Talk:Michael Savage/Archive 5

Savage's Religion
I have twice added a note about needing a citation regarding his religion, and twice my change has been reverted. Rather than exacerbate this edit war, I'm talking about it here. My stance is that there is no source that I can find stating that Michael Savage practices Judaism, and that we either need to remove the claim about his religious beliefs, or find a source for it. Here is a copy of the dialog I've already had, from edit summaries:

Me: "I don't believe Savage is currently an observant Jew, and I can't find anything one way or the other from a cursory search of Google, so I think this needs a citation."

Zsero: "he's not observant but he's still a jew"

Me: "Requesting citation again on his religion, as, even though he is clearly an ethnic Jew as the person reverting me pointed out, I can find no evidence he is a religious Jew."

Zsero: "the distinction you draw is meaningless. his mother was a jew, so he is one. his religion is judaism, whether he practises it or not."

Zsero, if Michael Savage claimed that God does not exist, would you still say he was Jewish under the "Religious beliefs" label? His ethnicity is certainly Jewish, but a Jew ethnically can practice any religion, just like any person can. You aren't automatically a religious Christian because your mother is a religious Christian. You aren't a religious Jew simply because your mother is a religious Jew. Do you understand the difference between the Jewish ethnic group and Judaism, the religion? --Mister Magotchi (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using a Christian definition and imposing it on a category to which it doesn't apply. Christianity may be defined by belief; Judaism is not.  -- Zsero (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a reliable source that says that Savage is Jewish (e.g. self identifies or practices), then it's not really relevant. His ethnic heritage is not relevant if there's no source confirming his current affiliation.  For instance Madeleine Albright, born of two Jewish parents, has Episcopalian Christian as her religion (with the footnote about her Jewish heritage). It's true that in the Jewish faith, the religion of the mother is passed onto the child, but an adult defines his or herself.  It would be best for us to have some confirmation that Savage considers himself Jewish.Mattnad (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "an adult defines his or herself"? Someone born of a Jewish mother is a member of the Jewish religion; it has nothing to do with whether they practise or even believe anything.   Now if he was practising another religion, then he would still be a Jew, but that other religion would be the most appropriate thing to put in the infobox.  But it would be up to the person making that claim to provide a source.  Until one is found, the default situation is that he was born a Jew and therefore is one.  -- Zsero (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source that he's Jewish as religion (and not ethnicity). The adults redefine themselves - per the Albright example.Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point: there is no difference between Jewish "ethnicity" and "religion". The definition of being Jewish is someone who had a Jewish mother, or who converted.  Someone who believes in the truth of Judaism, but was not born Jewish and did not convert, is not Jewish.   Albright is a Jew; but she is also Episcopalian, and that's the religion she practises, so it's what goes in her infobox.  If she were simply a non-practising Jew then it would be appropriate put Jewish as her religion.  -- Zsero (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point, Zsero, is that the infobox says his "Religious Belief" is Jewish - not his "Religious Heritage" or even "Religion". Hence the need for some evidence he believes in the "Jewish" religion, and not that he's ethnically Jewish, or even considered Jewish by others, including you.Mattnad (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The parameter is "religion". The display label was changed at some point to "religious beliefs", apparently in order to accomodate "atheist", which isn't a religion.  There was no discussion of this change at the time, and later discussion seems to have fizzled with no action.  Perhaps you might like to restart that discussion.  But there is nothing to indicate that the parameter is intended to refer only to strong personal convictions; many people have a religion without any particularly strong feelings about it.  Savage is a Jew; not in my view or anyone else's view, but in verifiable fact.   You seem to be under the impression that religion is by definition a matter of what a person believes; some religions may define their membership that way, but Judaism does not. -- Zsero (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And by your approach, Madeline Albright is Jewish too? When are you planning to edit that article and change the infobox?Mattnad (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a matter of fact she is Jewish; and in fact her infobox reflects that fact in a footnote.  -- Zsero (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And so a footnote it must be unless you have a source that says his "belief" rather than birth mother is jewish. I'll take it up with a the BLP noticeboard since your POV is clear.Mattnad (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked about Albright and I pointed out that her infobox does reflect the fact that she is a Jew in the only way it can, with a footnote. Albright has another religion, so that is the most appropriate way to handle it.  In Savage's case, as far as I know he has no other religion.  He is a Jew, and nothing but a Jew.  Therefore that is what goes in this parameter.  No need for a footnote unless you have some specific information that would modify this item.  Do you? -- Zsero (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One's religion is not determined by their birth. I don't think any of us are saying Michael Savage is not a Jew.  He is certainly a Jew.  What is unclear is whether he believes in Judaism.  Zsero seems to claim that because someone is born a Jew, they automatically espouse Judaism as their religion.  Again, Jewishness, the ethnicity, and Judaism, the religion, are not the same thing.  A Jew ethnically can be a Catholic, a Buddhist, an atheist, or most other religions, and if one practices Buddhism, it would be incorrect to state that their religion is Judaism.  If Savage claims to be a Christian, it is incorrect say his religion is Judaism.  --Mister Magotchi (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says "one's religion is not determined by their birth"?  That is your peculiarly Christian perspective, and you have no right to impose it on other religions.  If Savage were to claim to be a Christian, then we would treat it as we do Albright; but as far as I know he doesn't. Where did you get the idea that he does?  Or did you just make it up?  -- Zsero (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might check the religion entry on Merriam-Webster. I don't know when or how you decided I'm Christian, anyway, although I'll admit I am.  It's beside the point, though.  I never claimed that Savage is Christian, so your point is moot.  I just assume he either claims to believe in Christianity or Judaism, but nobody so far can cite a source for either. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess there are a lot of people here who never listened to his show. Michael Savage does believe in God, and has never practiced any other religion but Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

FattyJoe is right. I've listened for several years, if only intermittently, and he regularly has a replacement host on major Jewish holidays. 38.115.185.13 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Nobody in Chicago


 * There's a pretty good chance he is Jewish, but he is very careful to never explicitly say what he practices or make a claim that would out him as a Christian or Jew. He does, especially in the last few years, frequently say things about a major revival of Christianity basically being the only hope for this country. As you say about the holidays, that probably makes him Jewish, but there are other things to keep in mind with that: he has Jewish family, he also doesn't do a show on major Christian holidays (like Christmas, which only falls within Hanukkah about half the time), and some Christians celebrate Jewish holidays, most notably messianic Jews, which Savage would have to be if we find out he's Christian, based on his background. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Savage is Jewish, and he is never "very careful to never explicitly say what he practices or make a claim." He stated that he is Jewish many times on his program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is his religion or lack thereof such a big deal? got some anti-Semites on here, is that the problem? nobody cares...184.193.126.177 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia Tripe
Half of the article is criticisms and controversies - just a slam piece with no pretense to information. This is to be expected from wikipedia, which is controlled by 14 year old shitheads.76.105.74.127 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael! 38.115.185.13 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) NobodyInChicago
 * Now now. Please assume good faith and please avoid using profanity.  Savage's brand depends on taking strong positions which are controversial.  No surprise there and not necessarily unwarranted for his article.Mattnad (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The same treatment is visited on every non-leftwinger, thinly veiled by a "Criticisms and Controversy" heading, which contains mostly irrelevant fluff and is stunningly absent from almost ever entry on Liberals. I might have some good faith left if Wikipedia weren't dedicated to mudslinging on Conservatives and white-washing Libs. And the editors on Wikipedia all wonder why people treat them like another liberal news outlet feigning objectivity. Grow up kids.76.105.74.127 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but the this talk page is probably not the place for it.Mattnad (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
In the section titled Criticism, the phrase "Radical Muslims" in this sentence: "On April 17, 2006, he said of Radical Muslims" is a hyperlink to the Islamism page on wikipedia. Is this an accurate representation of the phrase? Perhaps it should link to "Islamic Extremism" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.40.147 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Called Elena Kagan a Marxist
FYI He called Elena Kagan A " New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through." (Proven false BTW) Might want to add something on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.247 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused by this statement as "proven false." Please enlighten me. When and how was it proven false that Elena Kagan was a Marxist lawyer through and through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not really encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the news (if this even qualifies as a current news event).Mattnad (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alleged "hypocrisy"
"His hypocrisy was not lost on commentators" is about the most blatant violation of NPOV I've ever seen. It is absolutely unacceptable for WP's editorial voice to call Savage a hypocrite. The most that could be allowed, if this were a significant reaction by many notable commentators, [BLP violation removed], would be "Some commentators accused him of hypocrisy".

As to the substance of the matter, there is obviously no hypocrisy in demanding the right to speak ones mind on ones own show, and also the right to keep other views off that show. The right to free speech includes the right not to be forced to speak; that is why the St Patrick's Day parade in NYC has the right to exclude the gay Irish clubs from marching under their own banner. The caller Savage cut off was free to say whatever he liked on his own show, not on Savage's. Any commentator who doesn't understand that is not worth quoting. -- Zsero (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article cites the commentators and directly quotes one of them. It's no more POV to quote them than to quote Savage. If you want to change the preamble, please do, and we can take a look at it. Oh, and by the way, it was not Savage's show. It was an NPR show where Savage did not want another person to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.
 * And I'm really confused now by your shifting rhetoric. On the one hand, you say it's OK for a city to ban homosexual speech (NYC), but not OK for the UK to ban Savage's hate speech.  It's all the more amazing in that NYC is on US soil where the First Amendment has relevance.Mattnad (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting the commentators would be valid if they were representative of some significant body of opinion, not just one or two ratbags either too thick to understand the difference between this and censorship, or too dishonest to acknowledge that difference. And no, it is not OK for a city to ban speech of any kind; you've got a hide accusing me of saying such a thing.  I never said a word about NYC permitting or banning anything.  But it is certain the inalienable right of the parade to exclude any point of view that it does not wish to be associated with.  The right to speak includes the right to be silent, and not to have someone else's opinions figuratively thrust into ones mouth.   Oh, and it makes no difference what station Savage was on; for that moment it was his mic, and his right to control it.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you can't see the parallels, fine. But your lack of civility is not helpful.  The Huffington post is an established journalistic source. Calling them [rm quotation of BLP violation] does little to change my view on the reliability of the source. It does however demonstrate your bias.  Please see Huffington Post and WP:RS. If you don't think the Huffington Post is a major online publication, then we can take it up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand what RS is about. RS is all about the fact-checking that allegedly goes on at such places (though the notion that facts reported in, say, the LA Times are more reliable than those reported on WND is in fact ludicrous).  Opinions, which by definition are not subject to fact-checking, are no more "reliable" for having appeared on HuffPo than they are on any blog.  And the opinion that Savage was being hypocritical here is a stupid or dishonest one, no matter where it appeared; the person writing such an opinion is [BLP violation removed]  Now if it were a common opinion, then the fact that it was held and expressed would be notable, and it would be appropriate to quote a representative example or two; but if it is held only by a few ratbags &mdash; and that is what they are &mdash; then it's not notable and should not be mentioned at all.  And even if it were notable enough to be mentioned, there is no way that it would ever be appropriate for Wikipedia to adopt that opinion in its editorial voice.  The fact that you could have thought it appropriate to restore that language speaks volumes.  -- Zsero (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Zsero, Wikipedia permits relevant published commentary and these are specific to the exchange where Savage shouts down a caller on the NPR show. There's no measure in wikipedia for "common" opinion, or that opinion pieces require fact checking (which is amazing to required since how you do fact-check someone's interpretation of a fact). I will caution you to avoid using terms like "ratbags" and "stupid" when referring to those authors you disagree with.  If you can find another published opinion about the NPR interview, please do.  But unless you can demonstrate why the Huffington Post is not a reliable source, then you have no cause to censure this article to keep them out.Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've brought your complaints to the reliable sources noticeboard: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Why don't you see what other editors think there. I'd ask that you stop your reverts until it get resolved in the proper forum.Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you show a complete lack of understanding of what "reliable source" means. The only difference between a source deemed "reliable" and one not is that the former is claimed to check its facts.  As you acknowledge, opinions are by definition not subject to fact-checking.  Therefore the "reliability" or otherwise of HuffPo is irrelevant.  An opinion doesn't become notable and worthy of quoting just because it appeared on HuffPo.  Neither Amir Kurtovic nor Sam Sedaei are particularly notable pundits, and these articles of their show their [BLP violation removed]  It is simply false to claim that Savage in any way sought to restrict the caller's freedom of speech; he simply refused to speak to the caller, which was his right.  If Kurtovic and Sedaei think the first amendment protects some sort of right to have people listen to you while you rant at them, [BLP violation removed] if they don't really think that, then they're dishonest.  Either way, [BLP violation removed], and their opinions have no place in a WP article that is not about them.  If they were representative samples of a significant body of opinion, that would be different; but they're not, or at least you haven't demonstrated that they are. -- Zsero (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, but the next time someone violates BLP by attacking a living individual in an edit summary, I'm going to lock this page so no one can edit it. Knock it off. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Insulting people is not a violation of BLP; only defamatory statements, i.e. false statements of fact, are barred. Insulting other editors to their faces is uncivil, but I have not done so.  There is no rule against insulting people who are not WP editors.  If it's OK (on a talk page) to say "Michael Savage is a hypocrite", then it is equally OK (on a talk page) to say [BLP violation removed]. -- Zsero (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your interpretation of BLP is incorrect. There's no need for that namecalling and it is in fact prohibited, so please stop it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Cite the policy or guideline that prohibits expressing a derogatory opinion of a living person.  In particular, I advise you to look at WP:BLP, which explains what BLP is and is not about; it is about avoiding defamation, and calling someone an idiot is by definition not defamatory.  -- Zsero (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this hinges on what we each think is defamatory. If you don't think that calling someone an idiot is defamatory, then your definition of defamatory differs from mine and from the rest of the world's.  Regardless, that's the definition we will be using here, and I'm asking for a third time that you cease using such defamatory language.  It is unnecessary, uncivil, and unproductive.  If you disagree with this decision, you are welcome to seek a different opinion from another administrator, the BLP noticeboard, or whatever forum you deem appropriate.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling someone an idiot is certainly not defamatory. Defamation, by definition, is a false statement of fact; opinions cannot be defamatory.  In a restaurant review, "the food was burnt" is defamatory, and if the owner can prove that it was also untrue he can sue the reviewer and the newspaper; but "the food was awful" is not defamatory, and the owner has no recourse but to express his own, contrary opinion.  I find it interesting, though, that you call "idiot" defamatory, but not "hypocrite"; what's up with that?  In any case, I reject your definition of BLP, and am restoring my comments that you deleted.  Feel free to take this up elsewhere if you really think you have a case; I don't believe you do.  -- Zsero (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you restore any BLP violations or place any more on this page or in the edit summary, I will be forced to block you to prevent any further violations of BLP. You feel you have a point, so bring it up in the appropriate forums, which I pointed out to you, and do not disrupt Wikipedia in order to make your point. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one disrupting anything. You're the one accusing me of BLP violations, so the onus is on you to prove it.  I am under no obligation to conform my editing to your unsupported dictates.  Threatening to block me for failing to accept your peculiar interpretation of a policy, without making any attempt to justify that interpretation, is itself a violation of any number of WP policies.  If you think calling a living person an idiot on a talk page is a violation of BLP, and you seek to enforce that opinion on others, then you bring it up in the appropriate forum and see if it flies.  Until you do so, you have no right to demand that I conform to it.  And while you're about it, please do explain in what conceivable universe "idiot" is a BLP violation but "hypocrite" is not.
 * In addition: even if your opinion were correct, a statement in quotes, given as an example of something that is or isn't a violation, can't itself be a violation. If I were to write as a fact that [BLP violation removed] that would certainly be a BLP violation; but my having written it in this sentence is not.   Any other policy would amount to censorship, since it would stifle any debate or discussion about the policy and its application.  -- Zsero (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't say I didn't warn you about this. It is okay to dispute an interpretation of policy in an appropriate forum, but it is not okay to dispute it by violating it over and over again.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Wikipedia. The answer to whether or not Michael Savage is a hypocrite by cutting off a caller can be resolved by asking one simple question. Did Michael Savage violate the caller's First Amendment Rights by cutting him off? The answer is clearly no. Michael Savage is an advocate of the First Amendment but Michael Savage's cutting a caller off, no matter whose show it is, is not even a First Amendment issue. Therefore, by calling Michael Savage a hypocrite based on these facts is illogical, and by doing so only strenghtens Michael Savage's argument that "liberalism is a mental disorder." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Savage claims to be a defender of freedom of speech. Yet, he sues the creators of web sites that dare to criticize him. He does so under the flimsiest of arguments. Read about is lawsuit against Michael Savage Sucks.com and Savage Stupidity.com. Of course there was his lawsuit against CAIR after it made a 4-minute compilation of his rhetoric. His propensity to go crying to the courts when someone dares to post criticism of him while he considers himself to be championing freedom of speech strikes me as his being a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiqwe1 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Savage is a defender of freedom of speech. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with being a defender of freedom of speech and filing a cause of action against someone who has harmed you. Trying to make this link only proves Mr. Savage's statement that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." However, in this particular case it strikes me as a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Savage is a defender of his speech, and speech he agrees with. Otherwise, he has demonstrated a double-standard when others make comments he doesn't like. Using the courts to attack speech he doesn't like is sometimes known as a SLAPP lawsuit.  Not based on what's right, but the big guy beating up on the little guy. Mattnad (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing that the left has to attack Michael Savage as being a defender of freedom of speech is Mr. Saveage's defending his own name. That's it. Every man has a right to defend his good name. Saying that Michael Savage demonstrates a double-standard regarding the first amendment just because he defends his own name is ludicrous and only proves again that Michael Savage is correct when he says, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.69.227 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between using the courts to defend one's reputation and to attack another person's freedom of speech. In the CAIR case, the courts found Savage on the wrong side of the First Amendment and copyright law .  But don't let the facts get in your way.Mattnad (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The facts of this case in no way contradicts the fact that every American has the right to defend one's honor and good name. This in no way equates that that person is not a defender of free speech. Winning or losing in court is irrelevant. Like I said before, to make this conclusion only proves Mr. Savage's statement that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." See, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. The Hustler parody featured a picture of Falwell, and an "interview" (that never took place) in which "Falwell" describes his first sexual experience as occurring “with Mom” in an outhouse while both were "drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time" and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards. Finally, when asked if he had tried Campari since, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don’t think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?" The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page, reading "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody." (Wikipedia, Hustler magazine, Inc. v. Falwell) In Hustler v. Falwell, the court found that Hustler Magazine was in it's right under the First Amendment to print the parody. Based on your theory Falwell would be a person that was against the Freedom of Speech because he brought a law suit against Hustler Magazine to defend his good name and lost.

Oh, and I guess Mr. Savages just beats up on the little guy like your statement says, and you give CAIR as an example of the little guy. Oh really! You are the person who shouldn't let the facts get in the way. So is this all the looney left has to attack Mr. Savage as being a defender of the Freedom of Speech that he is a staunch defender of his good name and reputation. Is that all there is?


 * Freedom of speech includes freedom to criticize. "Michael Savage Sucks.com" and "Savage Stupidity.com" has the right to exist.  If Savage wanted to defend his name, he could have used his web site and radio show to counter his critics.  He could have explained where the critics where wrong.  He could have moved from behind his microphone and offered to debate his critics on neutral ground.  Instead, he went crying to the courts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.236.113 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what to make of this, but you might as well read up WP:SOAP. This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions.Mattnad (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You stated your personal opinion that when Mr. Michael Savages sues a web site to defend his honor and good name that he is a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech. You stated your personal opinion that it is Michael Savage who is the big guy beating up on the little guy. You stated your personal opinion that CAIR was one of those little guys that Mr. Michael Savage beats up on. (CAIR the little guy? Did I miss something?) You stated your personal opinion that because Mr. Savage was not successful in defending his good name against CAIR that this meant that Mr. Savage was a hypocrite. When it came to Mr. Savage vs MS Sucks.com you gave your personal opinion what Mr. Savage should or shouldn't have done. After all your PERSONAL OPINIONS, you have the audacity to tell me, "This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions." Your statement is a prime example why this country needs a great talk show leader like Michael Savage, a person who is a staunch believer in the Freedom of Speech and person who has the courage to fight those who try to tarnish is good name. Your statement, "This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions," is living proof that Michael Savage is correct when he says that, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." Like I said before, the only thing the looney left has to attack the Great talk show host Michael Savage in regards to the First Amendment is that he is a staunch defender of his good name. And he does not pick and choose his oponents. If this was the case, he wouldn't have defended his good name against CAIR. Is that all there is? Is That all there is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one am glad you've finally signed in so we now know who has been writing these epic WP:SOAP pieces. I'm only going by what the courts said about his legal attacks on CAIR. They threw out his case. So it's hard, in light of how the legal system viewed his claims, to see him has "only defending his good name."  Instead, they rejected his case and ruled against him. And then there are other reliable sources that come out and say he's taken a contradictory, hypocritical, position on free speech. Pretty clear cut from a reliable source POV.  And by the way, Fallwell famously lost his case against Hustler.  If either of them had prevailed in court, you might have a point. Instead, you've only demonstrated that Savage and Fallwell have tried to use the courts to squelch other people's speech and lost on 1st amendment grounds.  And both Savage and Fallwell take strong positions that are to some hate speech but they also get that right under the first amendment. That's what the 1st ammendment is about.  Savage seems to only like it one way - as evidenced in the courts, and also on the NPR transcript when he shouted down a caller who's opinion he did not want heard on the airwaves.Mattnad (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Before I write my comments, I must thank you Mattnad for the following email that I received today in my mailbox:

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Michael_Savage_(commentator) for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mattnad (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fattyjoe"

You officially complained aboout me even though all you did here was to continuously impose your personal opinions regarding Michael Savage. And when I tried to address the fact that your personal opinions were wrong, you told me that, "This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions." Then after I responded to that, you had the above email sent to me. And you have the Audacity to call Michael Savage a hypocrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read all of the above and you are a reasonable and sensible person, you can come to a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Michael Savage is correct when he states, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." Mattnad has without merit attempted to silence me on this issue. Obviously Zsero, who was staunchly oposed Mr. Savage being a hypocrite, was silenced. If you look above, not long after Zsero was threatened, you no longer heard from him. Is it possible that such an outspoken person stopped posting on here. The ones calling Mr. Michael Savage a hypocrite regarding the Freedom of Speech went to lengths to silence those who oposed their opinions. Isn't it ironic. Talk about hypocrites. They critisize Michael Savage for defending HIS NAME for running to the courts, and then they run to the wiki police when you disagree with their twisted opinions. When Michael Savage went to the courts it involved his name. No matter how you twist it or bend it or turn it upside down, or do anything you want with it, the truth be said that all the court cases personally involved Mr. Michael Savage. Winning or losing in court is irrevelevant, he can do what he wants as an American when it involves his name. It becomes a personal issue. Mattnad claims this is wrong, which is his personal opinion. But then he runs to the wiki police to complain about me. Does this article personally talk about Mattnad whoever he/she is? NO! Such Irony. I'm sorry Mattnad, I'm not a shadow boxer. All I can say is that one thousand opinions from one nameless person does not equate to a single conclusion. Therefore, I rest my case and conclude my discussion on this baseless accusation that Mr. Savage is not a defender of free speech.

he "outspokenly opposes illegal immigration" ??
silly statement that betrays WP editors' typical slant, as the vast majority of Americans(70+%) oppose illegal immigration also....kind of like saying "he outspokenly opposes pedophilia"....who the hell cares and is it controversial or noteworthy? no...

184.193.126.177 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is controversial. The only thing you even did you try to prove otherwise was call WP editors slanted (towards the left, I assume) and then cite some random poll you made up. No, it is controversial, because there have been a lot of laws and debate on it, just look at Arizona.72.199.100.223 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Media matters citation to comments
I removed some material about some comments he made cited to MMfA. Maybe if this is truely noteable and well covered by MS media, it can be added to his sub article about his show, if he has one. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Accuse him of Islamophobia"?
Then why is he here attacking the Jews? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQkvaho-V0 --195.74.250.115 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism vs. Critique
The following section was removed from the article based on "criticism sections strongly discouraged". While that may be true, I have not thoroughly reviewed the content at all but it (or some of it) may actually form a valid starting point for a "critique/analysis" section which is a valid section for commentators. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms critique?
In July 2005, conservative writer Bernard Goldberg ranked Savage number 61 in his book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Goldberg wrote that "Savage's brand of over-the-top bile...puts him right in there with the angriest haters on the Left."


 * Liberal advocacy groups, media watchdogs and commentators such as GLAAD, FAIR, and Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse Savage of fascist leanings, racism, homophobia, bigotry and Islamophobia because of his controversial statements about homosexuality, Islam, feminism, sex education, and immigration. On his September 21, 1999 broadcast, Savage said that the motivation for female students who come from a Marin County private school to feed and provide services to the homeless is so they "can go in and get raped by them, because they seem to like the excitement of it..."


 * On April 17, 2006, he said of Muslims "They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die—would you rather us die than them?"  After Savage was banned from the UK, this was also reported in the UK media.


 * Psst..editors...are we still pretending this never happened and that he never said that? --71.32.220.235 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Length of sections
Most of the sections in this article read like Savages autobiography. Does it all need to be as big as it is? Can't we afford to have a little less then a short story for each section? It's very difficult to read the article Woods01 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

UK Government
It is incorrect to state that the current government is of the Conservative Party (Tories). The nation is under a coalition government between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

CAIR IRS Status?
What relevance to this article is the following statement? This doesn't seem to have any connection to Michael Savage, let alone that phrases like 'earlier this month' should not be used unless the author plans to update the date every month.

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as the offshoot CAIR Foundation, was included earlier this month on a massive list of 275,000 organizations that the IRS said were losing their tax-exempt status because they did not file required annual reports. Most of the groups on that list are presumed to be defunct, but CAIR is not—its website continues to solicit "tax-deductible" donations.[74]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.119.118 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Michael Savage. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator) → Michael Savage – Primary topic. Page views: commentator 30,259, New Zealand politician 1,536, Canada politician 297. Marcus  Qwertyus   04:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: More than an order of magnitude more hits than competitors combined = WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 07:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The most-searched for "Michael Savage" by a long shot. The Interior  (Talk) 18:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. – Lionel (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added to Lede: "Savage is also notable because": Barred from the UK.
A non-fugitive NATO citizen getting barred from setting foot in the UK is without a doubt one of Weiner's most notable accomplishments!

See Manual of Style (lead section) "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." "Provide an accessible overview" "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. "

"Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." etc...

Added to lede section:
 * "Michael Savage is also notable because since 2009 he has been barred from entering the United Kingdom —for fostering extremism and hatred.[10][11][12][13] It is also notable that this was Britain's very "first list of people barred from entering the country." Savage was barred from Britain in part for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred..." (See below.) That ban remains in effect."

See also WP:BRD. Any major problems? --68.127.84.95 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Yes. I've fixed them. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede is in good working condition now. Let's not clutter it any further. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and objectivity
He claims that he got where he is by hard work but he seems to think that isn't the case for the rest of the people in the media. He believes in groups like Bilderberg deciding who gets certain positions in public offices etc yet he doesn't seem to notice the excessive amount of Jewish radiohosts like himeself holding mainstream media positions. If you are looking for the truth Mr Savage aka Mr Weiner doesn't seem to be objective enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.29.57.215 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Source? Sourcy, sourcy, sourcy? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are arguing that he's objective, google "Michael Savage" OR "Michael Weiner" zionist OR zionism hate OR hatred                 I've never argued that Limbaugh nor ANY other Radio fear monger of any religion is a bigot. Not so here. --68.127.84.95 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * I never said he was objective, but changing the article to say that he isn't would violate NPOV policy. Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with not being objective -- it's not his job to be objective. If you don't like what he says, that's fine (I certainly don't like most of it), but Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinion. If you're going to continue taking part in talk page discussions, registering an account here would help us all out greatly. You are welcome to make all the constructive edits you feel motivated to. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You asked for a source for (in part); "If you are looking for the truth Mr Savage aka Mr Weiner doesn't seem to be objective enough." ...& it had a Jewish context. Done.


 * "registering an account here would help us all out greatly."  How so? I'm a helpful guy. --68.127.84.95 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * I did ask for a source, in a partially tongue-in-cheek fashion. Honestly, it wouldn't really matter if that sort of a statement was sourced or not, as the source would almost certainly not pass WP:RS. WP:OR and WP:POV are also relevant. The idea the he may or may not be objective is irrelevant. Commentators aren't objective -- it's their job not to be. Even if his objectivity (or lack thereof) WERE relevant to the article (which it isn't), adding it would violate neutral point-of-view policy, as I said in the last post. As to why I'd like you to register -- primarily because I'm still not sure if you're the guy who started this discussion (who was seemingly trolling talk pages asking about public figures' religious affiliation) posting under a different IP. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I?  You can talk to me... 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You want to know about me? Last time I did a Wiki search on my name, fewer than a dozen of my contributions showed up. If you see a problem there, (I don't,) I suggest talking to Wikipedia about upgrading their software. (But to Big Picture it, of the two of us, I'm not the one hiding my ID or world view.) I support Wiki's original world view & premises, and to that end I can be more helpful as a nonWikiClubber, —solving problems and abuses that you may never be exposed to while wearing your badge. --68.127.84.95 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Let's stay away from personal attacks, if we could. If you have something relevant to add to the discussion, I'm all ears. I would appreciate it if you let me know (in a yes/no format, preferably) whether or not you are the original starter of this discussion (IP 202.29.57.215). Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

LINK broken re Savage donation to Brown - IF NOT repaired, statement needs deletion
Pretty serious statement, "Savage donated $5,600 to the campaign of Democratic candidate Jerry Brown in the 2006 California Attorney General election.[51]" Link "51" points to - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/MNR.TMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.129.44 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation is to the article, not the link. URLs change, but that doesn't negate the original citation. Just in 30 seconds of googling, I found a number of contemporaneous (albeit non-RS) sources that have a similar story, so it definitely passes the smell test. Glaucus (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not political?
Key potential problem is... that article identifies Weiner as primarily a "conservative" rather than as entertainer.

Weiner is a "radio personality" and as such, a somewhat talented entertainer, much like the tummlers of earlier era. His ethic and aesthetics with regard to entertainment may have significant ties with his 1940s-50s cultural background in The Bronx.

Weiner (like many of his ilk) might be most clearly seen in history as as a comedian. He is certainly not in any sense a political figure,  nor by any standard, a legitimate intellectual commentator. Even Glen Beck, with some insight, once called himself [primarily a "clown."

--Banned contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources say. Unless the sources say he is an "entertainer" or unless he self-identifies as such, it would be original research for us to say it.--Cjv110ma (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's one reason wikipedia is so uninteresting, your reliance on secondary sources. Let's not have any serious critical thinking, just parroting of other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.76.177 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An we like wikipedia "uninteresting" if the test an absence of random opinions. There's plenty of that on the interweb elsewhere if you're so inclined. Mattnad (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rockstar Energy Drink question
So yeah. I'm going to ask a really simple question here. And it needs an answer. Does the Savage (Weiner) family still gain finanically from Rockstar Energy Drink? --71.32.220.235 (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC) And the answer is -YES. Savage with his so called degree's in health and nutrition put the startup money for his son to poison America's youth with over loaded caffeine sugar water. Either causing arrhythmia or rotting teeth. And some have claimed that Savage has embellished his education. Probably did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

CARDBOARD BOXES.
What a fanciful story. As if Mike Savage never heard of Goodwill or hand me down furniture. And what kind of college educated dope cant do better then using cardboard? Beyond belief that cardboard could even be used as furniture. If he can invent that... S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

2 Sections, 1 Name
Under Bibliography, why are there two sections named "Books as Michael Savage"?173.72.111.115 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Hans Wurst

Michael Savage's Ethnicity necessary in Bio Box?
Seems like it should be omitted, but kept in Early life? College Watch (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why no mention of controversial comments?
Why is there nothing mentioned of his controversial comments that keep getting him fired from jobs? This is a very incomplete article that appears to have been written by his mother.64.105.136.162 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What controversial statements did he make? --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Insanity run amok?
" ... while critics have characterized them as "fostering extremism or hatred." He opposes illegal immigration to the United States ..." Just who FAVORS illegal immigration? Liberals, lunatics, criminals, anarchists? And illegal immigrants, of course! 66.81.246.80 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Obama likes illegal immigration. So they gotta clarify it. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This Article is in Need of a Picture
I would like to open a discussion here about this topic: This article about Michael Savage needs a picture of him. Are there any pictures out there that are obtainable? If so, please post them in this section and we'll start discussing the picture to use. Thanks. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211084614/http://www.olsenclan.com:80/clients/savage/prs_sponsor.shtml to http://www.olsenclan.com/clients/savage/prs_sponsor.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubai
About this, as I noted in my revert, it is WP:UNDUE and not encyclopedic. User:Wikiryan27 that was your first edit here. Please do have a read of UNDUE; when I say "not encyclopedic" I mean that we generally don't have long quotes from somebody about some issue, anywhere in WP like that. We summarize. Please see WP:NOT which describes what is enyclopedic, and what is not. I look forward to hearing from you after you have read those things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.playboy.com/articles/michael-savage-playboy-interview/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Shutdown.
about this, added here, here, and here: On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease.

was added again here with yet more bad sources:

On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease.

In my view the content is not reliable for the source and is just adding conspiracy theorizing to WP. I will post the last version at RSN.

Please leave this out until the community determines if this OK. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * posted Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121163922/http://www.salon.com:80/2003/03/05/savage_11/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2003/03/05/savage_11/singleton/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209101821/http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/ to http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001000338/http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com:80/2013/09/cumulus-announces-savages-move-to-drivetime/ to http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2013/09/cumulus-announces-savages-move-to-drivetime/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025112722/http://www.wor710.com:80/pages/10608313.php to http://www.wor710.com/pages/10608313.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228021900/http://www.thomasmore.org:80/qry/page.taf?id=20&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=125&_nc=afbbd8dc99e7ea25bdf33eb0bb91a170 to http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=20&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=125&_nc=afbbd8dc99e7ea25bdf33eb0bb91a170
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017135322/http://pendleton8.com:80/index.html to http://www.pendleton8.com/index.html
 * Added tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/3/162352.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120234511/http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1107 to http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1107
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507181855/http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/hate-promoters-banned-UK-named to http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/hate-promoters-banned-UK-named
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109054238/https://www.savageonlinestore.com/index.jsp to https://www.savageonlinestore.com/index.jsp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2003/03/05/savage_11/singleton/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2013/09/cumulus-announces-savages-move-to-drivetime/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165242/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F07%2F08%2F1510241 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F07%2F08%2F1510241
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wor710.com/pages/10608313.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F10%2F15%2FMNR.TMP
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=20&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=125&_nc=afbbd8dc99e7ea25bdf33eb0bb91a170
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pendleton8.com/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=10184
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nysava0726%2C0%2C3274609.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/print/2003/mar/07/entertainment/et-tempest7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118223240/http://www.talkradionetwork.com/pg/jsp/general/host.jsp?chartID=3&position=16 to http://talkradionetwork.com/pg/jsp/general/host.jsp?chartID=3&position=16

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Bias
I removed the section of how his liberal enemies would describe him, as there is no analogous section for Jon Stewart and others, although many consider Jon Stewart very hateful in referring to Tea Partiers as "Tea Baggers" etc and swearing so much (saying "f*ck you" to Sarah Palin onstage). Jon Stewart is not described as "hateful" in his beginning intro section, or anywhere else in his article. It all contributes to the fact that wikipedia has a liberal bias. It is not a serious academic resource if it has such a liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Jon Stewart is not described as "hateful!!!???" "....Savage was barred from Britain in part for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred..."


 * But you are right. Reality has a liberal bias. Are you certain you want to compensate for that!?


 * The insane twist the facts to fit their world view. The rational change their world view to fit the facts.


 * --68.127.84.95 (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Like a good Stalinist, take the government's line and parrot it as objective truth. The term "hateful" is a subjective label meant to cast aspersions on a man in a supposedly unbiased encyclopedia.  Of course the WP cabal couldn't have that.  Thoughtcrime doubleplus ungood, right?129.237.222.1 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly. The lede says that we was banned for "allegedly 'seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred'". That's exactly what the British government alleged, but the article makes no determination as to whether or not the allegation was true or not, so I'm not sure where the bias you're referring to is. If you point it out I'll be glad to help sort this out. Also, please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm British so can shed some light on this for you. The action taken to ban him by Jacqui Smith (nickanamed Jackboot Smith by the British Press due to her appalling record on civil liberties) was understood by all sides to be a politically motivated attempt to hide the true nature of the powers being deployed to ban individuals. In short the government was embarrassed that they were banning so many Islamic preachers left right and centre so were determined to find some white men to ban too and Savage was their pick. Nobody in Britain had ever even heard of him before. Including this absurd bit of posturing by a government in the opening paragraph about Savage is basically to smear him. It would be akin to having Trump's description of some Mexican illegal immigrants as "rapists and murderers" in the opening paragraph of the wikipeida article about Mexican people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.44 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825092120/http://anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/alumni/mas1970-1979.html to http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/alumni/mas1970-1979.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107152443/http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michael-savage-offers-newt-gingrich-one-million-dollars-to-drop-out-of-race/ to http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michael-savage-offers-newt-gingrich-one-million-dollars-to-drop-out-of-race/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/story/2007/06/c-span-shares-lamb-skewers-on-air-004576?paginate=false
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103014936/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080815-1429-ca-radiohost-islam.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080815-1429-ca-radiohost-islam.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SAVAGE-TALK-A-former-herbalist-has-remade-2672863.php
 * Added tag to http://www.hawes.com/2004/2004-01-18.pdf%20The%20Enemy%20Within
 * Added tag to http://www.hawes.com/2005/2005-05-01.pdf%20Liberalism%20is%20a%20Mental%20Disorder
 * Added tag to http://www.hawes.com/2006/2006-05-14.pdf%20The%20Political%20Zoo
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104174607/http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?show=328 to http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?show=328

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725060653/http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2003/09/16/radio-talk-show-host-michael-savage/print to http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2003/09/16/radio-talk-show-host-michael-savage/print

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorporating the SPLC information
I don't want to be "that guy" but I feel compelled to do so as there are further criticisms of Weiner that are going unaddressed in the article. This potential ref: ((1), coming out of the Southern Poverty Law Center (official website) lists most of the more controversial statements, quips, and policy positions coming out of the mouth of the commentator that are already addressed on this page, but the page doesn't list the whole story. Particularly alarming are the references within the SPLC page in which Savage/Weiner is on record having expressed belief in the existence of a "white genocide", putting him ideologically in similar ground with white nationalists. This is not to say that he himself is a white nationalist, and the article certainly shouldn't allude to it if that's not what the reliable sources in question point to, but I myself don't think we can just sit there and deprive our readers of politically pertinent information about his viewpoints by excluding this important bit of verified quotes and interview records. The question I'm asking other contributors here is, how should it be incorporated into the criticism section, should there be consensus for doing so? There's nothing in the SPLC article that hasn't already been verified; including it is in no way shape or form against anything in the BLP policy. And SPLC, if that doesn't comprise a notable group with notable coverage on a notable political issue with a notable commentator (you get the idea), I don't know what does. Looking for feedback, thanks folks. NOTE: I have edited this initial post to be more clear. Look at my contrib section if you want to read the original.--- EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  20:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of paragraph deleted, perhaps by accident
Edit of 02:50, 15 October 2018 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, under old Line 123, deletes most of the last para of the section "Criticism", leaving a dangling comma + a ref. The deleted text & refs do not appear elsewhere in the new edit, though the edit reason seems to be simply "recategorize". Perhaps the edit was unfinished. The para or the deleted part should be reconstituted (I don't feel competent). Login54321 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)