Talk:Jay Severin/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]