Talk:Jay Severin/Archive 3

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)

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)

References

Severin's connection to reality

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)

Anon: Severin is not unconnected from reality. He is a conservative commentator who is stridently partisan. The article could say that more clearly. I personally find the only summary of his ideology remaining in the article--"has been described as libertarian leaning"--to be strangely delicate. In fact, he takes professional pride and personal delight in flame-throwing, of which the only examples in the article are those that have gotten him into trouble. It's significant in grasping his style to note that he has repeatedly stated he could not vote either for G.W.Bush or McCain, positions I think he recanted just-in-time.

However, I don't find his interaction with one caller, even when neatly followed by a contradiction in the hourly news, to be proof of chronic disinterest in the facts, and do not believe it is the function of this article to discredit him sufficiently to suit you. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Severin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722105536/http://worradionet.com/about/ to http://worradionet.com/about/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Severin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408020434/http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-06/ae/29389342_1_wtkk-sexual-harassment-rock-n-roll to http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-06/ae/29389342_1_wtkk-sexual-harassment-rock-n-roll

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 6 January 2018 (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)

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)