Talk:Michael Savage/Archive 4

Neutral Point of View?
Those maintaining this article should take into consideration the negative bias of the article. The article quickly starts to snowball into a Michael Savage bashing piece shortly after the introductory bio. Much of what follows the intro should be put in a section labeled Michael Savage detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.246.68 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific. I have worked really hard to balance this article out and cut down on the gratuitous negativity.  Give me some particular examples of what you see as bashing.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is hysterical with selective quotation. Nothing in it deals with why he has broad appeal; it is only written from the perspective of those who are offended by his work. In this term, it is a bad article. 70.107.104.75 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please look to find some material to balance this article. I think we are heading for GA status.  Unfortunately, I think there are few writers that are commenting on his broad appeal (perhaps because they are jealous of it).  Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The anon user does have a bit of a point, though I don't think the article is "hysterical" in its use of quotations. I'd say you could include a bit more material that's complimentary (though I don't think article is not neutral as-is).  There's a quote from the first source that's useful here: "In contrast to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Schlesinger, Bay Area-based Savage mixes conservative diatribe and blunt observations with acerbic humor and a gift of gab. It has propelled him to the top of radio talk-show ratings as well as bestseller book lists." Clearly, he does have some broad appeal, despite (or because of?) the controversy.  You could probably mention that. Esrever 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD cover
I don't think the use of the DVD cover image simply to show what Savage looks like qualifies as fair use. If it's being used for critical commentary on the DVD, then that's okay (which is why you can use it in an article on the DVD). Otherwise, I think it's out of bounds. It's probably easiest just to wait for a free image to surface somewhere. Esrever 03:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What about having it in the article in the section about his Freedom of Speech Award and the C-SPAN controversy? Ursasapien (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. My understanding of the fair use regulations is that things like book covers, DVD covers, album covers, etc., can only be used in the articles specifically about those books, DVDs, and albums.  However, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I can't say if the use you're talking about is allowable.  I suppose if you're talking about the DVD as part of the C-SPAN controversy, it might be okay? Esrever 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Views Section
Considering Michael Savage's very conservative viewpoint, I question the accuracy of the statement (in bold), "Michael Savage calls himself an "independent-minded individualist" and says that he "fits no stereotype." Savage criticizes "big government," accuses the media of "liberal bias," and champions environmentalism and animal rights".[10] With the link to the cited source broken, the words in bold should be removed (or a new (citable) source found to confirm the statement). Johnreyn19 09:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)JohnReyn19
 * BE BOLD! Remove the statement or, better yet, find a new source for it.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I took care of it. Now it does not deal with the other places that reference is used.  However, urls often go stale, so we are faced with a choice.  Never use web sources, constantly update sources, or trust that the information was vetted when originally posted and leave them alone.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can also go to the internet archive, http://www.archive.org/index.php, and pull the stored version of just about any webpage (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/bios/Savage-bio.shtml). Mrdthree 11:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I forgot about that.  I have now linked the footnote to the web archive of the original page.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Scope: Better, but still a little POV
First, I would like to compliment the writers/editors for significantly improving this article. However, there is one important aspect of Michael Savage that is missing in this article I would like to see addressed as an effort to further improve this article, that is:

This article fails to objectively convey to the reader who Michael Savage is. Namely: There is too much focus on the controversial aspects of his commentary (i.e. homosexuality, immigration, strong language, ect.), and nothing about the more benign side of his commentary which is the majority of his show, such as: personal stories, philosophy, history, humor, food, health, anthropology, travel, pets, family, cars, novels, books, film, television, ect. Savage runs the gamut of the human experience during his three hour program. An outsider would not have learned this critical fact about Savage by reading this article.

I’ll admit the political aspect of his program and his controversial comments will be what he is most remembered for by outside observers. But to his avid listeners they will remember his stories from childhood cleaning bronze statues in his father’s antiques store, One Arm Frank, Dead Man’s Pants, The Nunn’s Suitcase, Using his espresso machine, on and on. If these stories along with the countless hours of borderline babbling commentary that is no-less interesting that I can not possibly recall comprise a significant portion of his program, shouldn’t they be mentioned, if not featured in this article?

The reality is we know very little about this man other then what is broadcast over the radio. I am arguing that it is his persona conveyed through nonpolitical commentary that has made him successful as a radio talk show host. Usually these stories are tied in someway to current news stories or political issues, but that tying in is never necessary to make Savage interesting or a provocative speaker. The point being he is more then a political commentator.

And finally… This article is still a little POV. The Point-of-View being Savage is someone to dislike, whether it be for his views on immigration or homosexuals, which this article fails to mention Savage often states he is a sexual libertarian. However, that does not mean one condones homosexual behavior. Finding that behavior repulsive is the natural response for a heterosexual, and vise-versa. Savage often boosts about the conservative homosexual listeners he encounters on the street of San Francisco, no mention of this?

The impression I got from this article is Savage is an outright bigot, fascists, homophobe, racist, ect. The danger is the implication is: his listeners must be these things as well, because if they listen to this man, then they must believe in what he says. This plays well into the hands of Savage’s detractors, because these labels enable critics to marginalize and isolate Savage, his show and his listeners. Based on my observation that the authors of this article missed the major nonpolitical aspects of his commentary, they must not have listened to him enough, therefore they must not be qualified to write such an article.

Many of the listed sources are from groups like Media Matter, or Salon.com, which are politically polar-opposite to savage and natural detractors, which are hardly non-POV, even if these places correctly site Savage. If these sources choice of quote selection were a part of a sample in a scientific experiment, an analogy for their sample would be as if the experimenter walked into a movie theater wanting to study the mean height the audience as a group could jump, and concluded they could not jump at all due to the fact they only sampled people in the disable section seated in wheel chairs.

I can fully dissect this article to prove my points ad nauseam, but that is not my aim here. I just hope to see this article illuminate the man more completely for the sake of accuracy and fairness. I happen to respect Wikipedia and I hope this article could show a little more respect to this man, if not for Savage, but for his 8 to 10 million listeners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.193.52 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, let me say I know where you are coming from. I have difficulty with another article.  I see POV but I am apparently in the extreme minority.  However, it would be very helpful if you would, "fully dissect this article to prove [your] points."  I have diligently worked on it for quite some time.  I thought the article was fairly balanced at this point.  Can you give me a specific area you object to or that you feel is imbalanced?


 * Most of the Media Matters cites are used because they quote his show directly. MM's commentary is not used, as far as I remember.  Now you can still say there is bias because MM is selective in the quotes they choose to highlight, but I think direct quotes are important to convey a proper sense of this man.  I have found no web source for transcripts of his show, so this is the next best thing.


 * Regardless of all that, please be bold, contribute to the article, just be prepared with reliable sources to back up your additions. Best of editing to you.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inquisitive minds want to know...
Is he any relation to Dan Savage, the famous gay writer? I expect not, but it would be so great it that were true. :) Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's doubtful. As the article states, Michael Savage is a pseudonym.  His birth name was Michael Weiner.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I probably should have noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Terraxos (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would that be great if it were true?Lestrade (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Michael Savage's origin
Being a newly registered user, I'm not allowed to make changes to this article. Nevertheless, as Michael Savage admitted during his recent radio shows, his family origin needs to be changed from Russia to Belarus. His family immigrated from Minsk which is a capital of Belarus. Rmoroz (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says he is of Russian descent which would certainly include Belarus. The other issue with adding this information is documenting it with a proper citation.  Do you know anywhere that they have transcripts of Michael's shows?  Ursasapien (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasting Style Section
This section has no reference citations and smacks of original research. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though I like the section, think it is relevant, and completely agree with it's analysis, I must also agree that it sounds like original research (with a touch of synthesis). I have tagged it for citations and will give editors some time.  I do know that there has been information published about his broadcasting style, but I do not recall reading any of the information in the current article from another source.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography Section
There is a book missing from the list, it is a self published paperback that has been available for years now, called "The Death of the White Male." It is obscure, but worth mentioning. I can't find much out about it... there is some stuff here and here  70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! Great find.  Thank you. Ursasapien (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Former agnostic/atheist
Rambone has added this category a couple of times. Savage may well be a former atheist and may have said as much on his radio show. However, to be included into a Wikipedia article, we must have a source. Someone hearing him say it on the radio constitutes original research. If we had a transcript of his radio show or someone quoted him or if he wrote as much in one of his books, then we could source the information and keep it. Without a source, we can not. Ursasapien (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a undisputed fact that he was an atheist. It isn't hearsay or opinion.  Rambone (Talk) 12:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Satire taken as fact
This section...

On December 12, in response to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win, Michael Savage claimed that "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation".[50]

is clearly satire, and needs to be represented as such. Instead of 'claimed' it should read something like 'satirically stated' or better yet, the entire sentence should be removed from the article. This is Wikipedia, not Media Matters for America.70.58.66.127 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not believe we can state in the article that this was hyperbolic satire, as that would be original research or synthesis. If we had a source, where Savage said "I clearly was speaking satirically," then we could certainly use your wording.  I did, however, change the statement to "On December 12, in response to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win, Michael Savage said "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation"."  I feel this allows the reader to make up their own mind and is not leading to any particular conclusion.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is not leading to any particular conclusion, then would you object to my putting this quote in the article for the Nobel Comittee?70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not edit that article and I am not sure where it might be relevant, but I personally would not object. Perhaps, under "Criticism" you could put the statement, "On December 12, in response to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win, Michael Savage (a talk-radio commentator) said "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation"."  Ursasapien (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that it is not controversy or criticism, it is satire. Putting it under "Controversies" casts an interpretation 70.58.66.127 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Satire: "Satire is strictly a literary genre, although it is found in the graphic and performing arts as well as the printed word. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement." As per Wikipedia. What vices, follies, abuses..etc is Michael attributing for "improvement?" Do these people have a higher disposition commiting, defending, or encouraging sexual acts on children than the General Public at large? No. This is not Satire, but purely insulting. Hence it's need to be stated as Controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.2.59 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So we are allowed to post quotes out of context? I can go to any person's wiki page (a comedian for instance) and post one of their sarcastic comments to sound like they were being serious, and put it under the title "Controversy"? I'd like to know the WP policy on this. 2nd Piston Honda (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we must be careful, either way we go. First, we are technically allowed to include any information that is published in reliable secondary sources.  However, to maintain a neutral point of view we must keep the information we include in balance and present quotes in context, where we can.  The problem is context is tricky, because it includes voice inflection plus non-verbal cues.  WP policy standard is "information that is notable, verifiable should be included.  However, it is only a "controversy" if a reliable secondary source documents the controversy.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Savage has a daughter
Michael Savage also has a daughter, so her name should be listed under "children." 71.202.242.152 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! If you know the daughter's name, add it. Ursasapien (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding controversy section
I have a tendency to agree with Honda that the "controversy" section can easily become bloated. Savage says many things that Media Matters considers controversial and (consistent with their purpose) they write a new article about him at least twice a week. Perhaps we should use the rule of thumb that before we consider any additions to the Controversy section, we must have at least one other source besides Media Matters. Ursasapien (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Views on Christianity
We definitely need documentation of Savage's beliefs from reliable sources. These sources should not include CAIR, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or even Media Matters. Certainly, if one of these sources quotes Savage we can use this information as part of the evidence regarding his beliefs but we know that these groups have an adversarial approach and have reason to present a negative view of the subject of this article.

I reverted a huge section, not because it was all bad, but because I found it impossible to make it conform to NPOV. With unsupported text like, "his views are frequently quoted by prominent conservative Christians, whom he vigorously defends on his show" throughout the addition, it quickly became too difficult to try to fix it. Perhaps I will try to add a bit here and there. Ursasapien (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * DevorahLeah (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Okay, I'm puzzled-- I don't mind having my research questioned (I'm a media historian; I'm accustomed to having people ask questions of me!), but because I didn't just get this stuff from mediamatters.org-- you can listen to the clips from his show yourself.  So how do I document his views better than what he himself said?  And why leave in the totally unsubstantiated (and totally false) assertion that he says he won't convert to Christianity?  Based on what I've heard, he is very much Christian-identified, although, as I noted, he has never formally converted as far as I can tell.


 * You are right to be puzzled. I had meant to remove that bit, but I had been waiting for someone to respond to the "citation needed" tag.  Part of the difficulty with this article is that, as far as I know, there is no transcript service for the Savage Nation radio show.  Therefore, the only way we can cite information is through his books or Media Matters (which serves as a selective transcriber of his show).  From what I have heard, listening to him regularly, he is certainly friendly/sympthetic to the Christian (or Judeo-Christian) world view but he is most certainly Jewish.  Even if he is not observant to all the tenets of Judaism, there is no evidence that he has converted to Christianity or even identivies himself with Christianity.  He is Jewish until we can document otherwise.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, (this is completely original research but) I interpret his comments about Jews in a completely different way. It is part of a long tradition of a member of a particular ethnic group poking fun or critiquing itsself.  Whether it is a black commedian or my Hispanic office mate, this is done all the time.  If anyone has ever been to New York City, Savage's schtick is not all that unique.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't listened to Savage for about a year now, but I used to listen every day (as entertainment) during commute. I have heard Savage self-identify as a Unitarian (Universalist), several times.  Of course, I can't put it in the article because, as mentioned above, there are no transcripts (that I can find).  I have heard him say this during many of his ruminations.  He believes that there are many roads to God and that anybody who claims they have monopoly on the Truth is deceiving their flock.  He has said that anybody who lives a "good and moral" life will get "rewarded in the afterlife".  Of course, most likely because of his background, his personal idea of what constitutes a "good and moral" life is shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs, but he has said that there are Buddhists and Hindus who will be in Heaven.  He is an ethnic Jew who is a Unitarian, we need to work on finding a source for that.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly concur, William. His Universalist beliefs used to be in the article, but they were dumped when a source could not be found.  However, I think we need to redouble our efforts to find a good source for this information.  Additionally, someone somewhere must have a picture we can use for the article.  With a little more copyediting, a photo, and a little bit of luck, we could make this article an FA.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New comment
At the beginning, where it says "third highest rated show behind Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity" i was going to add "respectively" right after that to show Rush Limbaugh as #1 and Sean Hannity as #2 - User:70.119.147.100 12:18, March 14, 2008 I moved this comment from the top of the page. Ursasapien (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New comment
John Lillpop recently wrote two satirical opinions items about Michael Savage [http://newsblaze.com/story/20080319101858lill.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html California Should Designate March 31 as Dr. Michael Savage Day! ]

March 31 in California: State-Sanctioned Holiday Based on Racism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsblaze (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New comment
Michael Savage coined the term "shock frock" to describe Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It may be informative to document this in his Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilopho (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Shocker
Heard him the night before last night describing the situation at the Fundamentalist Mormon site in Texas as a situation in which a bunch of sex starved perverts at the Dept. of Public Safety and Child Protection Services wanted to destroy a church, and he called all of these Texas agency personnel "Nazis and perverts.", worse. 65.163.115.254 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Like this is anything new, he always makes controversial statements. I'm not going to defend him on this one, but if you want more dirt just do a google search. Saksjn (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And it turned out that he was the only commentator who was right about the illegality of the seizure of children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.42.235 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Revere Society
Paul Revere Society redirects here. I think that an extra article or section should be created on the subject. Thanks! -- Ŵïllî§ï$2  ( Talk! / Cont. ) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct this: Article is wrong about Savage's beliefs on environment
Your article on Savage claims he advocates for environmentalism and animal rights. Have you ever listened to his show? He always talks against environmentalists, claims there is no global warming, is against the KYOTO TREATY and against any other attempts to slow down global warming, and so on and so on. Last Fall I heard him bragging about his new 12-cylinder 450-hp German car. While he often states he loves dogs, he is not to my knowledge for animal rights. If he is, he has carefully disguised this belief! Please correct these errors. I would change it to say he opposes effeorts to protect the environment and opposes efforts to slow down global warming. And just leave out the animal rights mention altogether, for it is not a significant topic on his show. But he certainly is not for PETA or for animal rights. (Tho he does love dogs.) 74.225.217.109 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Does he claim that there's no global warming, or report that there's no global warming? Not for PETA?  Hmm, isn't that the group that kidnaps animals and kills them?  Yes, it is.  As to the car, you're right, he should use a private jet like Al Gore.  Don't forget his boat -- it's not wind-powered (hint: not solar-powered either).  Around $500 to gas it up.  I had two of the most amazing hamburgers last night, finally perfectly cooked.. I have to sit down whenever I think about it, if you know what I mean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, regular listeners can attest to the fact that Savage is an environmentalist. He does not happen to believe in manmade global warming (a dubious theory that was essentially unheard of 10 years ago), but he encourages resource conservation and pollution avoidance, to the extent possible without sacrificing our way of life. --Mellowfello (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He talks a LOT about reducing animal suffering, even so far as to wanting to torture or kill people who kick pets.

And he is a vegetarian-wannabe. Says he avoids eating meat as much as he can...but occasionally breaks down (usually when eating Italian).

The environmental stuff is a more mixed-bag, but he is as much for animal rights as any meat-eater could be. 64.48.78.7 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't believe in global warming, doesn't mean there not an enviornmentalist? Michael Savage advocates truth on issues instead of blind belief. On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 (a repeat so I don't know when he actually said it) he said he is a hiker, boater and nature lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.168.28 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Autism
Under the controversy section it states:

"While studies have actually shown there are many more autism diagnoses in affluent communities, where kids often get more attentive care in school, Savage has yet to rescind his comments in the wake of his theories being statistically disproven."

What studies? What statistics? Without any citations, I believe this is just an empty claim and should be suspect.

-TNO- (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Question of naming
I read WP:NCP, and it's clear that the title of the page should indeed be "Michael Savage (commentator)". His legal name is known and not in dispute, however, and it doesn't seem appropriate to refer to a stage name when discussing someone of political note. All in-text references to "Savage" should be replaced with "Weiner" in this article, excepting only references to objects actually labeled "Savage", such as the list of books published under that psuedonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.143.163 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

National Autism Association
The National Autism Association has come out against Savage. Can someone track this news item down and add it? Kingturtle (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the lede to the press release. It'd be better to find a 3rd-party news source.


 * NIXA, Mo., July 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Autism Association (NAA) today joins thousands of parents around the country in demanding an apology and retraction from radio talk show host Mike Savage for his July 16 broadcast in which he stated that children affected by autism are "brats," and that bad parenting is to blame for a "fraudulent" epidemic now affecting one in 150 children.
 * ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a bit:


 * Wendy Fournier of the National Autism Association, a parents' advocacy group, said she was invited to speak Monday on Savage's three-hour program by Savage's boss, Mark Masters of Talk Radio Network, which syndicates the show across the country. A spokeswoman from Talk Radio Network did not immediately return a call for comment. Fournier called Savage's comments "way, way, way over the line and cruel." "I'm hoping to make him see the reality of what these kids are facing," she said. "You can't fix it by telling a kid to shut up. It's like telling a kid with cancer to stop being sick.
 * I'm sure there'll be more. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200807170005?f=h_top what you are looking for?65.173.104.138 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Who all listened to the show in which he defended himself? I really think it was all exaggerated. He was not referring to truly autistic children but the system that throws it on so many kids that don't have it!!!! Saksjn (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Got an official transcript or quoting of that bit, Saksjn? Add it in! Be bold! Lots42 (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

degree
Just what is his PhD in. the Univ. of California has no department of Nutritional Anthopology. It does have a Dept. of Anthoplogy, and its College of Agricultre doesI think offer a PhD in nutrition. DGG (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
The think about the homosexual pictures are not accurate. They must be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.42.90 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New Book
Today, he has released a new book called Psychological Nudity. It is out now. This should be placed in the article with the other books he has written. Powerzilla (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And who cares? Seriously, this articles treats this minor, functionally "right wing" entertainer as though he were Nietzche. I would suggest getting rid of oh, about three quarters of it. Seriously. I know wikipedia has a celebrity-worship problem, but this is beyond stupid. I am waiting for someone to observe that Mr. Wiener (Weiner?), who is defending 'traditional culture" from people who came after his Russian Jewish family (same origin as my own), either slept through college or is wilfully ignoring the fight that Jews and others had to be allowed to participate in that "traditional" (Ie WASP) culture and thereby change it, and that he has called Barack Obama an "affirmative action" candidate whose election will lead to a figurative pogrom against qualified white men (like himself--but 100 years ago or less a Jew like him, and me, would not have been included in that group) in government, because every job given to a person of color or a woman is a job taken away from a white man (like him), since only white men are really entitled to a job. The fact that no one is bothering to write any of this shows that the article is much too long because in fact no one cares about this joker.Actio (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Te political and miscellaneous view of M.S. would seem so essential and central part of this article that I propose merging the subarticle Views expressed by Michael Savage back in here. Every political writer has views. The article about them is expected to be primarily devoted to that--that and the purely biographic material. The existing article there serves primarily as a reservoir of quotations. DGG (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. While we're on the topic, I noticed that this article deals with a number of issues related to the radio show, that aren't mentioned in the article on the radio show. That makes it something like a content fork. That article, The Savage Nation, has no sources that discuss the show itself, meaning there's actually nothing verifiable to merge. Maybe just make it redirect back here? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy???
In the context of Savage's particular axe-grinding on the issue of atrocities in Iraq, it is a grotesque indulgence in POV to label that section "Philanthropy." Yes, great love toward humanity that man is showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this page needs protection
I personally hate this guy, but I also hate seeing pages vandalized. Maybe this page should be semi-protected, and only able to be edited by registered users. But then again, I'm one of those people who think all of Wikipedia should only be accessable to registered users. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition to above
I forgot to log in myself. Oops, sorry. Now I'm not being a hypocrite about only registered users being allowed to edit. Bloo (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What a Zoo! reference
I can find no record of this book. I would delete it, but I believe that there should be a reasonable amount of time for the unknown editor to defend their assertion. So, if I remember, I will remove the line in question by 2009-03-01

Vulture19 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Name
The man's last name is Weiner, not "Dick." Kids have been having fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.129.136 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Information
Weiner's page, like Blackwater's, is clearly copied directly from his own promotional material, and contains exaggerated claims and numbers. For example, none of his books are considered "best sellers," and his audience is estimated at less than half a million by Gallup.

It is well-known that Michael Savage's books The Savage Nation, The Enemy Within, Liberlism is a Mental Disorder and Political Zoo are New York Times best sellers. It is also well known that his audience is at least 8 to 10 million per week. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Autumnal Obelisk

I would love to see proof of this. Talkers Magazine, the self-proclaimed "Bible of Talk Radio," has stated Savage to have over 8 million listeners. But as the third most listened to talk show host I'm sure he cares about his Wikipedia entry. 68.102.237.69 (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The ISP trackback is not useful in finding out which computer Weiner used to promote himself, since he regularly buys new computers and changes locations from which he uses them. The Die Hard (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Muslim Comments" is biased. Should say "Legal Dispute with CAIR". Elozarosid (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to the "8 million listeners" reply, I can tell you right now that it's nearly impossible to track the ratings, firmly, of radio programing. There are a few ways of projecting it, which is no different then the way MSNBC or any news network does approval ratings or exit polls, which is to poll or use some means of machinery to record what some volunteers listen to/express views of, and things things of that nature. When people like Rush, Beck or Savage claim their ratings, I personally think it's most likely based on E-mail/caller response, media attention and word of mouth, which isn't to say some combination of those 3 isn't...vaguely accurate. But Limbaugh himself has admitted that even though he is "the #1 talk show host in america...there really is no way to show the hard, physical numbers of his ratings".

And to the ISP tracker comment. What exactly are you trying to imply? It's not the duty of our editors to seek out and crucify Savage for writing his own wikipedia entry, the two reasons for this being that until you can prove he's doing it, there's no point in all these conspiracy theories that draw POV to the article. I listen to all forms of political commentary, Savage included, and I ever so rarely hear him even mention Wikipedia, never once in reference to his own article. Secondly, if you see an edit that seems POV or like it's someone prominent editing their own article, POV is POV and no one has a higher opinion of themselves than the individual. It's important to keep personal feelings about the article aside and focus on the life and accomplishments of the individual. Showing both sides of the coin is not NPOV. Ignoring the existance coin altoghether is what I truly believe to be NPOV, and if I am wrong please correct me. Girasoleil (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(CORRECTION see below) "After checking, he has had one (not four) New York Times Best Sellers." Michael Savage has indeed authored four NY Times best sellers. Dr. Savage has written one New York Times #1 Best seller. (see my new section further below) Wow, you must be pretty embarrassed now. How did this go unnoticed? Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

I've changed the New York Times Best Seller claim. After checking, he has had one (not four) New York Times Best Sellers. If the listener figures cannot be verified they should be removed in my view. In any case I'm not sure why they are part of the opening paragraphs when they should appear in the radio section. I checked the pages of Hannity and Limbaugh (claimed 1st and 2nd highest figures), both show listening figure claims in their respective radio sections only, not within the opening paragraphs. Moreover both offer now dead links for their listening figure claims. I'm not sure how these claimed figures can be at all accurate but I've added a citation request for Savage's figures. I've also removed some repetition (there is a lot!) and uncited padding / fluff. The article is still bloated though. Much of it reads as though it is part of a marketing campaign for Savage's books. 2writer (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this include?

(England ceased to have a government of its own in 1707; she is the British Home Secretary, not the English Home Secretary.)

This doesn't seem relevant to the point Savage was making, and anyway ask any Irishman or Welshman if its an English or a British government. 216.119.176.184 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)]

As a Northern Irishman I consider it the British government. That is besides the point - using 'England' for the UK is as stupid as using 'New England' for the US.220.110.178.109 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
The article currently has five pictures, all of which curiously and directly promote the work of Michael Savage. I do appreciate that this is the Michael Savage article but it is starting to look like a page on Amazon. Does anyone have any relevant picture which does not directly promote his radio show / dvds / books? Just a picture of him without promotional writing all over it or citing his dvd? I propose removing one of the political book pictures as there are currently three, which is a bit overkill given he has only written six political books all together. Maybe change another political book picture for one of his herbal medicine / homeopathy books given he has written about seventeen of those.2writer (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Left it for a week to see if any other views / objections were made. I've now changed one picture and deleted another as previously mentioned. 2writer (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, there are no pictures? Mark Levin has a picture of his book; why shouldn't there be pictures here? At least put up The Savage Nation, his #1 best seller. Shouldn't an article like this have pictures? What's the point in deleting them? He has written over 25 books, the political ones being the most famous, so a picture of a book wouldn't mislead anyone. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Correction: "As Michael Savage has written one New York Times best seller."
CORRECTION: Michael Savage has actually written FOUR New York Times best-sellers. One user became confused and claimed he had only one. Little did he know, he was actually citing a list of New York Times #1 Best Sellers.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94269 "WASHINGTON – Michael Savage, the author of four best-sellers and the host of the third highest-rated radio talk show in the U.S., joins WND today as a regular and exclusive columnist."

Here are the New York Times Best Seller listings:

The Political Zoo http://www.hawes.com/2006/2006-05-14.pdf

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder http://www.hawes.com/2005/2005-05-01.pdf

The Enemy Within http://www.hawes.com/2004/2004-01-18.pdf

The Savage Nation (book) (#1 Best Seller) http://www.hawes.com/2003/2003-03-02.pdf


 * This post was previously removed by Autumnal Obelisk. He has since edited his own post above (changing citations) but I intend to re add my post nonetheless, give his previous abuse on my talk page.


 * "With respect, the only one of those citations which is valid is the Hawes Publication "Savage Nation" reference. Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is already cited on the main page (albeit a slightly different version, though the same book). Book reviews, book selling sites and the like are not reliable sources. Other wikipedia pages are also not accepted. If you can find reliable sources, be bold and add them to the main article. Maybe Hawes or indeed The Times will confirm your claims. By the way, regarding your comment above "Wow, you must be pretty embarrassed now". The answer is no and you may wish to read this Civility.2writer (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)"
 * Despite your continual abuse Autumnal Obelisk, I've nevertheless made the changes for you. 2writer (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, the correction is hardy well written and the other three best sellers remain unmentioned. four consecutive best sellers are hardly a trivial part of who Savage is. It would be simple enough to say, "Under the name Michael Savage, he has written four New York Times best-sellers including The Savage Nation, a #1 best seller in 2003." As it is now, it is confusing without the comma and the with 'Number 1' part. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * All four books are mentioned. Try looking in the book section which is where info about his books should be. The lead / opening paragraph is just an overview. It may be better to remove the mention of best sellers from the lead and just leave it in the books section, thus avoiding any tantrums. 2writer (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tantrums!??!!? Oooooh! That's ABUSE!!! How dare you engage in personal attacks!! AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!?!?!?!?!?!? Hey, maybe spend a larger proportion of your time working on your idols' wikis like Larry King, John Stewart, and Nancy Grace.Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

The To-Do List says to work on the neutral point of view aspect and to continue to work at balance and giving all perspectives proper weight. I think you should mention his books. You have proper sources. Also, I think the controversies sections reflect the point of view of his critics giving little or no chance for his defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnal Obelisk (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "think the controversies sections reflect the point of view of his critics giving little or no chance for his defense" I'm only here because i cover UK terrorism and the list of people banned comes under that but that comment seems very strange to me. He has a radio show and web site where he can say what he wants in his defence and money for lawyers whats the problem? (Hypnosadist )  22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

100 Million Muslims
No doubt I'll get more abuse from Savage devotees for this but since the water is already hot I thought I might as well bring this up now. The other evening on Newsnight (BBC2) there was a short section about Savage and one of the interviewees mentioned the "100 million Muslims" quote. If you don't know it, the quote is on Media Matters but I'll post it here also:

''On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people ... are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' " Savage continued: "I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'd be 900 million of them.' I mean ... would you rather us die than them?" Savage added: "Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later."''

Futher, over the last few days, there have been one or two articles which have mentioned it. Particularly this Guardian one. Given the reason for his ban, that he is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence", I feel this quote is especially relevant. In any case, I'll refrain from adding but would be keen to hear, no abusive, opinions on whether it should be added. 2writer (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have added that the quote appears to contradict what Savage is cited as saying on the main page about the ban. That is, "During a subsequent NPR talk show, Savage claimed that he has never advocated violence..." 2writer (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've never listened to a whole hour of his show, I don't think you would be able to say with any certainty whether or not a particular quote accurately reflects the ideology of Michael Savage. This was said in the midst of a war on terror under the threat of a nuclear device being set off in a major U.S. city. If you want a quote regarding his ideas on how to fight radical Islam you might go with the quote about leafleting the Sunni Triangle, giving the inhabitants 72 hours to leave, and leveling the city with massive air strikes to take out the strongholds and weapon caches of the enemy who hides among women and children. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Not listening (or taking something out of context) would hinder the certainty with which you can accurately reflect his ideology. However, Autumnal Obelisk's logic of seemingly justifying Savage's remarks during wartime is morally false: It runs along the lines of justifying/comparing itself to Hitler's condemnation of Jews and subsequent extermination of them during World War Two, due to problems he said they caused to the State. Politicians and politically-minded folk more often than not capitalize on dramatic times, like our current wars and the threat of terrorism, to spread their opinions and/or propaganda. Randomly selecting all Middle Eastern-looking people in airports is likewise not acceptable in the post-9/11 world for it only allows racial profiling to be justified and encourages the growth of inherent prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote has been a news worthy event (unlike the others mentioned above) and so might reasonably be included. I'm inclinde to include it. 2writer (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that this was never much of a story except to Media Matters. It was mentioned only once and is a five second clip taken out of his show. The Savage Nation has run 3 hours a day, 5 days a week for 15 years and the 100 Million Muslims statement only came up once. If you want an encyclopedic entry on Savage mention the things he says every day such as, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", "This is just one man's opinion", or "The Democrat Party is the Socialist Party".Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * Its been added. To counter your claim that "this was never much of a story except to Media Matters", I have included 4 citations. 2writer (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Media Matters, the San Francisco Follicle, and uruknet(of which no one has ever heard). Good thing we're only making changes with consensus. :) Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * Generally at least, there is no obligation to suggest additions before making them. I did so only as a courtesy. There is also 'The Guardian' citation, making four. Though I'm assuming that's no good for you either. I guess I could add a couple more citations if need be but fear whatever supporting evidence is included, you'd still object. In any case, it's been added and justifiably so. If you still object, you're free to quote the relevant wiki guidelines to clarify and justify your objections.2writer (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean http://www.uruknet.info/ i've heard of them, one of the first Free media organisations to be set up in Iraq after the invasion. Highly critical of US/Isreal/Britain's policy on anything. (Hypnosadist )  22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can be used as an RS, very useful for information from inside iraq. (Hypnosadist )  22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

England Bans Savage from Entering the UK
Unbelievable!  http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090505/wl_uk_afp/britainimmigrationmideastrussiasexualityneonazi --KineticRic (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good!220.110.178.109 (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, writing "England Bans Savage from Entering the UK" is pretty moronic - it's the British Home Secretary who has banned Savage from entering the UK. Also, England is only one of the constituent countries of the UK, so writing what you did is as stupid as writing "New England bans British Home Secretary from the US" (Hypothetical situation, of course).220.110.178.109 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?' " -- Michael Savage from Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-list6-2009may06,0,5748988.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnal Obelisk (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

---> Try some of these quotes from the BBC interview with Michael Savage:

"I don't know which show Jacqui heard or when she heard it, but I am not broadcast in England. So obviously she was given some selected soundbites by individuals who detest my points of view and are trying to skewer me." "It's only speech we're talking about. Not the acts of murderers. And to lump me in with murderers is defaming me. It's libeling me." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8037025.stm

Savage also said he will consider dropping the libel suit if he is removed from the list and receives a written apology. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Also, it says near the top that he was 1 of 16 banned from the U.K. Actually there were 22 banned, 16 of which had their names stated publicly. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Modified "caused controversy" section
I've modified the "caused controversy" section to change it to "caused little controversy". Most people in the UK haven't heard of Michael Savage and there has been very little interest in his banning as he is largely unknown. There has been a little curiosity about why an American media character is rated alongside apparently much more extreme characters in being undesirable but that would be the greatest extent of the (limited) coverage of the affair. The banned list rated a few column inches but now the papers are far more interested in what our MPs have been claiming on their expenses... --mgaved (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Though almost none had heard of Savage in the U.K. prior to his banning, once hearing that a talk show host made the list, most Brits polled said he shouldn't be banned. The news covered it quite a bit and some say she included some non-Muslims solely so the list wouldn't appear racist, not because the others posed a significant threat or showed any intent to enter the U.K. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * Didn't make the news for more than one, maybe two days in the UK. Now it's a none story. I agree that "caused controversy" is wrong. It really didn't make much of a splash. Regarding you second point, that Savage was some kind of 'token', given how many Muslims have been banned. As the UK are unwilling to ban various well known, politically important and extreme Zionists, yet are willing to ban a whole host of political Islamists, this is possibly true. Savage just ain't important enough for the UK government to care about upsetting, the press don't care either and nor do the public generally. Which makes the idea that this caused controversy clearly false. Still, if you can find a reliable source which claims Savage was a just a pawn or token, add it. 2writer (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I don't want to get on anybody's tits by removing this myself as an anon (I am tired of stiring up WP hornets nests), but I would like to point out this section:

"During a subsequent NPR talk show, Savage asserted his US First Amendment constitutional rights should be respected by the United Kingdom."

This is not cited, and as the US constitution is irrelevent to the UK, is this misphrased? 88.105.93.65 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It just shows what an arrogant idiot he is that he thinks US law applies in other countries, such as 'England'. He will get a shock when he tries to visit Wales, Scotland or N Ireland, as he currently only seems to think he is banned from England.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's cited, accurate but erring on the side of being kind to Savage per WP:BLP. He demonstrates a poor grasp of the geographic and political borders during the exchange with host, Niel Conan. See the NPR interview cite at the end of the paragraph.  Follow the link and have a listen.  The show recording is right there. Mattnad (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It really is astonishing that he thinks that the American Constitution should hold sway in other people's countries.Tovojolo (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He has never suggested anything of the sort. The right of free speech applies everywhere in the world.  The US constitution doesn't create that right, it merely protects it.  The right existed before the 1st amendment was passed, and would exist if there were no 1st amendment.  And it exists in the UK just as much as in the US.  If the UK government violates it, then it deserves to be condemned.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In his interview with NPR, he mentioned the first amendment and the host asked him why he thought that would apply to the UK. This is getting a little tangential, but even in the US there are limits to free speech (e.g., joking about having a bomb at an airport security checkpoint).  As for Free Speech being a universal right per your comment, that's more philosophical than legal. Rights vary by country and as a practical matter, local laws govern what people can do. More on topic, many countries outside of the US including Canada, Germany, and the UK have limits for "hate speech" and inciting others to commit crimes.  Savage's brand of entertainment is pointed enough that he's crossed the line for the UK.Mattnad (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither Savage nor I give a damn what the current laws of the UK say, any more than we do about the laws of Communist China or Saudi Arabia. Free speech is an inalienable right of all people, and to the extent that the laws of various countries restrict it those countries are tyrannical.   In the USA, that right is represented by the term "first amendment right"; it is not created by the first amendment, that's just a convenient label for it.  And that was his entire point: that if the UK has pretensions of still being a free country then its courts ought to protect this right. -- Zsero (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about inalienable rights or the laws of the UK. Let's try to stay on addressing the topic of this page - improving the biography of Michael Savage.   Will Beback    talk    07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And IMHO, the only points Savage cares about are his ratings. Mattnad (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Zsero - I think you should check wikipedia articles on philosophy, it is a very involved philosophical debate as to whether there are such things as inalienable, human, or other types or rights at all. Many of the world's great philosophers have debated these issues. I'd suggest we focus this article and the associated discussion page on its main topic.--mgaved (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Internal Links
The ones that say, "See Also". There are some external links but no internal ones. Maybe just copy the internal links given on the Views Expressed page and put them on here too. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * Why? "See also" sections are for topics that are related but which can't be logically added to the article for one reason or another. What sort of things do you think need to be linked that aren't already linked in the text of the article?   Will Beback    talk    20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, think of something to put. It's nice to have them all in one place. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * I still don't understand what you want, or why you'd want it. A "see also" section isn't necessarily a good thing in an article. It certainly shouldn't be added just for the sake of having one.   Will Beback    talk    04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Whatever you say... Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Smear
This article includes blatant smear or facts which bias views about the person discussed. They should be removed. Examples include:

"although, having no earned degree in professional social work, he was not acting as a social worker but was more likely a caseworker of some type employed in a public assistance agency or office"

What is more or less likely is not something to be included in an encyclopedia article...

"On June 15, CEO Brian Lamb, personally hosting C-SPAN's Washington Journal program, showed and recited the contents of a number of the e-mails that C-SPAN had received at Savage's suggestion. Some of these e-mails referred to C-SPAN as a "Marxist-Leninist" entity, called Brian Lamb a "coward," a "homosexual," and a "dickhead," and demanded that C-SPAN's "taxpayer funding" be withdrawn (although in fact, C-SPAN does not receive any such funding)."

The relevance of what people did as a result of something he said is dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.176 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's fine to include some quotes from when he flew off the handle, but there is an obvious lack of quotations that encapsulate what he truly believes and what he expresses on his show every day. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk


 * The problem is that everyhting said isn't equally notable. It may be the odd, out-of-character statement that which gets attention. For the run-of-the-mill statements, as Wikipedia editors we have the problem of trying to summarize years of commentary without violating NOR. We can't say, "Savage frequently talks about..." or "Savage typically..." unless we have sources that have drawn those conclusions. However, if we have such sources then we should certainly give the common expressions and views sufficient weight.   Will Beback    talk    21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "there is an obvious lack of quotations that encapsulate what he truly believes" - What Michael Savage truly believes has no place in the article. The verifiable beliefs and statements of Michael Savage do have a place. The verifiable statements and beliefs are those which have been published or discussed by a reliable source. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC).


 * I listen to the guy and I can't even put my finger on "what he truly believes." I'd love to say - heck, by his own beliefs he should be thrown out of the country.  Though I'm sure that's not what he believes.  The best I could really do to describe him, is quote him. --Kyanwan (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Views
What does the history of the tax-exempt status of the Paul Revere Society have to do with personal views?Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * The Society appears to have been founded to disseminate the subject's views. Can you think of a better section for it?   Will Beback    talk    20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

merge
If there is no object, I shall carry out the merge in a day or so.(the proposal is in the most recent archive of this talk page). DGG (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to merge, since the details of his career in the main article should encompass most of his views, and I think the "Views expressed by" stub is far from NPOV. I retain the view that any relevant information not already in the main article could be intelligently integrated, but I think it's wholely unnecessary to merge the two. I'm more than willing to hear the opposing side of this matter, however I feel that simply saying "I'm going to merge this if no one opposes" isn't the proper way to do something like this. Girasoleil (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectively the two articles are bloated beyond belief. Why such a boringly loud mediocre shock jock gets so much Wikipedia space is beyond me, but hey! Merging the two and cutting the repetition is the right way forward in my view. 86.8.59.134 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. There's reams of material that can just be binned, and what's left over certainly doesn't need two articles to hold it.94.193.241.76 (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose merging the two pages until I know why exactly they should be merged. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

I like the views expressed article. Why delete? Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk
 * At the risk of feeding the troll, because Mr Weiner and his views are not notable independently of each other. GideonF (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this [Michael Savage (comentator)] article is long enough. I vote for keeping the "Views" article separate. I do agree with others that duplication should be relegated to one or the other article and then linked between the two with hyperlinks. Netgk5815 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the merge would necessarily make the Michael Savage (comentator) article any longer. Once all the duplicated material and cruft was gone, the revised "views" section wouldn't necessarily need to be any longer than the section that's already there. GideonF (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think his views should be discussed in his article. In my opinion, the subject is only notable and worth discussion and study - due solely to his views. Why is he a bestselling author? Because of his "outstanding" research, or because of his views? It is what made him hit the national scene in the way he has. We wouldn't be discussing him right now if it were not for his views, and polarizing speech. None of his medical work, research, writing, or personal endeavors have caused him to be notable - or worth discussing. His views are all he is. --Kyanwan (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned from the UK
Apparently, the British Home Secretary has put this guy on a 'least wanted' list of individuals who are barred from entry into the UK for stirring up hatred. see here. Is this note-worthy? --Richj1209 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think so, yes. The "least wanted" list article is currently the lead story on the BBC News website. That said, Savage's inclusion specifically is not likely to make a big splash in the news in the UK, since very few people here know who he is. Obviously if it becomes a story in itself in the US, what I've just said will be superseded. Loganberry (Talk) 09:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should still be included. As you said, it is atm, the lead story on the BBC News website.194.81.189.20 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment the article gives the reason "fostering extremism or hatred" for the ban, whereas the more specific reason appears to be "Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence" as shown here. I guess you could argue they're one and the same but it might be worth being more precise. 2writer (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated and link added as mentioned above.2writer (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The BBC again exhibits the corruption of contemporary mass media. Freedom of speech is being lost as a result. Lestrade (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * 1) What does this have to do with Wikipedia? 2) What does this even have with a nation being entitled to bar people from entering their nation for having views defined locally as extremist? Their nation, their rules. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC isn't banning Savage, it's the UK government that's banning him, along with many other people they regard as dangerous troublemakers from all over the world covering many different political views and religious faiths. And the BBC isn't reporting Savage in particular, they're reporting the list in general, with Savage being one name among many others ( full list in detail here with explanations of each ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8033319.stm )  --88.112.152.215 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be informative to take note that the BBC, not other media, is trumpeting this story.Lestrade (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Not true, various media have covered this. Here is one example from Metro News. Google is your friend if you want to find more. 2writer (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this won't have much if any impact in Britain, I read about this on the BBC and came here to find out who on earth this DJ is. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually continuing to be big news in the UK, mainly as he is threatening to sue the "English" government.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This guy sounds crazy. Americans seem to think people can say anything they like because their "constitution" guarantees it.  Thankfully the UK doesn't give people the right to defend.  This man is ignorant (his referring to "England" rather than the UK, for example, and also his rant about how the UK should defend his "constitutional rights" - doesn't he know that the UK isn't part of the UK?).  The USA can keep him.  8 million people listen to him, why???--217.203.140.226 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Americans justly believe that people can say anything they like because that is one of the inalienable rights endowed them by their Creator.  It has nothing to do with the constitution.  Those rights apply everywhere in the world, including the UK.  The only question is to what extent the UK government and judiciary choose to violate them.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Zsero, out of curiosity, do you think the media crossed the line in the Rwandan Genocide or should we celebrate this as why we need to protect unpopular speech?Mattnad (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As Savage said, "In America, the First Amendment was written to protect offensive speech. We don't need a First Amendment to protect polite speech, do we? I mean, everyone engages in polite speech, what do we need protections for? It's speech which provokes thought that is considered offensive and hateful by those who disagree with you, isn't it? Therefore, it's only speech we're talking about! Not the acts of murderers. And to lump me in with murderers is defaming me. It's libeling me." Maybe include this in the U.K. ban section. (this is part of a BBC interview)http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ad_1241787411 Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk


 * Has anyone found a source supporting the ban outside of the UK government itself?  The last paragraph reads like an attack on the ban rather than a cross section of opinion on the issue. I understand supporting views are thin on the ground, I suspect this is due more to the current political climate in the UK rather than a lack of support for his ban which does exist. Does anyone know of any sources? Superpie (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the sentiment, but that might be a bit of a tall order. From what I saw of the small amount of coverage the ban received in the UK, the spectrum of opinion ranged from opposition to indifference.  While I admit I've not gone out of my way to look for it, I've not seen any third parties actively supporting the ban in the mainstream media.GideonF (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Check World Net Daily and SFgate. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Use of "England" to mean "United Kingdom" as a demonstration of Savage's political knowledge
It should be clearly noted in the article that Smith is the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom and not, as Savage claimed the "Home Secretary of England". It is particularly notable as it illustrates Savage's lack of knowledge about world politics, demonstrated through his inability to grasp the difference between England and the UK (which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). It's like someone calling the US Secretary of State the "Secretary of State for Illinois". England does not have a government of its own. For someone who makes daily monologues about the state of international politics, to make this kind of fundamental mistake is very revealing. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, "UK", "Britain", and "England" tend to be used interchangeably by people living outside of the British Isles. Regarding your analogy, I'd say it's closer to referring to the "American Secretary of State", even though the continent has no such office, instead of the "U.S. Secretary of State". It is a common and widely understood inaccuracy. Of all the things to take Savage to task for, this is probably the least significant.   Will Beback    talk   

It should be clearly noted that Britain/England/U.K. all refer to the United Kingdom whether you want them to or not. It is particularly notable that some people think they are geniuses because they can announce that Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland are governed by the British government. "Inability to grasp"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA WOW!!!! That's GREAT! Admit it, everyone calls the U.K. "England" including you.Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk


 * I think pointing out a man who tells people to get aids and die calls the UK "England" incorrectly is probably a little petty. Im inclined to agree with you that the mistake is revealing, but then im British, I would. Further "Everybody does it"... Seriously? Should you two above even be on wikipedia this late? The man alludes he's some sort of authority on global affairs, he's not an average joe he's a shaper of public opinion and such mistakes dont deserve defence. Superpie (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a defense of Mr. Savage (Weiner) referring to the UK as England, but just an observation: many US citizens [note: I did not say "Americans"] refer to the UK via "United Kingdom", "Great Britain", and "England" interchangebly. Probably because of the (mostly uninformed) perception that English politics dominates the UK political scene. Netgk5815 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess who resigned today? That's right. Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

Controversies
Why has the Islam section been removed? He expressed great hatred towards Muslims and Islam on his radioshow once. The crackpot screamed and I think he was fined $8,000 or something...or it was blanketted by "freedom of speech" by the radio. Why has it been deleted? 84.13.80.135 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hatred." "Crackpot." "Screamed." Subjective language.Lestrade (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Though the language is subjective, biased, and unnecessary - the subject (*Savage) does have a clear bias/prejudice towards the Islamic faith and peoples. He does attempt to "cover" it up by noting "radical Islam" -however- he often launches off into diatribes showing a clear disdain for the faith and people who practice it - "radicals" aside.  He does have a very polarized opinion on the subject.   I'm guessing you're a listener ... if not ... then you should take a listen to him some time (as I do - on a near daily basis.)   If it's not obvious, then you're not listening good enough.   It's a valid subject to be discussed, in my opinion.  Discussed carefully, with civility, and without bias either way. --Kyanwan (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Though the language is subjective, biased, and unnecessary - the subject (*Savage) does have a clear bias/prejudice towards the Islamic faith and peoples. He does attempt to "cover" it up by noting "radical Islam" -however- he often launches off into diatribes showing a clear disdain for the faith and people who practice it - "radicals" aside.  He does have a very polarized opinion on the subject.   I'm guessing you're a listener ... if not ... then you should take a listen to him some time (as I do - on a near daily basis.)   If it's not obvious, then you're not listening good enough.   It's a valid subject to be discussed, in my opinion.  Discussed carefully, with civility, and without bias either way. --Kyanwan (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch 5:36 of this interview: ... clearly, Savage does believe in autism. he was simply stating it is overdiagnosed. see, for those who come here and know very little about him they will (incorrectly) see that he does not believe in autism. whether 99% of autism is fake or not i have no idea (probably not) but this erroneously claims that savage is an autism-non-believer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.250.66 (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I criticize the nature of the sources mentioned, namely in the criticisms section in which the site mentioned as a source which devoted to conservative defamation. The statement cited from Media Matters is taken out of context.

Obsession with one issue
The article omits to mention that Michael Savage is obsessed by the issue of homosexuality. There is not a single day when he doesn't mention it several times.Пипумбрик (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article mentions that he "claims that [...] same-sex marriage [is] degrading American culture" and quotes verbatim one of his gay-bashing diatribes. NPOV and BLP constraints (rightly) mean that Wikipedia can't label the man a rampaging homophobe and likely closet case, but I believe the facts are stated suffiently to allow readers to draw their own conclusions in that regard.GideonF (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As with any topic, we can't add material based on our own assessments (such as the observation that he discusses the same topic every day). However if that observation has been made in a reliable source then we can report it ("According to the St Paul Times, Savage mentions the same topic every day").   Will Beback    talk    20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockstar energy drink
I have NO idea what this paragraph is trying to convey. I read it 6 times and I still don't get it. I realize I'm not the sharpest knife it the drawer, but I think these paragraphs need to be written so that even dummies like me can understand. Let's deconstruct the paragraph in question: "Savage's son is the founder and CEO of Rockstar, Inc.[93], and his wife is the corporation's chief financial officer.[94] As a result of the connection, a boycott effort was organized which included a Facebook page that 12,000 members before it was closed due to complaints by the company's lawyers. Several blogs that wrote about the connection also reported being threatened with legal action.[94] Following the controversy, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom returned a $25,000 campaign contribution from Russel Weiner." - what connection? Savage and his son? his son and his wife? so what? what's the big deal? - that 12,000 members before .. what? This makes no sense - what was closed? the facebook page? the company? - companys lawyers? facebook lawyers? huh? - blogs threatended with legal action? by whom? facebook? what blogs? - Gavin Newsom returned 25,000? why? What controversy? That his son makes a drink? Why is that so bad? I like the *idea* of this paragraph, I want to know more of this situation, it just needs expansion and correction. Thanks for your time.


 * How is this a controversy?Mattnad (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a controversy because people are making it one, pretty much the same as any controversy.   Will Beback    talk    23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as written on the page now, all I see is the mention that a family member started an unrelated beverage business. But another editor has retitled the section since I asked so at least it's not begging the question.Mattnad (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If a politician returned a large donation from the son on learning of their relationship, and if that was reported, then it'd be relevant. But I can't find any mention of it in the news databases.   Will Beback    talk    06:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have an image of him?
I think he's a pretty much well known guy; I'm surprised no one posted an image, and his article is pretty big. Anyone have an image of him? -- R32GTR (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to offer a photo that's free for use on Wikipedia. Those are hard to come by. Mattnad (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it an act?
I sometimes get the impression that he is just playing a role, trying to make money. Even tongue in cheek. Anything written on this possibliity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I'm not going to lecture you on Wikipedia's hypocritical "rules" but I'm quite sure Wikipedia isn't for speculating on "possibilities" about the topic. 66.45.155.16 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Still banned in the UK
Michael Savage is still banned:

Michael Savage Still Banned in England

SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- The Press Office of the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. confirmed in an interview with me today that San Francisco talk show host, Michael Savage, still remains "persona non grata" in Great Britain.

Savage repeatedly warned his listeners yesterday that neither he or his attorneys have received any official indication that the ban had been lifted.

A weekend newspaper report appears to have been inaccurate.

The press representative indicated that while no visa is required of Americans visiting England, Michael Savage, would be detained by immigration authorities if he attempted to enter the country, and refused entry.

As recently as yesterday the British Home Office informed the embassy office that there has been no change in Michael Savage's ban. -- R32GTR (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section
So it's to my understanding that these sections are to be removed and the content is to be integrated into the bulk of the article. WP:CRIT Bludst0ne (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The guidelines frown on, but do not ban criticism sections. In the instance of Savage, he embraces controversy as part of his work. After all, he's paid to comment.  Furthermore, it's not all one sided. In the "Banned from the UK" section, Savage's retorts are included. Mattnad (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, I didn't know that simply being a controversial person warranted exclusion from the rules set forth by wikipedia but I shall keep that in mind for the future.Bludst0ne (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith here, note that "controversies" are not the same as "criticisms". The UK ban is a particularly good example - we're writing about an event surrounding Savage that relates to his response to a foreign government action.  Anyway, if you think you can find a way to blend in these notable events and issues into the other sections, I'm sure that would be fine.  And as always, there are few rules in Wikipedia, but many guidelines; some of which, by the way, contradict each other.Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Known For
The "Known For" line states his political commentary, but before he was a radio talker he was a ethnobotanical (sp?) researcher and published nutritionist (and I think he was also a sociologist but I not certain of that). Shouldn't the nutritionist career be included as well, if not the others? 98.117.207.115 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with CAIR section
The use of the word orchestrated in "a campaign orchestrated by CAIR" is negative and implies manipulation of laws and context. It was neither. I have dropped the word from that sentence and the overall meaning is improved and impartialitly improved.

CAIR isn't and should not be a valid source. To say Dr. Savage supports the deportation of all muslims is taking his statements out of context. He has praised many peaceful muslims on his show. CAIR is a group that has been in trouble with the authorities for alleged funding links to groups that the State Department classifies as terrorist organizations. This is just more nonsense and libel against Dr. Savage because they cannot argue with him on the facts. All they can do is lie and attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.178.24 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about the double negative in the edit summary; what I meant was "neither Judaism nor Islam is a race". Stonemason89 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alan Ginsberg
I was recently reading (Alan Ginsberg)'s page and noticed an interesting anecdote about Michael Savage. If this is true, I think it definately merits inclusion in this page, if not, it should be deleted from Ginsberg's. Thoughts anyone? --Tacit tatum (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented vs Pointed Out
Does anyone have an opinion they would like to share on whether "pointed out" (which stands at time of writing) or "commented" is the preferable wording in the following sentence from the section on Mr Weiner's being banned from entering the United Kingdom?

During a subsequent NPR talk show, Savage claimed that he has never advocated violence and invoked the United States Constitution's First Amendment. When show host Neal Conan pointed out that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the United Kingdom, Savage replied, "No. Thank God I'm an American."

I slightly prefer "pointed out", because that the United States Constitution's First Amendment does not apply in the United Kingdom is a fact, and pointing out is what one does with facts, while commenting implies an opinion. This wording was inserted recently (this was a subject of some dispute, in which I was in the wrong) and my objection to Zsero's reversion has as much to do with his/her statedly POV reasons for doing it as my preference for "pointed out". GideonF (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pointed out" is specifically discouraged in WP:AVOID.
 * "Pointed out" implies that Conan's observation rebutted or refuted Savage's argument; it may be that Conan intended it that way, but if so he was just being stupid, because it actually reinforced the argument, as Savage immediately noted.
 * Conan's observation only makes sense as a rebuttal of Savage's position if he thought Savage was planning to sue Jacqui Smith under the first amendment to the US constitution; of course Savage didn't say any such thing. He said she had violated his 1A rights (i.e. the universal right which is protected in the USA by the 1A), which she had.  He also said he would sue her, which he did.  The inference that the two statements were directly connected, and that the suit would be brought under the first amendment, is unwarranted, and is belied by the subsequent facts; the suit was brought, and not under the first amendment.  Whether Conan made this unwarranted inference isn't clear from his words; it's an inference (a meta-inference?) that some WP editors seem to have made.  I think it more likely that he was just being stupid, and hadn't thought things through that logically.  At any rate, Savage's reply shows how he understood it.
 * Wait a minute, how about "observed" as a compromise? It fits any interpretation of the events.  It describes what Conan did, without implying that his observation was relevant.
 * -- Zsero (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see what the big deal is. "pointed out" seems fine to me. But, if that seems to imply something perhaps "noted" would be a compromise? ("observed" seems reasonable too) Personally, I don't like "commented" because I think that it is an awkward transitive verb. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything terrible about "point out" given that Savage alluded to, or directly spoke of his first amendment rights at least 4 times in the interview. As an host/interview, Conan was bringing up an undisputed point that US law does not govern the UK. Zsero is showing some of his/her stripes by calling the host stupid, but I'd suggest others read the transcript. It's not a stretch to write that the Host was "pointing out" a legal fallacy in Savagage's comments about US freedom of speech and the UK ban. Mattnad (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to call you stupid too, but you're clearly missing something. The right protected by the first amendment exists in the UK and in every country; there is nothing special about the USA that makes people have this right only there.  The amendment didn't create the right; its premise is that it protects a right that already existed, and would continue to exist whether it was protected or not.  The only difference between the USA and the UK is that in the USA the right is protected, and if the government dares to infringe it the victim has recourse to the courts; in the UK there is no such protection, so the government is free to violate it with impunity.  That was Savage's point in the whole discussion; he has the right to free speech, and Smith had violated it, and she was able to do so because UK law doesn't have the protections US law has.  He made no legal fallacy. As you say, that US law doesn't gover the UK is undisputed, including by Savage; so what was Conan's point in saying so?  By saying "pointed out" the article implies exactly what you just said - that Conan was exposing a fallacy in Savage's argument; and that's just not true.  If Conan thought that's what he was doing, he was being thick.  And that's why "pointed out" has to go.  I'll compromise on "observed".  -- Zsero (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do wish you'd stop banging on about this right that you believe exists. We know you believe it exists, you've said so enough, and possibly Mr Weiner believes the same - but he said nothing to that effect in the interview the section is describing.  All his references were to the piece of paper, not the "right" it purports to protect. GideonF (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, lets stick the editing and not using this page for soapboxing about the right to free speech being something that was bestowed upon the cosmos by a higher power. It's a legal concept with regional boundaries, definitions, and limitations. And if Zsero thinks I'm wrong, try writing a threatening letter to the President of the US. Then that editor will see an example where free speech stops.Mattnad (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I want to reiterate that "commented" is the stable version that sat here for a long time without anybody having a problem with it, until this week, when an editor decided to edit-war by changing it to "pointed out". My only role was in returning it to the stable version.  I see no reason to change it, and "observed" is my attempt at reaching out and compromising; it is not my own position from which I should compromise further.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Zsero, as long as you continue to be in a minority of one on this, stop reverting unilaterally to your preferred version. GideonF (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for a change. Until you achieve consensus your continuing to push your change is edit-warring.  -- Zsero (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And stop vandalising my user task page. GideonF (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not vandalism, that's a warning. Your edit summaries are proof positive that you are engaging in gamesmanship, and are cruising for a block.   Falsely claiming a consensus for your desired change doesn't help your case either. -- Zsero (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really. Stop vandalising my user talk page.GideonF (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Legitimate warnings are not vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they're not, but you've not been leaving legitimate warnings, your edits to my user talk page are vandalism. In case you haven't noticed, everyone who has cared to express an opinion favours "pointed out", with the sole exception of yourself.  Since you are repeatedly going against this consensus, your edits to this article are practically vandalism. GideonF (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's this "everyone"? You and Mattnad?  Two people do not make a consensus.  Your edit summaries clearly show that you're engaging in gamesmanship.  My warnings on your talk page were legitimate, and accusing me of vandalism doesn't help your case either.  -- Zsero (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Three of the four people who have cared enough to express an opinion. That is consensus. Not sure what you mean by my "case", I'm not the one making disruptive edits. I'm not on trial. GideonF (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned 'pointed out' seems more accurate then 'commented', though I find 'observed' to be a nice alternative. But I wonder if any form is allowed at all, the source is a direct transcription of a conversation and any description of what was said, be it 'observed', 'commented' or 'pointed out', would be (bordering on) original research and certainly not previously published by independent, reliable sources. Fenke (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting take, but if all words other than "said" were verboten when describing direct quotations then the effect on Wikipedia's prose would be deleterious.GideonF (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) Ignoring the borderline personal attacks and edit warring, "commented" is the version that was originally there, and it's the most WP:NPOV word between the two. Fenke is right, 'observed' might work, as would 'stated' or 'indicated'. Perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be a good idea; this is a silly argument to have over such a trivial matter. tedder (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "countered"? I reckon that would convey the sense that the the host's remark was intended to dispute Mr Weiner's point, without passing judgement as to whether or not the First Amendment applies in the UK (though why we shouldn't be seen to pass judgement on this matter of fact remains beyond me). GideonF (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason we don't pass judgement is that we don't have to. The reader can (and should) decide what the intent is. If there is are reliable secondary sources indicating the intent, we can use that. tedder (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Countered" implies something a bit different. Up to that point in the interview, Savage repeatedly invoked the First Amendment as part of his argument that the ban was wrong. In context, the host was really providing a clarifying (and accurate I may add) point to the discussion. The host's "point" is not that Savage is wrong about the First Amendment, but to get him to explain why he's applying it to the UK ban.  Given that Conan actually posed a question, perhaps it's not "point out", but maybe "questioned" Savage (and provide a quote from the transcript).  I will say that "Point out" should be avoided IF it's POV, but reading the transcript (and listening to the show which I did), it's not at all POV in this instance.Mattnad (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for coming in and jacking the situation with my extra edit in the article, but this looks like an exceedingly silly thing for anyone to go over 3RR for. The issue that I see is trying to make it clear what the intent of the response was, but without it pushing on sounding judgmental. I was going to agree with "countered" until given that context, so the clarification is great. "Noted"? Too weak. Action verbs like "point" imply aggression. "Reminded", maybe? It might sound a little harsh, but if it was a turning point on the discussion that's still mostly polite but notes the importance. Whatever you go with, I agree with tedder though, that the reader should be making the call. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll encourage you (and anyone else), to listen to the show. It was a very contentious interview and while Conan kept his cool, Savage repeatedly and directly challenged him.   IMHO it's not at all off the mark to suggest that Conan was making a point.  Here's a link to an article that includes the actual recording .  What do you think? Mattnad (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conan's intent doesn't matter. What matters is whether Conan's comment was at all relevant Savage's argument, and we should not be saying that it was.  WP's language should be neutral, and "commented" is neutral where "pointed out" is not.  But I'm willing to compromise on "observed", "noted", or just "said", none of which imply anything contentious.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the issue is whether Conan was making a point per Tedder. Your opinion of what savage may have meant is not relevant at all.  Let me ask another way, why on earth did Conan bother to mention that the US First Amendment does not apply in the UK?  Please enlighten us.  Mattnad (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are countless reliable secondary sources to the effect that US legislation doesn't apply outside of the US, but the fact is so obvious and indisputable that it would be fatuous to reference it every time it is mentioned in passing.GideonF (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's suggesting a source for Conan's intent. It's a bit of a narrow view for such an innocuous "point" since we're be limited to "said" or "wrote" since even "comment" could be construed as interpretive.Mattnad (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting (if unilluminating) to see what would happen if such a policy were applied across the board; if every description of a debate had to be supplemented with additional sources specifically informing the reader that the disputants disagreed with each other.GideonF (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all (not that I agree with this) US legislation does apply all over the world, at least as far as the US and its courts are concerned. You can be convicted in a US court of breaking a US law no matter where you did it, as people who have broken US antitrust laws have learned to their cost.
 * That said, of course US laws can't be enforced in UK courts, no secondary sources are needed for that! But for precisely that reason it is also inconceivable that Savage thought they could be, and I will oppose any language that implies he needed to be "reminded" that they couldn't.  "Commented" is correct.  I can live with "observed", "stated", "said", or "noted", as still neutral.  But language that implies this observation was somehow relevant to Savage's point is pushing the POV that Savage is some kind of idiot, and/or that the right of free speech is a creation of US law and doesn't apply elsewhere.
 * In the meantime, I want GideonF on notice that gamesmanship is not allowed. Until a consensus has been achieved, the stable version must remain.  Nobody had any objection to it for all the months that it was there; it can't possibly be so important now that it must be changed while the discussion is going on. -- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009

If you listen to the Michael Savage Show and listen to several of his shows you will realize that he is not trying to make a 1st Amendment argument with regards to why it was wrong for him to be banned in the UK. The crux of Michael Savage's argument is that the only reason that the UK banned him is for his exercising of his 1st Amendment right under the US constitiution and nothing more. For this and only this, he was placed by the UK on a banned list that includes murderers, rapists, and terrorists. Even if you are not a fan of Michael Savage and you do not like him, should he be banned for what he says on a US radio station that is monitored by the FCC? What type of person who does believe in individual rights would answer this question in the affirmative? He does have a powerful argument for what did he really do to be put on such a list? Some people who dislike Michael Savage may say that he advocates violence. Yet there is not one incident of violence that can be linked to the Michael Savage show. The Pope has similar views as Michael Savage with regards to gay issues, but the Pope is not banned in Britain.