages.com/home

This is after declaring some sort of tolerance to the illegal immigrants, with the repeatitive "we can't deport them all" "we can't even deport the ones with criminal records", "Let them straighten up and become part of our society..." "... pay fines...", etc. His support is obviously ambiguous.

Make this phrase neutral, if possible
"He is against gay rights and thinks homelessness should be made illegal." This was added by an anonymous user. Is there a source for where he says that "homelessness should be made illegal"? What's he intend to do, arrest them all? Execute them? Also, I don't know exactly what position he takes on homosexuality (judging from the childish nature of his rhetoric, it's probably not a mature one) but it is slightly POV to say that his position is merely "against gay rights." If nothing else, I doubt he would phrase it that way. --Mr. Billion 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most people who are against gay rights don't like admitting that that is their position. They claim to be in favor of "family values" which makes no sense whatsoever as, different families have different values and hundreds of thousands of families have at their center, a gay couple.  Wikipedia would become ridiculous if the only descriptions we could give of anyone is what they would say about themselves.  Somehow I doubt the same people that apply that principle to Michael Medved would do the same for Michael Moore. 24.215.145.136 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'Family Values' means one man and one woman raising their own children. A gay couple are not a family, by definition. You can take issue with this, but don't say it makes 'no sense'; it makes perfect sense to an Orthodox Jew (among others). As for 'gay rights', that means different things to different people. Does Medved want to criminalize them, or leave them alone, or deny them affirmative action benefits, or what? This should be made clear;'against gay rights' is rather vague.67.188.213.31 (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Friendship in intro
I removed Mr. Medved's friendship mention in the article. Is that frienship notable? Also, should Medved ethnicity be mention as well in the intro. And his wife and children.Is he more famous for being Jewish or his support for the war?? Can we stick to a one line intro about WHAT makes him notable and then add his family, friends, ethnicity, polictics below in the article?? Thoughts? Thanks! --Tom 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ps, I just removed some unsourced material. I am noticing that this is another bio that has ZERO references??? Any Medved fans or foes out there that can provide some footnotes?? I'll try as well, thanks! --Tom 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources??
Can sources be cited per WP:CITE when adding material to this article. Am I asking to much?? Thanks...--Tom 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues?
Why is an article on a self proclaimed "conservative" commentator so sorely lacking in any material regarding his positions on controversial political issues? Regardless of your POV, if a large part of a famous person's activities are political in nature how can an article descrbing them be of any use whatsoever without any information on their advocacy?

It seems to me that this article has been carefully cleansed of anything that may make Medved look bad and that apparently that eliminated most of his views on, well, everything.24.215.145.136 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion
The sentence "He is an Orthodox Jew (although Medved claims to be an "observant Jew")" is clearly POV. Shortened this to "Medved describes himself as an observant Jew." If the Orthodox part can be sourced it should be added following that statement as in 'Medved describes himself an "observant Jew." Time magazine noted he is an Orthodox Jew."==Pro– and anti–Judeo-Christian films== The heading "Pro– and anti–Judeo-Christian films" is very unclear, especially since the next three paragraphs seem to deal with an entirely different set of issues. This really needs to be reworded.

Matt T. 69.254.107.214 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to video of Medved speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California
I believe that this video of Medved speaking adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section. I would appreciate it if another editor would add it. Thank you. --Uschris 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael Medved discusses the contradictions that he says plague "liberal orthodoxy", March 12, 2007 (video)

Beliefs
Medved is well known for his beliefs in things for which there is not evidence including Bigfoot and God. That doesn't sound very NPOV to me. Jake Snicket 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed that. I read the source quickly but didn't see big foot/God. The section is out of place and POV as you pointed out. Thanks! --Tom 13:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can say, as a sometime listener, that Medved does believe in both God and Bigfoot. To say there is no evidence for either is POV, however.-- Gerkinstock 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring that I see no evidence HERE. If their are reliable sources, feel free to add that material. Thanks, --Tom 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine Albright
In the page Madeleine Albright is listed as being a concervative. I'm almost sure she is a liberal. -AB

Albright has many so-called "conservative" beliefs. . . the truth is that labels such as "conservative" and "liberal" are largely meaningless leftovers from the nomenclature of "left-right" used during the French Revolution. Recent books have been published about the "invention" of "conservatism" as a specific label in the US political sphere. Sadly. . . I don't recall the titles. Maybe someone else can help. 72.177.12.245 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)DLH

Three lies???
Medved supposedly wrote a well-known essay about the "Three Lies" Hollywood promulgates?

What are they? Are they any more or less dubious than his supposed belief in SasQuatch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.12.245 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Read his latest about "American DNA"?

Michael Medved Says Something Dumb Is he crazy or is this a publicity stunt? Midnight Gardener (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative - citation needed?
Look, I don't know proverbially diddly about Medved, but why - why! - would there be a 'citation needed' tag on Medved being a conservative? Does this mean that someone has disputed this description somewhere along the line? Would HE dispute this? We're currently all thrilled by an election campagin in my country, Australia, and there's nothing more fashionable than self-applying the tag 'conservative'. But surely the (undisputed, presumably) section which tells us that he was a co-host for Rush Limbaugh is enough of a 'citation' for his conservative 'credentials' (again, a phrase which is discourse heavy in my country right now - Zeitgeist, baby!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.6.128 (talk • contribs)


 * The answer is simple. It's an opinion that he is conservative. You might call him conservative. I might call him moderate. Someone else might call him neoconservative. Yet someone else might opine that he is a "right wing radical". Some might say he is socially conservative and fiscally moderate, or fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Etc. Etc. Etc. You can agree or disagree with these labels to your heart's content, but it is your opinion, not fact. As for being co-host for Limbaugh, does that make him equally conservative as Limbaugh, and how do you know? Does it put him slightly to the right of Limbaugh, and how do you know? Slightly to the left? Or does it say nothing about how conservative or liberal or moderate he might be? Please read Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V. It either needs to be cited, or removed from the article. My personal preference is to remove the label altogether, but I'm willing to leave it to give someone sufficient time to provide a citation. That's the usual practice on Wikipedia. Ward3001 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The request for a citation is quite pointless - as explained elsewhere in the article, his autobiography is called Right Turns: From Liberal Activist to Conservative Champion in 35 Unconventional Lessons. There is nothing remotely controversial about calling him a conservative.  He is comparable to other mass-media conservative talk radio hosts such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. Tiki2099 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If it is so obvious that he is conservative, then it should be quite simple to add a citation. Ward3001 21:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So do I need to cite the fact that he is Amercian? Or a radio talk-show host?  No, because (according to the page you cite):


 * "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."


 * There is no reasonable way to challenge his status as a conservative. Nevertheless, despite your silly assertion that this could be challenged, I am adding a citation.  I leave it for the next editor to remove it. Tiki2099 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are Medved's reviews so prevalent in Wiki movie articles?
Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems like nearly every Wiki article I read about a movie mentions Medved's review of it (particularly if the films had largely positive reviews and Medved was in the dissenting minority). I'm a huge movie buff, and I certainly don't consider the opinions of a right-wing radio host to be representative of the film critic community at large, or even remotely encyclopedic. A very small sampling of articles that mention Medved:


 * Charlotte's Web
 * All the King's Men
 * The Pursuit of Happyness
 * The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
 * Hoot
 * Little Miss Sunshine
 * Million Dollar Baby
 * Live Free or Die Hard
 * Nacho Libre
 * A Prairie Home Companion
 * United 93
 * Lady in the Water
 * The Girl Next Door
 * Bobby
 * Borat
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
 * The Cell
 * Redacted
 * Brokeback Mountain
 * Deck the Halls

It just seems to me that the level of inclusion of Medved's criticisms at Wikipedia is not nearly proportional to his level of influence. KyuzoGator (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well KyuzoGator, after listening to Michael Medved's review of Redacted, it is clear that he didn't even see the movie, based on countless errors he said regarding the story, plot, etc. USS Noob Hunter (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm sure that your opinions of Medved are insightful and well thought-out and all, but may I humbly point out that the discussion page is not the place for discussing whether we love or hate Medved, or for arguing whether his movie reviews are any good? Can we restrict ourselves to such Wikipedia concerns as NPOV, notability and accuracy? If you want to discuss what a ignorant jerk Medved is, perhaps you could start a forum or a blog somewhere? Cyberherbalist (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative redux
In a discussion above, I insisted that a citation should be provided if the term "conservative" was used to describe Medved in the lead. The editor relucantly but quite adequately provided such a citation. In the citation (an interview with Medved) he specifically indicates in at least five different statements that he is conservative. That's more than good enough for me. Now has begun edit warring, reverting the term "conservative" and describing Medved as liberal without providing a citation to that effect. My only purpose in creating this section on the talk page is so that and any other editor can express an opinion without edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk radio and political commentary
Is the Ben Cohen he of the ice-cream? If so can it be disambiguated? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.122.126 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Michael Medved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118090600/https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-are-jews-liberals-a-symposium-15223?page=all to https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-are-jews-liberals-a-symposium-15223?page=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Never Trump stance
This should definitely be included in the article somewhere: http://politi.co/2fcT2nY &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  19:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a glaring deficiency in the article. I've started a paragraph, citing a few sources (including MK17b's).  Please add more!  DougHill (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I also added this page to the Stop Trump movement category), tho I'm not sure that commentators go there. DougHill (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Medved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222065406/http://battlesoftim.com/btrep.htm to http://battlesoftim.com/btrep.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Medved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130203141/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/36670-1/Michael+Medved.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/36670-1/Michael+Medved.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation bot
Sorry, I seem to have inadvertently reran wp:citation bot, which only added Medved's name where it was not needed. I'm reluctant to revert this again, so I'll wait a day before doing so. DougHill (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)