Talk:Jay Severin

Italian?

Does anyone have factual information on Severin's ethnicity. If it is true that his real last name is Severino (which has been referenced briefly in a number of news sources), it seems likely (though not certain) his father was Italian. This is kind of important since he usually paints himself as an anglo-protestant on the show. Anyone?LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I listened to the show frequently and I have honestly never heard him identify himself as protestant, or as a believer in any particular religion. I believe his facebook lists him simply as "deeply spiritual". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Racism

can the article start talking about Jay's tacit racism? It is a real undercurrent of his show and no one really brings it up.

Taken care of. About time someone addressed this issue. The guy is clearly a racist, and an elitist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Liberal Bias

Why don't you trolls go keep removing the sections about controversies from the Deval Patrick article and adding more sections about controversies here? --71.174.73.50 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No Masters Degree

Can the Severin fan boys and girls please stop changing the title to Masters Degree controversy. There is nothing controversial about the statement: Jay Severin has no masters degree. He claimed he had one, and the Boston globe proved he does not have one. Then he feigned disbelief when the facts were revealed to him. This is a pattern of behavior for him. It isn't the only time he has lied on the air and been caught. Please stop trying to make it look like a controversy or misunderstanding. It is documented case of Mr. Severin lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Naughty Naughty

As a talk show host that generates controversy, it is, of course, no shock that Jay Severin will... generate controversy! And his entry in Wikipedia will relate that. I see that upon having any direct negative commentary about Mr. Severin, a friendly person with a cable modem, c-24-34-156-113.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (24.34.156.113) came along and tried the "layer edit" trick with the entry to get rid of a number of negative statements about Mr. Severin's claims. Well, it doesn't work that way, Best and Brightest. Be rest assured; I was listening to Jay the day he first joined WTKK so many years ago and I have listened to him regularly ever since. Just because I do does not mean I will shirk away from his occasional over-the-line statements, and it is quite known he has puffed up his own reputation and history past what would be considered reasonable lines. You can be a Best and Brightest and still report truthfully. --Slango 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To that level, then, do not think you're going to be able to replace a quote from the Boston Globe about his errored statements with "a lot of retractions have been printed about him in the Globe" and think it'll be a clean getaway. No, no. Please cite where these retractions are, and then we can work from there. The Boston Globe did quite a bit of research about his "Pulitzer Prize" and you can't just say "no, complete fabrication"... unless of course, you mean the prize. --Slango 13:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Support for Secession

SOmeone deleted my post about Jay's support for secession movements (he had two secessionist organizers on his program recently and expressed his full support for his cause. This was not taken out of context, and there is no other way to frame his position except as highly unpatriotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I was not the person who first removed this section, I was the second. Please know that [Wikipedia is not a soapbox] and that "Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."

What this means is that you cannot post everything you find offensive about what someone says. However, you can add sections that are reported by the media that the media has reported as controversial. Wikipedia is not a place of opinions - it is a relay for and aggregation of general information about every subject with a NPOV. The sections on his suspension, on his view of Muslims and others are good examples of actual controversies with actual significant media attention. If you would like to post your thoughts on what you think are controversial, Wikipedia recommends starting a blog. Nakomaru (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Supporting secession is controversial. There is no way around that. He said it, you can request a transcript of that day's broadcast if you wish. What I posted was fact. There is no way around that. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What you posted may be factual and controversial, and I can confirm he stated such a viewpoint on the day you mentioned (and frequently does). The problem is that no media has reported this as a controversy, so what you are doing is using Wikipedia to scandal monger. Nakomaru (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please cease adding your edit to the page until the issue is resolved in discussion to avoid edit warring. After the issue is resolved, you can edit the page to reflect the results of the discussion. Nakomaru (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it should be mentioned somewhere. Maybe it fails to be included in the Controversies section. But I fail to see how it isn't an important aspect of his personal philosophy. Please consider including it elsewhere in the article. It is important.

By the way, I am not trying to create scandal. I just think this deserves serious mention. It is an astounding viewpoint for a public personality to hold. Secession is a very radical position.

Now I see what you are getting at. I think you hit the nail on the head with that it is part of his personal philosophy. I'm not versed in how a quality political bio should be written in Wikipedia, but perhaps there is a template for personal philosophy sections.

If someone who is more familiar with Wiki-biography standards would like to chime in, please do so. I am sure it will need to include much more information than a line about his support for the Texas Secession Movement.

On a related note, if we consider difficult to find transcripts to be verifiable, it would seem biased to omit Severin refutes Pulitzer Prize accusation from its section. Currently, it is written as if the Boston Globe's article is undisputed and that is misrepresenting a major opinion. Nakomaru (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I started a point of view section. It is thin, and needs a lot more information (maybe some others can help). I think Mr. Severin is a little hard to pin down. But I tried my best to capture the range of his viewpoint. I did also add his expressed support for secessionists. Please don't take this as an attack on Severin. I do listen to the show, and find him an entertaining host. But I do think support for secession is radical and deserves mention. On the subject of references, I found it hard to find anything on the net or elsewhere. What transcripts exist are very limited. I think this is partly because the medium of radio. Do we need to find actual transcripts of positions he has taken, when anyone who listens to his program regularly could verify them (everything I put in the Point of View section I have heard him mention a number of times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this section. It has no sources and appears to be entirely original work. Find something to reference. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete. Anyone who listens to the show can support the claims of that section. Plus it is something the article is missing. All the article contains is controversies, without giving an overview of the man's positions on the issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it back in. There is nothing in there that he hasn't said dozens of times on the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."[1]

Find a reliable source to reference. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Then listen to show. That will verify everything in there. The problem is the medium of radio. People say things, but there is no record of it after the fact. However, those are the man's positions on the issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Severin Fanboys and Fangirls

Wikipedia has a few ground rules regarding how entries go in. Specifically, just dropping facts without citation means those "facts" aren't likely to stick around. Here's some statements about Severin that people who can't be bothered to create user accounts have been dropping into this entry, and which will be removed unless people cite sources:

• Severin's comments that are some variant of "Let's kill all Muslims". Without a doubt, Severino's "trash-talk" approach has caused him to make statements that can be wildly interpreted later. Severin himself has indicated that he considers each new show a new day, or at least somewhat of a blank slate, and that the point is to generate conversation. How this ultimately gets logged into the entry is up for grabs, but just blocking stuff out you don't like doesn't work.

• Modifications that are obviously just flamebaiting. Calling the Boston Globe the Boston "Retractor" when you can't even cite when the Boston Globe retracted something... nope, sorry. This means you, 68.160.5.17 . Go find some other electric fence to whiz on.

Keep it coming, of course... but please, take the time to register. It's quick, easy, and it's more sexy than an IP address. --Slango 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• My little friend 68.160.5.17 decided to add a criticism about the Severin Pulitzer controversy directly into the page instead of in this discusison page. I reprint it here for posterity: "The obvious antagonism between the Boston Globe (Retractor) and Jay Severin is manefest in this page. Can you detect where the Boston Globe -o- philes represent him by thinly veiled derogatory references. In particular, examine the controversy surrounding his academic credentials. Jay has a published biography yet, his antagonists wish to diminish what is a published and are attainable facts in the following text. It is important to see it, and read it because it makes the point that the authors wish to distort Jay's image."

THe avove link know longer works, can it be deleted? --Scranton 12 December 2005

This is fine concern, although your classification of me as a "Boston Globe -o- Phile" is a little off; I read the Herald, Globe, Phoenix, Weekly Dig and a lot of other little local rags. I also listen (listened?) to Jay quite a bit over the last 6 years, having heard his first show on WTKK and hearing his last. I also heard the Pulitzer comment, plain as day, with my own ears, so attacking that fact without references to show it and name-calling is not going to solve much of anything. I am here to stay. --Slango 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Useless photo

File:Jayandjay.jpg

Someone keeps adding Image:Jayandjay.jpg to the article. It's clearly a photo of Severin with a woman, but some guy's head is photoshopped onto the woman's body. Please stop adding it to the article. This is pretty much vandalism. Rhobite 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, the user is Ktmc, done it three times so far. Stupid.

Forgot to mention, the image is up for deletion here. Rhobite 20:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

One more important quote

How can this be left out: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but so far, all the terrorists have been Muslim".

Wife and child(ren)

Is this verifiable? The only thing I've ever seen about this is mention on a crank's website. I've never seen anything in a published source and he's denied it on his show, saying his only "children" are his dogs. His residence in Sag Harbor is verifiable. He's never hid this on his show, though he has said that he made occasional trips to the Boston area to broadcast at WTKK. --malber 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How about Sunday, July 17, 2005 "Page Six", NY POst, with no online link.

Also from the Boston Globe "SEVERIN: `LIVE, LOCAL,' NEW YORKER" June 5, 2001 by ALEX BEAM, available from online archives

I just added some links to sagharboronline, some article Jay Severin wrote back in 97-98 where he referes to his wife Rennee and his DOG Stanley... Also I added his Marriage Newspaper Headline from when he was wed back in 97' Can someone please add a quick write up, im sleepy... -peterp

• Jay Severin talks politics in upcoming lecture
• Our Town: Clash of Cultures by Jay Severin
• Our Town: Sag Harbor Memorial by Jay Severin
• Renee Klock marries James Severin the 3rd

Am I getting 2 personal, I am a big fan of jays, but feel guilty for finding how much his house is assessed for ;p -peterp

Just for the record, Stanley is one of his dogs. I've seen no evidence that he has children. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fired from 'The Situation'?

Shouldn't we mention there is some speculation as to the reasons for his disappearance on 'the situation w/ tucker carlson'? I'm fairly certain he was fired. Linky.

I just added a sentence regarding this. All media personalities, at all times and in all places, will do anything for a regular spot on TV. The given rationale of a "long commute" seems far-fetched, and its implausibility gives weight to an alternative explanation. ---Xerxesnine

Hmmm, is tvnewser.com an appropriate citation? On second look, it appears more like a blog. This raises an interesting dilemma. What if the New York Post quotes a source stating that Jay Severin made love to a 400-pound snowman with freckles, while tvnewser.com quotes a source which says he just tripped and fell into a snowbank? Do we only mention the New York Post story and refuse to cite tvnewser.com's alternate explanation? Xerxesnine 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. that's better. Swatoa 03:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Severin refutes the Pulitzer Prize accusation by Boston Globe

(Transcript from Jay Severin has issues on January 17, 2006.)

Listener: (In response to Severin calling Hillary Clinton a fat lying bitch) You are a hypocrite.

Severin: How so? That’s one thing I’m not, and I am about to strip you naked on that charge. I offer you the opportunity to present a shred of the evidence that I am guilty of hypocrisy. I have been on the radio for six years, if you are able to present a shred of the evidence that I am guilty of hypocrisy, Congratulations, because you would be the first. Matt, the floor is all yours.

Listener: What about the time when you said you won the Pulitzer Prize?

Severin: I never said that I won the Pulitzer Prize. You got anything else?

Listner: You did say that.

Severin. I’ve never said it. I will SUE you. Why don’t you put that in writing, so that I can sue your ass and take your house and your car and everything you have in your pocket. I never said it….By the way, what Matt makes a reference to is the false charge by the Boston Globe that I made a claim that I won the Pulitzer Prize. I never said that ever in my life. The price I won was for the column on MSNBC. By the way, the award that Boston Glove says doesn’t exist…..If I was in a business of suing people, and if I had a time and money to sue the Boston Globe in particular, I will be a very rich man.

(* note: I am a long time listener, and as far as I know, he never said that "I won the Pulitzer Prize." But he did say, on many occasions, "I won the online equivalent of the Pulitzer prize for my column". )

You're saying Scot Lehigh of the Boston Globe got the quote wrong? Seems very unlikely. Audio of the September 9 2005 and January 17 2006 shows would go a long way to clearing this up. Rhobite 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The below is from Boston Globe September 16, 2005. Whether this quote is correct is open to discussion. Accroding to Severin, they misquoated him.

But last Friday, the talkmaster positively outdid himself in setting new laurels upon his brow: He awarded himself a Pulitzer Prize. That came as part of a conversation with a caller about the declining standards he sees in journalism. Here's what Jay said: "But since journalism began, and up until the time at least that I took my master's degree at Boston University and may I add without being obnoxious, up till and including the time that I received a Pulitzer Prize for my columns for excellence in online journalism from the Columbia School of Journalism, the highest possible award for writing on the Web right up to and including that in 1998, you still had to practice journalism to be a journalist."

[Here is another transcript] where Jay refutes the Boston Globe claims (although, the commentator on the same page somehow misunderstands what he is saying). Are these transcripts considered enough source to write down the other side of this story? I will attempt to rewrite this particular controversy to note that it is disputed, unless the the source is proven to be unacceptable. Nakomaru (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that link refutes the story. Also, I don't think it really counts as a reliable source. In any case, he didn't even win any kind of award. It was awarded to the site, not to him.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, granted, he says it much more directly in the above transcript than in the one I linked so even if transcripts are acceptable sources we couldn't use this one for WP. His last sentence "So why should I give columnists who are pant-load, pizza-eating slobs more attention -- by denying false things they say -- than talking about things that we think are fun?" is a subtle denial by the way.

The fact remains that the WP entry is currently written from the singular source of the Boston Globe as if it is uncontested. This is overselling one side of the story. Nakomaru (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as we have no good source we should not yet include it in the article. I'm just saying it is something that would improve the article if more sources could be found. Nakomaru (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Illegal immigrant issue

This appears to be developing to be an edit war, so I think it appropriate that we discuss this here. Jay's rationale on this issue is the following:

• Illegal immigrants are such because they have entered the country contrary to US immigration law.
• Constitutional rights are reserved for US Citizens.
• Since illegal immigrants are not US Citizens, they cannot claim rights under the US Consititution. Indeed, illegal immigrants may be deported without due process.

Jay has stated on numerous occasions that legal US immigrants who have become US citizens do have US Constitutional protection. The version "He correctly asserts that illegal immigrants have no US constitutional rights" was correct according to Severin's stated views. The only possible problem with it is the word "correctly" which might be viewed as POV. However, the argument is logically correct. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think that edit belonged to me. I don't listen to Severin on a regular basis (except in passing), so I assumed that the addition of "correctly" was a POV edit on behalf of the previous user (the fact that it was done anonymously was another giveaway). I think that the version that is up now is a much better way of wording it, anyways. --Toddbloom7 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Understood. I revised the text after posting to talk. I was missing the point that he also applies this legal interpretation to foreign nationals who have entered the US legally, which is true as they may also be detained and deported without due process. I do agree that "correctly," while probably the right term as the legal interpretation is logically sound, is a red-flag word for possible POV and should be omitted. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional rights apply to everyone, not just citizens. Just because Jay asserts otherwise very loudly, that doesn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. People in the country without authorization are not allowed to possess a gun, for instance. Legal residents (Permanent resident aliens) can own a gun if they would otherwise not be barred from gun ownership. See: United States v. Guerrero-Leco, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103448 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2008)69.37.85.3 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mechanism

For the life of me, I've never been able to figure out just why Jay Severin pronounces 'mechanism' as 'me-cog-nism'. He also routinely mispronounces the names of several celebrities, such as Susan Sarandon whose last name gets emphasis on the first syllable rather than the second, and Osama bin Ladin whose last name is pronounced 'laid-in'. Given his Osama Never Been Laiden 'joke' and lack of regard for Miss Sarandon, I can understand the mispronunciation as perhaps being some sort of insult. I don't get 'mechagnism' though. It's not that I've not done any research on it, either! Neither M-W nor Dictionary.com offer a hit for 'mechagnism', nor offer anything close other than 'mechanism'. Google returns 183 hits for it and in every case I followed up on, it appears to merely be a misspelling of 'mechanism'. Is this a regional thing, like 'wicked smart' or what? Can anyone shed light? 204.69.40.7 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be a Lawnguylandism. However the other mispronunciations are a deliberate attempt to traduce the subject. --Malber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He also pronounces "SUV" as "esh-you-vee". Anything else with S's he pronounces normally, i.e. he doesn't say "USA" as "you esh aye" Swatoa 05:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it's just merely a strange way of pronouncing something that he does simply to be unique. Egan and Braudy have lately begun to make fun of his "Ninety-Six Nine" pronounciation, where he places added emphasis on the "Ninety" in 96. Typically he does this to emphasize certain parts of words to portray somebody in a particular light, for instance, his emphasis of crat in the word "Democrat," when referring to the American political party, is done so to highlite what he believes is that party's over-emphasis on big government (-crat coming from the Greek Kratos, meaning 'power' or 'force'). Similarly, Jim Braudy has jokingly referred to Republicans as "Republicrats" while on with Jay, although I don't think that is anything that Jay would object to. He pronounces a whole slew of words funny though, eponymous being another (the eponymous website is .. perfectsmiles...). Mike Murray 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is talk about the article, not the subject of the article.69.37.85.3 (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable on air stories

My gut feeling is that the "Notable on air stories" section of the article should be deleted in whole. It is convoluted and hard to slog through. But I don't know enough about Mr. Severin or his show and don't know if I should mess with it. Any thoughts? MPWard 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be there. I was very surprised when I learned this, because Severin reported this specific incident as if he got an exclusive inside scoop and I believed him until I saw this article at wikipedia. (Severin routinely boasts that no one ever proved he said untrue story on his program.) Boston1234 March 2006 --Boston1234 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Beliefs Moved Over to Quoted? Political Distinction, et al

I suggest that maybe some of his political beliefs would be more suitable in the "quotes" section, because as anybody who listens to his show knows, most of the comments that he makes are very tongue-in-cheek, and he makes them to garner a reaction. No Libertarian supports holding Bombers over foreign countries threatening to drop bombs on them in case of a terrorist attack, it is an absurd, near-sarcastic "solution" to the problem of Middle Eastern countries not willing to commit to preventing Islamic terrorist organizations. If you were to ask him, "Is that your belief," he would respond that it is, but it would be a sarcastic response, more or less making fun of one's idiocy for even being compelled to ask the question.

It might also be more accurate to describe him as a 'Republitarian' or Interventionist Libertarian because it would seem as if he is in favor of many Republican interventionist policies--not the sort of strict isolationist mentality that marked Post-war(s) America.

Finally, do you think that it would be useful to paint him in contrast to other radio talk show hosts of the same political persuasion? For instance, he doesn't like to be associated with Sean Hannity, nor does he really take to being called a "great American" like Sean Hannity and his minions do. I'm not sure if that's Encyclopedia-worthy information, but like mentioning his pendantic diatribe, it is something worth noting. Mike Murray 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is an unsourced laundry list. It's not appropriate for a biography article per WP:BLP. It also violates WP:NOT. I'm considering removing it unless there are any other objections or if someone can find a way to clean it up. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Married or not

I was going to post [2] this reference that suggested that he was divorced but 24.91.58.11's reference to [3] shed some new light on it. I looked up the purchase of his home in northeastern MA in Oct 2006 and found his wife's name of some of the property. I guess that ends the mystery. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He makes a point to never mention his personal life other than alluding to some wild sex-life that he has, but I think that this is largely for his on-air-persona, as there is some evidence that he was married in 1997, but again, he choses to make this completely unknown. Mike Murray 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Myspace page?

Is this a joke? It seems like some guy impersonating him for kicks. --Xerxesnine

Timeline

I began to write up the following, but I haven't decided how/if to fit it in:

Severin was with WTKK from late 2000 until 16 September 2005, when Infinity Broadcasting (now CBS Radio) announced that Severin had signed a deal to host a new syndicated radio program beginning January 2006, after which WTKK immediately pulled Severin off the air. On 26 September 2006 it was announced that Severin would be leaving his syndication deal with CBS Radio and returning to WTKK. --xerxesnine

Severin's Age

Does anyone have an idea of Severin's age?

Too Much?

Jay Severin is undoubtedly a controversial figure. But then again, so is Hillary Clinton, yet on her page we find absolutely nothing regarding controversies. This article is dominated from top to bottom on catching him in "lies" and makes extensive use of speculation in its topics.

Please spare me the insult of "fanboy". This isn't the place for political commentary or personal views, from my understanding. This page seems to lean heavily toward biasing readers against his show and political/social views. Is it too much?

By the way, I just signed up. The edits to "marriage" and the "Page Six" source and comments are mine. I have read that someone considers the quoted reason for his leaving to be dubious, but it is specualtion based on a blog based on a missing article in a gossip column. I can write up in my blog that Severin is really an illegal immigrant and quote and use it as a source. That's why I think that source is barely reputable. Blogs must be considered (for the most part) opinion pieces and have little place here. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick or Harry can quote and unnamed source on their blog and add it in.

The "you would think by the way he acts that he is single" line is just simply too ridiculous to even argue over. How does a married person act? I will edit that out every hour if I have to.

Peace! and thanks for the warm welcome. ;)

P.S. Source 7 also leads to nowhere. Can someone prove this is a legitimate source? zShould it be noted he was accepted and did attend classes there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafitza (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to add as much positive points about Jay Severin as you like. The reason for the perceived negative slant is not bias or conspiracy, it's simply that there haven't been many contributions to the article. Again, you are welcome to take up the mantle.

Insults are a direct sign of non-rational discussion and hence outside the purpose of Wikipedia. You have various tools at your disposal if someone insults you. Until that happens, I wouldn't worry about making a pre-emptive response.

I take your point that Severin does not technically "act" like a bachelor. A better term would be "swinger" or "open marriage" type. For example he discussed on-air about his routine that when he checks into a motel, the first thing he does is open the phone book and call an escort service. It wasn't subtle or implicit; he said he has sex with the person they send over. On two other separate occasions, he confidently discussed how he makes frequent use of prostitutes. He told a story about how he was anticipating hooking up with one or more of the three airline stewardesses who rescued his dog. Practically every day he makes these kinds of statements. You are right that that is not exclusively bachelor behavior per se, however it is surprising and significant that he is married.

I was the one who suggested tvnewser.com may be too sensational. However I found no reference to a "gossip" section, nor was the article missing. The author of tvnewser.com was recently hired by the New York Times, so the blog has some merit. The writer is a professional, in which case a blog may qualify as an acceptable source (see [4]). I do remember another newspaper article which mentioned similar things about his unusual departure from MSNBC, however I don't have a cite for it. In any case, I won't argue the point.

What did you mean by "source 7 leads to nowhere"? It's his personal bio on the radio program's website ([5]). Are you suggesting Westwood One does not own westwoodone.com? Xerxesnine 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard of the "on Air Persona" This like many other entertainers is an act. All be it a very good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.245.120 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The blogger could have been hired by Obama and commended by the pope. What does it matter? It is still a blog and has no business being used as a citation:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

65.96.186.210 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear....

ARTICLE During the 22 April 2004 broadcast of Extreme Games, as part of his response to a caller suggesting the United States should befriend its Muslim residents, Severin said, "I believe that Muslims in this country are a fifth column.... The vast majority of Muslims in this country are very obviously loyal, not to the United States, but to their religion. And I'm worried that when the time comes for them to stand up and be counted, the reason they are here is to take over our culture and eventually take over our country." Later during the same conversation, Severin asked the caller, "Do you think we should befriend them?" When the caller said yes, Severin responded in part, "I have an alternative viewpoint. It's slightly different than yours. You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them."[9]

Seems purposefully misleading. They edit the part out mostly where he clarifies his position to most muslims, rather conveniently. The source (9) for the quote clearly states Severin speaking about the "vast majority of muslims" that he believes "regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all". He then asks, "Should we befriend them?" Which is an obvious distinction between all and most.

Perhaps the entire portion of the segment should be quoted instead, instead of the clever source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafitza (talk • contribs)

The middle part from the source article, which was clipped from the Wikipedia article, is

"My suspicion is that the majority of Muslims in the United States, who regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all, see an American map one day where this is the United States of Islam, not the United States of America. I think it pays to harbor those suspicions."

Does that passage somehow exonerate Severin? Where did he say "most"? His words are "majority" and "vast majority". Are you quibbling about the "vast" which appears in the previous quote but not in the above one? The phrase "at all" means "in any way or respect" --- it is different than the "all" in "all the king's men". I can't follow your argument here. Xerxesnine 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

removed absurd bit of special pleading

I'm sure a Severin partisan will just put it back in so I'm spitting in the wind, probably -- but if you can't contain yourself, please at least have someone fix the grammar for you. The line about how it would supposedly be clear that he was only talking about illegals was obviously non-neutral, speculative and irrelevent, apart from being unsupported and illogical (so, it's only "illegal" Mexican women with moustaches? The VD crack etc was a characterization of the un-documented only?) 72.229.59.24 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My edits to the article

I think we all need to take a step back here, and realize that the boston globe is not really the best source for Jay. They have a history (as evidenced by the Incident with the Boston Glove section) of 'misquoting' and outright attacking him. I can't find a reliable source that has his full quote, but both sources indicate he was talking about 'criminaliens', which is his term for illegal mexican immigrants. I have therefore corrected the statement to be more specific as to what he was refering, and to hopefully encourage others to understand the enormous slanting in this article. I hope to improve it in the future, as time permits Dougofborg^(talk) 01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments are clearly about both Mexicans in general as well as immigrants. There was nothing to indicate that he was singling out illegal immigrants as carriers of VD, women with mustaches, or primitives ("lowest" or otherwise). There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the Globe article. I haven't seen any sources claiming that the quotes are not accurate. If you have some, please provide them. If the quotes were inaccurate, surely the station or Severin and his lawyer would have released them and ended the matter. The thing speaks for itself. There's no need to whitewash it. In any case, let's leave sourced material in there.Notmyrealname (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, as both the sources say that his comments were about 'criminaliens'. I didn't hear his statement myself, I am only going by the sources provided. If he was talking about criminaliens as the globe says, then he was refering to illegal immigrants. I am sorry, but I don't see how the comments are clearly about Mexicans in general. I don't want to get into an edit war here, and if you feel the need to reverse my edit, than feel free. I just hope that you take an objective look first. Dougofborg^(talk) 11:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This from Salon -- "

Now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico -- women with mustaches and VD -- now we have swine flu... When we are the magnet for primitives around the world -- and it's not the primitives' fault, by the way, I'm not blaming them for being primitives, I'm merely observing they are primitives -- and when you scoop up some of the world's lowest of primitives in poor Mexico and drop it down in the middle of the United States -- poor, without skills, without language, not share our culture, not share our hygiene, haven't been vaccinated... Millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you...

Now, at this particular moment in history, they are exporting to us a rather more active form of disease, which is the swine flu."

Now certainly his comments about the hospitals and schools were specifically about illegal immigrants. However, the parts about "primitives" "women with mustaches and VD" "swine flu" is that these were general comments about Mexico and all Mexicans. They have been interpreted as such in the media (where we get our sources), and there have been no official denials about this except by his anonymous supporters on message boards (not a reliable source). As you note, Severin and his lawyers were not shy about disputing what they felt to be mischarectorizations of his comments in the 2004 controversy, so there is no need for us to put a spin on his words that Severin himself has not. If he does, or another reliable source does, by all means we should include it here.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't want to start a war here. I did what I thought was right and you obviously disagree. Although I am personally unconvinced, for the sake of Wikipedia (and trying to stay nice) I will consede the point, and just ask that somebody keep an eye open for if/when the station is more specific as to which comments he was suspended over Dougofborg^(talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Section on Geogrpahical Undesireables

This is completely out of context and meaningless. Do we even know if this is the same guy? According to the opening paragraph of this wikipedia article, he went by "James Severino" then "Jay Severin," never James Severin. This entire section is just cut and pasted from the source with no mention of its importance or relation to anything.

Jay's name

Right now the first sentence reads, "Jay Severin (born James Thompson Severino[1][2][3] on January 8, 1951)..." Was he born "James Thompson Severino III"? I seem to recall him saying on air something similar to, "I am a Third, my father is also named 'Jay Severin.'" I'm not sure Jay himself is a reliable source because he has an on-air persona to maintain, which is demonstrated by some of his controversies. Also, I have never once heard him utter the name "Severino" on air.

Was he born 'James Thompson Severino III?" I see that one of the cited sources says his legal name was "James Thompson Severin 3d" in 1997 when he married his current wife, but none of the cited sources actually provide reliable information about what his actual birth name was. The marriage article says "The bridegroom, who dropped the last letter of his surname..." which indirectly implies that he was born "James Thompson Severino III" but is rather ambiguous about it. Midtempo-abg (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is ambiguous about it? Xerxesnine (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited article says he dropped the "o" in his last name before he married, but doesn't say anything about the "Third" part. I am suggesting that the lead-in sentence be changed to, "Jay Severin (born James Thompson Severino III)" rather than what it currently reads: "Jay Severin (born James Thompson Severino)," if it is indeed true and can be proven by a reliable cited source. The problem is that the sources we have now aren't reliable enough to prove the "Third" assertion, or are they? Midtempo-abg (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on controversies

I'm no fan of Jay Severin, but I get the feeling that this article puts too much of a point on his controversies. Surely, you would think that his notability extends past these controversies and more toward his overall radio work. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought is= Rename Controversies into Career. Then, organize the material based on time (early stuff to now). Then, remove text that is minor and non-notable. Then, add new material about his exploits. The Squicks (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think we should split all but the first sentence of the lead into a new section called "Career" and keep "Controversies" as it is, until that matter is resolved? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a systematic problem with professions like this. They spend thousands of hours a year talking on the radio and then everytime they say something that some group takes issue with you get 3 paragraphs into his article. But if no one is mad at them, then no one (media and editors) writes about what they're doing.---Cube lurker (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of "Career" + "Controversies". The controversies are what makes him notable to those who don't listen to him (especially the ones that have caused him to be suspended).Notmyrealname (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, he's not really a notable person except for the controversies he creates. The only notable news he generates is in response to the next shocking thing said on his radio program. A few minutes of googling will confirm this.

In fact Severin has designed this state of affairs. His show is based on a semi-fictional persona which he actively maintains. He does not disclose or discuss his personal life; he does not even publicly admit he is married.

You have claimed, "Surely, you would think that his notability extends past these controversies..." The evidence suggests this is not true. Therefore the onus is on you to justify this claim. Until you do, I move that the undue-weight tag be retracted.

Xerxesnine (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Since no response has been forthcoming in three weeks, either here or to the message left on your talk page, I am going ahead with the removal for the reasons mentioned above. Xerxesnine (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with any radio host who is not as notable as Limbaugh or Howard Stern is that if he does his job then nothing gets written about him. When he does something controversial or offensive, that's the only time he gets written about. So the only sources which can be cited are the ones relating to controversy. In order to cite what kind of a program he runs outside the controversies, or other things he does, someone would need to write online or publish something mentioning usual day-to-day things that are done on his talk show. And no one bothers with that. And Jay Severin himself does not relate his personal life on-air unless he's bragging about something. To avoid any appearance of vulnerability, the only thing personal that he really shares is the on-air persona that he has carefully constructed for himself. Midtempo-abg (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a question from my wife who listens to you every afternoon on her way home from work--- I understand you are married and lately you have mentioned several time of being a Father! Is this true???? 216.195.198.154 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Michael P

Random

A person 63.161.128.157 removed the WHOLE section I made completely without any explanation. I strongly disagree with this type of action. Severin is a controversial talk radio host. I believe it is imformative to list his remarks whether or not you agree. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and the style shoud be flexible. I would appreciate if you offer any discussion about this. -Ca5120 July 10th

After reading through the Wikipedia article, I cannot help but notice a very high level of bias. Majority of the quoted pieces come from the 'Boston Globe'; therefore, they are based upon 'opinion' (personal bias) towards or against Jay Severin. Unless people have more substantial evidence to prove that the 'opinion columnist' is correct, I suggest you start deleting all those elements at the earliest date possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.20.5 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Facts are facts. I checked the paragraph you deleted and didn't find any opinions expressed therein. Restored. This was vandalism. Xerxesnine (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How is using the paper of record from Boston evidence of Bias? Severin may have personal gripes with the Globe, as many conservatives in mass do, but it is the paper of record there. By your logic, we can't use the Herald either, because they are favorable to Severin and have ties to 9.69 (the satation severin is on). What paper does that leave us? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede, format, and bias

A quick read of this article reveals a number of important shortcomings that I will attempt to address through editing. First of all, the lede (I dislike that spelling, but it's common) contains informtion that is not in the body of the article - namely his political consultancy and his work with MSNBC. In point of fact, the lede reads like an article and the rest of the article reads like an itemized criticism of the man - strictly a no-no from a BLP perspective. I will attempt to use the standard Biography template and fill in the data as possible (including the controversies, but with more information pertaining to Mister Severin's responses in each instance). I believe that I looked at Severin in the past from this perspective and found information regarding his early life hard to come by. If anybody is aware of good reputable sources on his education, birthplace, and activities I'd love to hear from you on my discussion page or in this space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreacherousWays (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

I rewrote the article using the standard biography format, drawing heavily from the original article but adding new material, making factual corrections, avoiding bias, and adding as many references as I could find. Because Severin is a private person when not on-air, I was reduced to using some less-than-perfect sources to cover parts of his history; in particular I had to rely on his westwood one autobiography for much of his childhood. Nonetheless, I think that the result is an improvement. If anybody has additional sources, I'd appreciate hearing from you. I am especially interested in information regarding his tenure with Severin-Aviles. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of information, including the important controversies, and you added a weasely misleading "pursued a masters degree" at the top. This change is just too deleterious and too biased. Xerxesnine (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are also many grammar mistakes in the new version. It is unclear why the whole article should be copyedited again when you could have accomplished the same thing by rearranging the existing text with minor changes. Xerxesnine (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Xerxesnine. The original article was poorly sourced, lacked balance, and was out of compliance with the WP:BLP guidelines concerning controversial information. Additionally (and as noted above) the lede had grown unwieldy and contained information not in the body of the article. The references and external links provide further information on how Mr. Severin is viewed in the various media without giving the controversies undue weight. Specifically, " ... events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic ... " This article is about Jay Severin, not Jay Severin Controversies or even Jay Severin Radio Career. The controversies identified resulted in either legal action against Mr. Severin or suspension. Thus although your reference to the Master's degree controversy is on-point, and an argument could be made for inclusion, the controversy is minor in comparison to the ones noted. There is nothing "weasel-y" in stating that he pursued and did not receive a Master's degree; it is verifiable, neutral, and factual. No effort has been made to beatify Mr. Severin; *all* the scandals can be found on the Media Matters website under External Links. But an exhaustive listing of his faults and failings would call for a similarly exhaustive listing of his charity work and positive endorsements. The article on Al Franken serves as a reasonable example of a balanced biography of a living person. I happily admit that there is still a lot of information to be gathered, particularly regarding his time as a political advisor and what appears to me to (possibly) be a first marriage to Kathleen Cooney (Kathleen Cooney-Severin at Severin-Aviles). Some references on his early life (like his hometown or his association with the Yippie movement) would also be wonderful. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For instance, I don't recall finding any references regarding a lawsuit brought by CAIR TreacherousWays (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The previous version, before your changes, was certainly not poorly referenced. There was a ref after almost every sentence. It had more references than the current version has. You haven't explained why the whole article had to be scrapped, and why a poorly copyedited replacement should stand in its place. Why couldn't you shorten, lengthen, and move existing sections around? I'm all for the removal of the "G.U." section for example--why not just remove it? You could have just removed the extraneous headers in the controversies section to achieve the same result you have now, for example.

(fixed indents) The article as previously written was improperly formatted, contained factual errors, and was unbalanced in that it focused too heavily on the controversies surrounding Mr. Severin's tenure at WTKK in Boston (the references were mosty correct, but focused too heavily on one aspect of the subject's life). You specifically mention the removal of the "geographic undesirables" comment Mr. Severin made, and that's an excellent example. The comment was made by him in 1984 and he was quoted in the New York Times - but why is a 33-year-old being quoted in the Times? The quote would only be significant within that context (unless you would like to incorporate it into the Political Views section as an indication that of an elitist viewpoint).

The article wasn't "scrapped" - I copied it in toto to my sandbox and used it as the basis for the curent re-write using the wikipedia template for biographies. The original article did not cover any of the basic topics in a biography such as birthplace and parents or education so I incorporated that information when I could. I drew from his Westwood One bio for some of that information. I would rather not have done so, but reliable third-party sources were difficult to identify; the guidelines for using first-person sources, found here permit their use under specific circumstances such as this. As I stated, I would be very happy to see a reliable source used instead, and if you find one so much the better. The article would benefit a great deal from additional information and reliable sources on his childhood, his association with the Yippie movement, his work at Severin-Aviles, and his tenure at WOR.

My link to the Al Franken article above wasn't casual. Perhaps you could consider what I'm saying within the context of Biographies of Living Persons, especially the section on attack pages. If you feel very strongly about some of the issues in Mr. Severin's past, I'm sure we can reach consensus. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pursued a master's degree" is exactly the weasel phrase that appeared on his Westwood One bio, which increases my suspicion even more. The sole intent of that phrase is to mislead the reader into believing that he obtained a master's degree, even though the words are technically true. That kind of spin has no place in encyclopedic writing. Xerxesnine (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pursued a Master's degree" is not a weasel phrase (defined here). It's a factual and neutral description of what Severin did, and the phrase "but did not receive" is incorporated into the main article text. He claimed to have earned the degree and that turned out to be not the case, and that is controversial. However, he also claimed to have been unaware that he wasn't awarded the degree. To say he lied about that would be slander unless you could provide a reliable source that showed what he knew and when. Either way, it's relatively minor when compared to Severin's comments about Mexicans and Muslims, and it *is* incorporated into the reference and the link on additional reading. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

TreacherousWays, don't rearrange other people's text on talk pages. You've broken apart my comment, reindented it, and interleaved it with yours. The result is downright confusing, especially since the signature is missing. It's also impolite.

Your original complaint was that the article was poorly sourced. It obviously wasn't, as I said in last comment, and you haven't rebutted that in your last comment.

Now you've added a new claim -- that the original article contained factual errors. I was not aware of any. Why don't you tell us what those were? Are you going to keep adding unsupportable claims after your previous unsupported claims are challenged?

You respond as if I did not say that controversies section could be shortened with the subheaders removed. You respond as if I wanted to keep the controversies section in full. I said that I was all for removing the G.U. section, but you respond with an argument to remove it, as if I was advocating keeping the G.U. section.

I am obviously not contending that "original article did not cover any of the basic topics in a biography such as birthplace and parents or education". That is not the issue. The point is that adding such information does not require a compete, total rewrite. You still haven't shown why adding some information implies a rewrite a needed.

You suggest that I may "feel very strongly about some of the issues in Mr. Severin's past". No, I am simply questioning the prudence of a rewrite. I am questioning the scrapping of a well-sourced article to which many have contributed.

You have construed my term "weasel phrase" as something very specific with regard to Wikipedia policy, which defines "weasel word", not "weasel phrase". I was not referring to Wikipedia policy, but rather to common sense. The use of deliberately misleading phrases is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article.

The fact that "he did not receive" is omitted in the lede is the misleading part. When people scan the lede they are likely to get the impression that he received a master's degree. The fact that you continue to not acknowledge this is what especially draws my suspicion of affiliation.

If that were not enough, you go on to suggest that I said Severin lied. You respond as if I had claimed Severin lied. I did not say that Severin lied. Nobody said that Severin lied. The original article did not say that Severin lied. That you would even suggest this is a strong indication of affiliation.

Please review WP:COI and disclose your affiliation with Severin. Xerxesnine (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Xerxesnine, Assume good faith, or we will be unable to reach consensus. I was forced to "rearrange" your comments because you failed to indent and made two comments at once. I apologize if you were unable to follow my intent or my reply, but I strove to avoid the "wall of words". I will make a good faith effort to reply to your comments: " ... the article was poorly sourced ..." Yes. That is correct. I said that it was poorly sourced. It was. I added many new sources, and corrected at least one wrong date (the nomination for the award). If you have a problem with the sources I added, address them individually. If you would like to add sources to existing text, please do so. I love reliable sources - the more the better. " ... It obviously wasn't ... It was. The sources were repetitive and focused almost exclusively on Mr. Severin's problematic career with WTKK, which ran from 1999 to 2011 and encompassed only a portion of his professional and public life. I will refer any effort to focus this biographical article on Mr. Severin's shortcomings to the arbitration commitee for possible BLP violation. Not because Jay Severin's a saint, but because focusing exclusively on his shortcomings lends undue weight to that aspect of his life. " ... adding such information does not require a compete, total rewrite ..." For the third time, I did not re-write the article. I reformatted it to match the WP:BLP outline and guidelines and added information to fill blank spots in Mr. Severin's life. " .... I am questioning the scrapping of a well-sourced article to which many have contributed ... " Please see my previous reply and my previous sentence. " .... The use of deliberately misleading phrases is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article .... " Assume Good Faith. "Deliberately misleading" is an intolerable accusation. Please refrain from accusing me of wrongdoing. " ... When people scan the lede they are likely to get the impression that he received a master's degree ..." If you wish to add "but did not recieve", please feel free to do so. This is a collaborative effort, after all, and that is certainly in the body of the article along with a rather unflattering reference. I felt that "pursued" rather than "received" was concise enough, but if you find that insufficient, then you find that insufficient and should act boldly to correct the shortcoming. " .... The fact that you continue to not acknowledge this is what especially draws my suspicion of affiliation ... " I have no affiliation - legal, professional, or social - with Mr. Severin. I am from the Boston area and I am aware of the issues that have surrounded his work at WTKK. When I read the article on him, I was disappointed to see that it contained very little information about his background, and moved to correct the deficiency. I am not a "one trick" pony or an advocate for the man. Please feel free to review my other contributions to verify this. I caution you - again - to maintain a civil tone and assume good faith. I have made changes to the article that I hope improved it and brought it more closely in line with wikipedia guidelines. I was, in fact, hoping to have it peer reviewed for quality, and I would be happy to collaborate with you on improvements. " ... Please review WP:COI and disclose your affiliation with Severin ... " I am dumbfounded that you would leap to such a conclusion or make such an unfounded accusation. I assume that you have had problems in the past editing this article. Please be assured that I am not a troll or secretly on Severin's payroll. I am here to edit iteratively and improve articles in line with wikipedia guidelines. That's it. TreacherousWays (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Xerxesnine, I feel as if you're missing the forest for the trees. We're looking at a man who started his own political consulting form in 1974 and who was political advisor to the President by 1980 - a regular guest at the White House after only SIX YEARS. He's married to a partner in his firm and they're advising national and international political campaigns and being quoted in all the right places by all the right people. Then in 1994-1995, for reasons unknown, his marriage is ending, his company is folding, and he's an AM radio talk show host. I think that his story could be fascinating if we are patient and willing to research a man who associated with BOTH Abbie Hoffman and George HW Bush. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

TreacherousWays, you are the one who claimed that I said Severin was lying. I said no such thing. The article said no such thing. You are the one who has not assumed good faith. You are the one throwing out these accusations without cause or justification, and that's what makes you suspect of affiliation.

"I apologize if you were unable to follow my intent or reply." This is another statement in bad faith, directed at me. Clearly I am able to understand your intent and your reply. That is why I'm calling you out on this stuff.

Again, you haven't shown or explained why the original article was poorly sourced. You just re-assert the same statement that it was poorly sourced. If there were some years missing, that does not imply the article should be scrapped. That doesn't make sense.

For the third time, I am not arguing that the article should have stayed exactly the way it was. I agreed the controversies section could use some whittling and rearranging. I am arguing that there's no reason the ditch the whole article. I am arguing that there's no reason to go through another few months of copyediting when the existing material can be reused, clipped, expanded, and rearranged.

I am not going to edit an article which I find illegitimate at face value. I leave your deliberately misleading phrase "pursued a master's degree" because it is exactly the phrase used on the Westwood One site and is yet another indicator of affiliation.

But the nail in the coffin is "political advisor to the President." Unbelievable. And hilarious. Now we know. Also, no source for Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Which version of the article was poorly sourced, again? The original one or yours?

I won't be waiting around any more for you to come up with sources for those howlers. Xerxesnine (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Xerxesnine. You can use colons to format the indent on your statements. Generally, replies are indented further than the statements to which they reply, making them easier to read and understand. The article format was altered to conform to the biography template, in line with project goals. The article content was edited to reduce undue weight on scandal. The article requires further editing, as the preferred style is choronological, incorporating events both good and bad in the order they occurred rather than as a bulleted list. Your statement " ... I leave your deliberately misleading phrase "pursued a master's degree" because it is exactly the phrase used on the Westwood One site and is yet another indicator of affiliation .... " is outdated; I thought about what you had said, realied that it had merit, and altered the lede some time ago. " ... no source for Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin ... " Source is the Westwood One bio, permitted under the limited conditions outlined here. Find a better source if you can, or a quote from a contemporary refuting the claim. I will say it again: I have no affiliation - personal, social, or professional - with Mr. Severin. I hope that you will choose to channel your healthy skepticism into locating reliable sources that will make this article more factual and neutral. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As expected, no sources have been added for all this new material, including but not limited to references to: "advised campaigns across the country for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governor, and President", Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Richard Nixon, "doing well in English and history and poorly in math and science", and others. You cannot add unsourced material, especially in such a credulous and biased manner. The original article had a reference backing up every sentence and every fact. The current article is like a first draft all over again, with many missing references for the new material. There is no sense starting this article again from scratch. This is your second notice. If you cannot back up these claims, I will revert the article back to the original. Several are of them rather ludicrous--so I know you cannot back them up--but I gave you time anyway, for good measure. The way to reduce undue weight is not by making stuff up.

You should apologize for saying that I or the original article stated that Severin lied, thereby implying that I or the original article slandered Severin. Such an accusation is a high crime, and it demonstrates a lack of good faith. That, together with the unsourced (and rather ridiculous) claims, are well enough to get this stuff reverted. Xerxesnine (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A revert to the unbalanced and unformatted version is unacceptable. Look, Xerxesnine, the article was unbalanced and improperly formatted. A correction was inevitable. If you would like to ask a disinterested BLP-oriented admin to look the article over, I'd be happy to collaborate with you on suggested changes. TreacherousWays (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave you two chances to add citations, but none have been forthcoming. As I stated, the way to reduce undue weight is not by adding a host of unsubstantiated, unsourced material in order to achieve balance. Reverting per WP:V WP:NOR. You have been unresponsive to these points. Removing only the unsourced material may have been an option, but in this case it would have resulted in the removal of the whole lede and other sections, leaving little of the article left.

You are welcome to make modifications to the original article, as long as you properly follow WP:V and WP:NOR. Or you may add references to your newer version, however you have repeatedly refused to do so.

I also strongly advise you to apologize as explained above. Xerxesnine (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Any further attempt to revert to the attack format will be reverted. Any attempt to revert to the unsupported template will be reverted. I have sought the review and advice of more experienced and uninvolved BLP editors and admins. Can you agree to be patient and seek consensus? TreacherousWays (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Inserting unsourced material is not acceptable. You are welcome to add citations for the new material. Go ahead. I have been waiting. Indeed I have asked you many times. Until then, these unsubstantiated claims will be removed. Re-adding unsourced material after it has been reverted is called vandalism, and it will be reported as such. Xerxesnine (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Xerxesnine, I have asked that a neutral third party review the situation and make suggestions. I have requested assistance at the BLP noticeboard, and hope that you are willing to hold off making further edits until someone can do so. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for editor review

Following my own advice, I have requested review of this article for NPV and format. TreacherousWays (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with adding unsourced material under the rubric of undue weight. Of course, undue weight can be addressed without inserting unsubstantiated claims, however you continue to not acknowledge this point. Falsely claiming that I or the article called Severin a liar was a nice touch; it lets us know where you are coming from. Xerxesnine (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you wait a few days for an uninvolved editor to review the article before making new edits? Perhaps a third set of eyes can help resolve this difference of opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference of opinion on unsourced material. I don't know what makes you think adding claims without backing them up is acceptable. Simply add citations to your article and it can stay. Xerxesnine (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the 3RR policy in mind as you edit this article, and wait for review. I have nothing to hide,and suggest that you and I can benefit from a fresh viewpoint. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism will be reverted. Most of your new material is unsourced. Even the new material which has a source turns out to be bogus. For example: "Severin performs frequent public speaking engagements for various public and private organizations, including the U.S. Military (U.S. Naval War College, U.S. Air Force) and universities, including Harvard, Wellesley, Columbia, Vassar, Boston College [4] and Boston University." I checked the source. Boston College is the ONLY speaking event mentioned in that source. This is vandalism, pure and simple. Reverted.

You don't seem to understand that you must add sources. The unsourced stuff gets cut, automatically. I can revert unsourced stuff all day; the 3RR is not relevant. I've asked you about six times to provide sources. You have not done so. Xerxesnine (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

" .... This is vandalism, pure and simple .... " Yes, Xerxesnine. Yes it is. TreacherousWays (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The speaking engagements you mention were difficult to source, that's true. It took me quite some time to come up with the BC reference, actually. I've also been unable to find anyplace online to book him as a speaker, which seemed odd. I suspect that he was more in demand back in the 2004-2005 time frame, and may not have been booked in some time. If you feel compelled to remove the other engagements as unreferenced, that would be fine with me and certainly defensible. I suspect, though, that it's just a case where he as speaker was simply not notable enough to garner press coverage rather than a fabrication or resume-enhancer. TreacherousWays (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this already: WP:V. Xerxesnine (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material in new version

The rewrite by TreacherousWays contains mostly unsourced material. I have checked some of the sources he/she provided, and they do not substantiate the new material in the article. For example:

Severin performs frequent public speaking engagements for various public and private organizations, including the U.S. Military (U.S. Naval War College, U.S. Air Force) and universities, including Harvard, Wellesley, Columbia, Vassar, Boston College [4] and Boston University.

The only speaking engagement mentioned in the source is Boston College. All others are unsubstantiated.

The next paragraph says:

Jay Severin was born on 8 January 1951 in the Hudson Valley region of Dutchess County in New York State. Severin's mother was an artist and writer, and Severin's father was a World War II Army Air Corps veteran and direct mail advertising entrepreneur.[5]

The source mentions nothing about Severin's birth, nor Hudson Valley, nor Duchess County, nor of the writer and artist occupations of his mother, nor of World War II, nor of Army Air Corps.

The paragraphs following give new information, but without even a source cited (the Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin references for example).

Also, for some reason, most citations in the lede have been removed. This makes no sense.

I have advised TreacherousWays many times to add sources, yet TreacherousWays has still not added them. TreacherousWays continues to ignore requests to add sources and continues to restore the unsourced material after it is reverted. Accordingly, I have left a vandalism warning on his talk page.

I also remind readers that TreacherousWays has claimed that either I or the original article called Severin a liar, which is wholly untrue. I mention this because it goes to motivation.

I continue to welcome well-sourced improvements to the article. Xerxesnine (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Neutrality Weight check

Please evaluate this article for POV-pushing on a public figure. Article is weighted for one job and one radio station. Re-written article has been reverted twice. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed to POV with comment: There is no dispute over whether the article has a POV problem, and no need to waste time checking. The dispute is whether it should be fixed by adding unsourced material. The answer to that is clear: do not fix POV by adding unsourced material.

Nobody has contended that the article does not have a POV problem. TreacherousWays does not understand that adding unsourced material is unacceptable, and that is the only problem here. Xerxesnine (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not change or remove the POV-check tag until the dispute has been resolved, Xerxesnine. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK slight confusion. I changed {{POV-check}} to {{POV}} because there is no dispute. That is, I am not disputing that the article has a POV problem, so you would be wasting someone's time. Now I see that {{POV}} is for articles which are disputed, so I should have used {{inprogress}} instead (I wish there were an "in progress, resolving POV" template). Changing.

{{POV-check}} is "to request that an article be checked for POV." Again, there is no dispute about POV. Not sure what you think this will accomplish, but I will respect your decision to waste an admin's time. The admin will just say what I have said: do not add unsourced material in order to fix POV.

The only "dispute" is that you want to add unsourced material to the article. Now you want an admin to tell you that, because you don't believe me. Oh well. Xerxesnine (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TreacherousWays, the issue is very, very simple: if you provide sources for the material in your new article, then you can keep it. Please indicate whether or not you understand this. Xerxesnine (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Xerxesnine, you hold the position that this article should consist largely if not entirely of Mister Severin's faults and failings. This, explictly states the position. Here is an example of you deleting encyclopedic material that is in the standard template and can be easily sourced. You have accused me of being " ... deliberately misleading ...", of making at least one " ... statement in bad faith ...", and have instructed me to "... review WP:COI and disclose your affiliation with Severin ... ". I think that edits made in good faith and with the intent of improving the article deserve a more charitable reception and more thoughtful examination, whether *I* made them or not, and I think that a neutral third party will add fresh air to this stale debate. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite my polite request that you wait until the article could be reviewed, you reverted without even *seeking* consensus. I am frustrated with your reactionary actions and assumptions of bad faith. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you finally responded, because I think we can clear this up.

The first link you mentioned talks about a general problem with Severin: lack of information. He purposefully keeps his life private. Someone added the undue weight tag, but there was no resolution. I did not revert any edit which changed the weight of the article -- I just removed the tag because it just seemed like a permanent problem -- a problem he purposefully designed -- and with no answers forthcoming. It reminds me of The Life of Brian, where a man says he has a right to have babies. "What's the point of fighting for your right to have babies when you can't have babies?" I hope you get the picture. In retrospect it doesn't really matter if the undue weight tag hangs around for infinite time, and I am glad to restore it.

The second link you mentioned points to an exactly correct edit I did, and I'm glad you mentioned it because it's exactly what you don't understand. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR. I deleted a section, saying: "Section has no sources; appears to be original work." That is exactly right: it must be deleted, out of necessity. You must understand this before proceeding. Do you? Xerxesnine (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TreacherousWays, the above question needs to be answered. This is the roadblock in front of us. Xerxesnine (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't really respond to your post, Xerxesnine, because it assumes that the original format was acceptable. I didn't - and don't - think that it was. Please see my post below; I am very - very - willing to seek consensus on the contents of this article provided that we follow the wikipedia template and guidelines. Once an approved structure is in place, the nature of the contents can be reasonably discussed and neutrality assessed. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Further detail on unsourced material in TreacherousWays rewrite

TreacherousWays continues to leave messages with others, which means that despite my many explanations he still does not understand that material needs to be sourced. For good measure, I am calling this out explicitly.

Jay Severin was born James Thompson Severino III in New York State in 1951 to Iris and James Thompson Severino II. A United States citizen, Severin is best-known as a conservative political consultant and radio and television commentator. UNSOURCED.

...and pursued (but did not receive) a masters degree in Journalism at Boston University. He is a veteran national political operative who has advised campaigns across the country for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governor, and President. Severin is a former award-winning columnist for MSNBC.com and a Political Analyst for MSNBC. His comments on politics and media have appeared in the nation's major newspapers, magazines, and network and cable television, as well as media abroad. UNSOURCED.

A talk-show host since 1995,[2]... UNSUPPORTED BY SOURCES GIVEN. There is no information of continuous employment from 1995 onward.

Jay Severin was in 2004 nominated for radio's highest honor, the Marconi Award as Radio Personality of the Year.[3] EDITORIALIZING. Why is this necessarily the highest honor?

Severin performs frequent public speaking engagements for various public and private organizations, including the U.S. Military (U.S. Naval War College, U.S. Air Force) and universities, including Harvard, Wellesley, Columbia, Vassar, Boston College [4] and Boston University. UNSUPPORTED BY SOURCES GIVEN. Only Boston College is mentioned as a speaking engagement. (Flagrant?)

Jay Severin was born on 8 January 1951 in the Hudson Valley region of Dutchess County in New York State. Severin's mother was an artist and writer, and Severin's father was a World War II Army Air Corps veteran and direct mail advertising entrepreneur.[5] UNSUPPORTED BY SOURCES GIVEN. No such information is given except for his age and the direct-mail advertising business of his father. Everything else is unsupported.

Severin has one sister. UNSOURCED.

Severin took acting and dancing classes starting at the age of six, and traveled routinely to New York City for rehearsals and auditions, which led to ten years of performing in various stage shows and on major network television programs including the Ed Sullivan Show. UNSOURCED.

Severin attended private elementary school and was founding President of the sixth grade Civics Club. In a mock presidential election, Severin claims to be " .. one (of) two kids in the school who voted for Richard Nixon." In High School, Severin was an average student, doing well in English and history and poorly in math and science. UNSOURCED.

Severin claims to have been an associate of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin (prominent members of the yippie movement) and a member of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam war. UNSOURCED.

After withdrawing from the Master's program at Boston University, Severin returned to New York City to work for political consultant David Garth, who Severin describes as his "first real mentor". In 1979, Severin started his own firm (Severin Aviles Associates) to direct strategy and produce media for Republican candidates[7][8][9]... UNSUPPORTED BY SOURCES GIVEN. None of these sources mention David Garth, for example.

...including campaigns for the U.S. House. U.S. Senate, Governor, and President (George H.W. Bush[10] SOURCE DOES NOT EXIST. There is no such issue of New York Magazine 23 Sept 1985.

Gosh. Is this enough already? It is noteworthy that in the few cases where sources are provided, they only support one or two facts out of the numerous facts given. Not a good sign. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is some uncited , lets work to find support for some of it, I would say not all of this is really noteworty anyways but we should be able tofind external support for some of the worthwhile stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

article improvements

As I was asked to comment I am posting a few of my thoughts for article improvement and or discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Where is the date of birth cited to ? The However, on November 14, 2005, Michael Graham took over Severin's slot at WTKK - this however is leading and suggestive of some problem and should be removed. The comment about vanishing from the website is leading and I would remove it. This rumors comment should be removed - silencing rumors that he would be moving to a competing station. - its speculative trivia. This is irrelevant Severin's current contract with WTKK was supposed to run through 2013. Jay's show had expanded to four hours, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. in 2010. and redundant with the next words being On April 6, 2011, Jay was fired from WTKK, - I don't see that the companies statement in the lede is really required, it would be enough to just say something like - In April 2011 after a series of controversies Jay was fired from WKTT. - or even just in the lede as the detail is covered in the article body, just state that In April 2011 Jay was fired from WKTT. Thats the lede. The article then is bloated with undue criticism. fifth column should not be internally linked and its in a quote and we don't link inside quotes. Some of the article appears a bit unbalanced and bloated also, I would rewrite the first comments on Muslims section. The second section should be trimmed and merged with the first - the excessive coverage of this is giving it undue weight in his life story. Comments on Mexican section ...The two large shock jock quotes are unnecessary and create more unsoundness and weight issues. - The external link section needs cleaning out. In general the article is badly laid out with to large an intro and then a large controversy section. Better, intro, early life, family upbringing , school etc and then a career section talking about his style and shows etc with the trimmed controversy content merged in there. In [Philosophical and/or political views this older version] there is a bit of content that seems ok but has gone from the current version - the Philosophical and/or political views section seems like it should be added - this version is already better than the current article - although some of the content appear to require citing uncited the layout is much better. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As the BLP is now it is very poorly formatted with undue focus on, and bloating of controversies. This is a good as a version I can see after some rewriting by User:TreacherousWays and then User:Collect made a few tweaks. - If we revert back to that version, which I support doing, I would be willing to go through it and format all the references as they clearly need it in that version. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and effort. I am hoping that Xerxesnine will consent to adopting and editing the restuctured version if for no other reason than it follows the suggested format. Xerxesnine was suspicious of my intentions. I am hoping that your comments will help clarify that my bold edit was made in good faith, addressed structural issues, and was never intended to be any kind of "final edit". TreacherousWays (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TreacherousWays, your series of totally unsupported claims speaks for itself. What exactly were you expecting? Unsourced material is bad enough -- it's worse to provide sources which claim to support the information but do not. This happens in multiple places, and the error is always in one direction. Why would you do that? To top it all off, you accuse the me of saying that Severin lied. You don't apologize. You proceed to lecture about good faith. The whole thing is crazy. Whether you are affiliated with Severin or just act like it makes little difference. Xerxesnine (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. I never claimed the article was good -- indeed, it sucks! I haven't made edits for a long time, sans the recent rewrite issue. The question is not whether the article sucks or not, but whether it should be replaced by another article which consists of a series of totally unsupported (and strangely flattering) claims. Which is worse? Since this is a BLP, rejecting totally unsupported claims should be the preferred choice.

I've said following in various ways multiple times, yet TreacherousWays seems to still not get it: TreacherousWays, the issue is very, very simple: if you provide sources for the material in your new article, then you can keep it. He still thinks I'm talking about undue weight, even though I keep saying that's not the issue. The issue is that we can't insert random stuff into a BLP article. As I said, we could remove the unsourced material, but then there'd be nothing left. I don't know what else to say. I don't know why I am so profoundly unable to communicate this idea. Xerxesnine (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• My comment First, the article is way too long for a local radio personality. Cut it by two thirds and that would be a big improvement. Borock (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aaaaahh I am still profoundly unable to communicate this idea. Yes, the article sucks. Yes, it needs to be whittled and rearranged. That is not in dispute; that is not the issue. The issue at hand is whether the article should be replaced by a series of totally unsupported claims, as TreacherousWays wishes to do. Please, everyone, go ahead and be bold. But be responsible--don't add wholly unsourced material to a BLP! Xerxesnine (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add that version and bring the uncited here for interested users to find citations to support it. Please also add to the article {{fact}} to any content they dispute or feel is uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Borock, and thanks for taking the time to review and comment. I really appreciate it. Severin has some notability above and beyond his radio career - aspects not covered in the current article - which was why I felt compelled to make these edits. The edited article needs a lot of help, too, but I think that it is better organized and more thorough despite being shorter. I am trying to convince Xerxesnine that I edited boldly but in good faith, and that the revised article is more properly formatted, and worthy of adoption and editing. TreacherousWays (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, did you notice the misleading citations I mentioned? And that's only the beginning. You haven't explained why you think it's appropriate to add unsourced material to a BLP. Xerxesnine (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at and dealing with a few, there is little contentious. I have only just started checking through the citations, feel free to move anything your think is controversial contentious and uncited. Minor issues can simply have a fact template - please add fact template to anywhere you feel there is an issue, thanks. I will be signing off soon and tomorrow will go over the rest of the externals.- Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So ... what was your reason for adding unsourced material to a BLP, again? Would I be able to add some uncontentious material, too? For example I heard that Severin owns a llama. Xerxesnine (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is little information left in the article, and there is still more unsourced material which needs to be removed. I could remove it, but then the article would be almost empty, which was my point from the very beginning. You don't seem to be an admin -- is there any particular reason why I should value your decision to essentially delete the article? Xerxesnine (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been beneficially trimmed to a half of the undue state it was in - as I said - anything your think is controversial contentious and uncited. Minor issues can simply have a fact template. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You did not address my concern. There is no reason to believe TreacherousWays' unsourced material at face value. I haven't found references through searching. I outlined the problems above. His initial article was a flood of unsourced claims which resembled a padded resume. Some claims had citations which did not support them. This is coming from someone who quoted misleading phrases verbatim from the old WestwoodOne site. He said that I called Severin a liar. He doesn't respond to my questions. Why should his unsourced claims be part of this BLP? If we remove them, there's nothing left of the article. You didn't address my last question above. Xerxesnine (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm short on time Xerxesnine; I hope you'll forgive my brevity. The wikipedia biography format is a pretty good one, and I tried to follow it, adding information from sources of greater or lesser reliability. I sought to use the best sources possible; the world is an imperfect place and Severin is both fairly private and not super-notable. I made nothing up, and I didn't (I wouldn't) intentionally edit in such a manner as to "pad" a resume. You mentioned his birthplace at one point - that's a good example. I couldn't pin it down, and Severin didn't name it specifically other than what he wrote in his Westwood One autobiography piece. It's in the template, it should be included if possible, and it's unlikely that Severin lied about it. Ditto having a sister - why would he bother lying? In the absence of controversy or a contradicting reference, it makes sense to include the information because the information simply doesn't merit a higher level of scrutiny. I could have said he was born in Poughkeepsie. He probably was. But I couldn't find anything that said he was. So I didn't say it. All anybody is asking is that you agree to adhere to the appoved biographical template and guideines. I'm positive, based on your previous edits, we can reach consensus on every point in this biography providing that you are willing to compromise on format and weight (as I am on where he speaks - or even whether he speaks). I'm going to be off the grid for a short while - a couple of days at most. Can you agree at least in principle that you and I are both interested in this subject and can produce an article worthy of a "Good" rating? TreacherousWays (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you falsely claim that the article said that Severin lied? Why did you call me a slanderer? Why haven't you apologized? Why did you add unsourced material which had no references anywhere that I could find on the Internet? Why did you hide flattering material behind citations which did not support that material? Why do you continue to ignore my questions? I have explained the problem quite well on this page, and I have laid out the evidence. I will now revert all of your unsourced material in the article. If you insist on this unsourced stuff then take it up with arbitration. I am confident in my position on this. Xerxesnine (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any content that requires an extreme position. This position seems a reasonable one - remove anything your think is controversial contentious and uncited. Minor issues can simply have a fact template. If any content is removed as unsourced - please don't delete it - bring it here to this talkpage so that editors interested can search for citations and replace the content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, I am getting ready for international travel. I will get back to this article as soon as I can, and trust that it is on the path to GA. TreacherousWays (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Xerxesnine, please sign your posts and citation requests, and insert tags where you feel additional citations are required. Also, please be specific regarding problems (if any) with existing references moved to this space so unnecessary duplication can be avoided. Finally, please feel free to do a little research yourself. Some references (like Severins daughter) are fairly easy to find. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're having trouble signing your posts, just add four tildes (~) at the end. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you need assistance in how to format references, help can be found here. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was following Off2riorob's example of not cluttering the uncited section with signatures. Seems like a good idea to me. Your "helpful advice" on how to sign is the umpteenth indicator of bad faith from you. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course. My behaving like a smarmy git is not appropriate, and I apologize. If you see a statement you find dubious your first action should be to try to verify it and reference it. That's part of assuing good faith - assume the other editor didn't make it up. If you can't find anything to support the statement and you think it's either incorrect or biased, you absolutely should move it to this space - but you should also explain your action and sign your post, which is a talk space convention. TreacherousWays (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

uncited from the article

I have moved this from the article as uncited - Please attempt to cite and replace Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...and studied Journalism at Boston University.
He has advised campaigns across the country for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governor, and President.
Severin was an award-winning columnist for MSNBC.com and a Political Analyst for MSNBC.

• Definately an MSNBC columnist. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• And a CBS Radio press release says that he won an award as an MSNBC columnist. Unable to verify just what he won, though. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Severin has one sister.

• Not a great reference but not overly self-serving, so permissible. TreacherousWays (talk)

Jay Severin is a 1974 graduate of Vassar College

• Enter "Severin" as the last name in the Vassar alumni search engine; Jay Severin, class of 1974, is returned. TreacherousWays (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Severin has spoken at the U.S. Naval War College, and universities, including Harvard, Wellesley, Columbia, Vassar, Boston College and Boston University.

talk radio since 1995,

• The ref, dated 01 Feb 1995, states, " ... a political consultant to Republicans, made his debut on WOR-AM Monday in a nationally syndicated three-hour show to be broadcast every weekday ... " TreacherousWays (talk)

Jay Severin was born on 8 January 1951

• This was added in 2008 by an IP. I have been unable to verify. TreacherousWays (talk)

born in Dutchess County, New York. His mother was an artist and writer, and his father was a World War II Army Air Corps veteran and direct mail advertising entrepreneur.

• Again, Westwood One autobiography. Again, not particularly controversial or self-serving, and no contradicting references. TreacherousWays (talk)

After withdrawing from Boston University, Severin went to New York City to work for political consultant David Garth

• " ... Green, obviously expecting a struggle, has hired media advisor Jay Severin, who used to work for Garth ... " TreacherousWays (talk)

Severin filled in for Grant at WOR on an irregular basis

• 1996 " ... and Jay Severin, MSNBC Political Analyst / Commentator / Columnist / libertarian Republican consultant (and alternate talk show host for Bob Grant) ... " TreacherousWays (talk)
• 1997 " ... WOR listeners may have been puzzled the last two weeks when Jay Severin didn't fill in for the vacationing Bob Grant ... " TreacherousWays (talk)
• 1998 " ...FILLING in for Bob Grant on WOR (710 AM) last Thursday, Jay Severin jokingly suggested ...Severin is in for Grant all this week, 3-7 p.m. He would have split the gig ... " TreacherousWays (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Within his capacity as a political consultant, Jay Severin provided advice and guidance to political conservatives such as Pat Buchanon and George H. W. Bush.

|birth_place = Hudson Valley, New York

• Not a great reference, but the guidelines explicitly allow autobiographical sources if they are not overly self-serving. In this instance, I can see no reason that Severin would lie about where he was born. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

|children = daughter

A member of the first-ever co-ed class of Vassar College (class of 1974),

Xerxesnine, this is an example of what I consider to be contentious editing. While it's certainly a fact worth verifying, it's not so hard to verify that you need to cut it from the article and put it here. It took me about a minute and a half to find the reference for the Vassar alumni site; if you plug in Severin's name, you get class of 1974. If you look at this reference, you get an article on the first official coed class of 1974 - and a forgotten coed class from WWII. Referencing that took me about 45 seconds. Why not focus your considerable efforts on identifying actual hard-to-reference points of contention? It would be very reasonable for you to insist that the "first ever coed" claim be tempered with the WWII vets information; that would be a great place for compromise and consensus. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, some of the items you cut from the article and placed here are referenced already. Please take the time to indicate what specific problems you have with individual references (dead links, unreliable source, subject not mentioned, etc.). TreacherousWays (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the "studied at BU" even on the page if it has no verification. He did not graduate, or at least there is no evidence that he did, nor is there any evidence other than his word that he even attended that institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tool to help fix references (TreacherousWays (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)):

Severin and gay marriage

Xerxesnine, you removed a statement from the "Philospohical and or political views" section indicating that Severin supports gay marriage, with the statement that the reference indicates that Severin opposes gay marriage. The reference, Bay Windows, which claims to be New England's largest "GBLT Newspaper" states that Severin initially opposed gay marriage but that he re-thought his position. " ... He indicates that 'we can all be proud of ability to evolve' without 'caving in' Jay further state that he’s 'always been for human rights. And that means no discrimination against people for whom they love, with whom they sleep' ..." The writer goes on to state that "It’s been a long time coming but I’m glad he’s finally arrived at our party." I think the reference clearly indicates that Severin - for whatever reason - changed his position from opposing gay marriage to supporting gay marriage. Do you disagree? TreacherousWays (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless and until a source makes the explicit claim, no - the source is insufficient for that claim. You are conflating "no discrimination" with "support for gay marriage" which is not a clear equivalence. Collect (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting nuance. I took away from the article that Severin had decided to adopt a libertarian position; that he would treat gay marriage no differently than straight marriage and would not discriminate between the two. It's only significant as far as I'm concerned because it suggests a less conservative and more libertarian view. Would it be fair to say, in brief, that, "Espousing a libertarian non-discriminatory position, Severin reversed his initial rejection of gay marriage, saying, ' ... no discrimination against people for whom they love, with whom they sleep ... '" TreacherousWays (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Geographic Undesirables

I removed the following section:

On January 13, 1984, Severin was quoted in a New York Times article about the opening of the ultra-fashionable Surf Club on the Upper East side of Manhattan: "It's about time we had a place on the Upper East Side," James Severin was saying Tuesday night over the recorded sound of early 60's pop tunes. We've got to stay ahead of the G.U.'s," Mr. Severin added. G.U.'s? "Geographic undesirables, the bridge and tunnel types," he explained"

because it adds undue weight to a comment made a quarter-century ago. He didn't get fired over it, and there is little public controversy associated with the statement. I think, however, that it might reasonably be included in the "philosophy" secton. TreacherousWays (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Section removed

I removed the following statement: "While in high school, Severin was founding member of the civics club, and was loved and admired by his fellow students for his intellect, generosity, smoothness, and natural leadership skills." as being unsourced and overly fawning. A reference regarding the civics club would be very welcome - no information regarding which high school Mr. Severin attended has been discovered. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Does seem both unsourced and fawning! I dropped in today (mostly to find out where he had wound up) and applied some minor clean-up to the article, most notably making the intro go from present to past. If (m) and (f) in the Infobox means male and female (parents), they had been reversed; this must have been a prank.

In "Philosophical and political views," it seems weak to say that Severin "has been described as libertarian leaning." It would be astonishing to describe him as anything else (and I've never understood what the other part, "fiscal conservative," means, except desirous of not overpaying for stuff). What is omitted is his notoriety (self-admitted, occasionally) as a flame-thrower. This might precede the three anecdotes of the same, in the article, which had job repercussions. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

comment

I'm liberal, so I have bias, like all of us, but to me the most striking thing about JS is that he is totally unconnected from reality. For instance, last Friday (march 9) the Gov't issued its monthly jobs report, which showed a (relatively) good +240,000 jobs A caller said, on air, the media are lying when they say there have been 24 months of straigh job growth Jays response was, roughly, well, one way the lie is to not tell you that with the240K +jobs, there might have been 300K of losses..I don't think anyone who take the slightest interest could not know that the headline number is net net net a few seconds later,there was a break for FOX news, and the FOX announcer said, with 24 months of net private sector job gains..

I realize this is not something appropriate for an encyclopedia, but the failure to do even the most minimal reporting, the constant hypocrisy (on that same show jay said leftists are never patriots, yet he often criticizees democrats for bad mouthing consevatives..) the total lack of logic... I don't know where you put this on wiki, but I think it should be there24.91.51.31 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)