Talk:Michael Savage/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rockstar Energy Drink

I don't want to touch the article until I get some feedback. Would it be appropriate to mention the fact that his son's energy drink company has, in the past, acted as a sponsor for the Girls Gone Wild videos? This is an example of the hypocrisy that Michael Savage is sometimes accused of, and I am not sure where in the article it should be included (if at all).

How does what Michael's son does constitute hypocrisy on Michael's part? 69.181.156.67 13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an example of hypocrisy because Michael does not own Rockstar.Shadax 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So you feel the hypocrisy would be that Savage would have a problem with the Girls Gone Wild videos? He might argue that they are another example of the degredation of our society, but I do not think it is an example of his hypocrisy. I am not even sure he would have a problem with the videos. He would probably have a few choice words for the producers and participants, though. Ursasapien (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters

I object to the use of Media Matters being used as a reference. I counted over a dozen references to their site. They are an editorial web-page with the stated purpose of "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." They have an admitted liberal slant, and should probably not be used as a neutral, reliable, third party source for a biography of a living person. Also, the Salon.com referenced article (Savage's Long Strange Trip) really reads like a smear piece, and might not be a good resource either.65.102.187.26 05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck! This article is obviously slanted, most references are from far-left sources, and yet many editors vehemently defend these obvious POV sources. However, God help you if you try to use Michael's website as a source. I dare you to go to the Allen Ginsberg article and use a Michael Savage source to paint him as a pedophile. I will be the first to say Michael is controversial, a loud-mouth, and a POV-pusher. All of that should be included in his article. But to suggest that some vague letter proves that he is a closet homosexual or that he is a self-hating anti-semite just seems silly. Ursasapien (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So nobody cares if I start removing some of the slant and slanted sources from this article? I'm working on some good things to add as well.65.102.187.26 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please remove any pro- or anti- slants that you find. However slanted sources are another matter. All sources are slanted, so if you remove all of them we won't have an article any more. Even slanted viewpoints can be presnted in a neutral manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say, from reading Talk: George Soros that Salon and Media Matters should be regarded with a great deal of suspicion and information from these sources can only be included if it is backed up by reliable secondary sources. Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page that discredits those sources. What are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is my own analysis of the discussion. I will explain more below. Ursasapien (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All sources are slanted? Then why does wikipedia's guidelines stress only the use of neutral, reliable, third party sources for biographies of living persons? I wouldn't be able to use Savage as a source on Al Franken's or Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's or Hillary Clinton's page.

Especially problematic is the section "Judiasm." How does Savage's extreme dislike for a few individuals that happen to be Jewish constitute his personal views on Judiasm? This is intentionally trying to paint him as an anti-semite. Also problematic is the "letter with homosexual overtones." This is absurd.65.102.187.26 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that many listeners to Savage's show would describe the New York Times as slanted. Yet we allow it. As for using Savage as a source for other biographies, we don't allow one-person sources in articles about people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anyone that could legitimately argue that the "New York Times" does not have a slant. All newspapers and news outlets have some editorial slant. I agree that if we started disallowing any reference that has a slant we would not have an encyclopedia. However, I find many editors that are vehement about including a reference by Salon.com and just as vehement about disallowing a reference by Bill O'Reilly. I believe the "we don't allow one-person sources in articles about people" argument to be specious. Are New York Times' articles not written by one person? In conclusion, all sources have there own slant. We can not cherry-pick sources that agree with our perception of a subject. I think, according to WP:BLP, we must be extremely careful regarding what we include in articles about living people. Despite having a single reference about a letter about a Fijian man and "Old World, East-side finger tricks", this article is on very shaky ground. Implying that the article's subject may, at some point in the past, had a homosexual experience requires a great deal of synthesis and is essentially irrelevant/reckless unless someone has an agenda to slime Michael. I think some editors are blinded by their own prejudices. That is the only explanation I can reason. Ursasapien (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between a one-person source versus a newspaper is not specious. A newspaper article, while written by one person, is reviewed and edited by others. That's the important difference. If Bill O'Reilly writes an article for a newspaper then it would probably be permitted as a source. You can see the the material in WP:V and WP:ATT for more information. What is the specific problem with Salon that would prevent its use in this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Salon, by its own admission, is "tabloid-like". Additionally, it leans so far left it is nearly horizontal. Sadly, Michael's Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by David Gilson of Salon. My point about George Soros was the discussion surrounding an O'Reilly allegation (made on Fox News and hence subject to editorial oversight) that Mr. Soros was intentionally trying to manipulate the political system using his vast wealth and power. This allegation was removed because, in the opinion of some, it went against WP:BLP, was controversial and not verifiable. I would argue that the allegation that Michael "Savage" Weiner had a picture of himself and Allen Ginsburg swimming in the nude is much more controversial and less verifiable. Simply because some neocon crackpot gives a quote and a couple of tabloids pick it up, does not make it so. I just see, from my perspective, that on Wikipedia more liberal subjects are given every benefit of the doubt under BLP policy, whereas the vaguest or most partisan reference is given complete legitimacy when the target is a so-called "conservative". Your mileage may vary. Ursasapien (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Salon, like the NYT, has a slant. What matters for its use as a source for Wikipedia article is whether it meets the standards of WP:V and WP:ATT as a reliable source. I'm still not sure I understand the relevance of Soros to this article. As for Ginsberg material, we have two sources which say the same thing. I'm not sure why the assertion that they met and may have swam together is controversial. Has Savage denied it? The only dispute I see is about the interpretation of a letter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely against using Salon as a source under any circumstance. However, I think one must be extremely careful when it comes to a BLP. I would argue that we have to balance WP:V and WP:ATT with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I contend, in this instance, the Salon article is POV and agenda driven. I feel strongly that the "naked swimming picture as a calling card" section needs to be cut from the article for the following reasons:

• we have two sources which say the same thing - No, we have two sources using the same quote/individual as their sole source for this version of events. Both tabloids seem very agenda driven.
• I'm not sure why the assertion that they met and may have swam together is controversial. - The assertion that they swam together, knew each other, or even that they were the best of friends is not controversial. The assertion that they swam together 'naked', that a picture was taken of the two of them, and that Michael used it as some badge of honor or means of access is extremely controversial.
• Has Savage denied it? - This could not be more irrelevant. Michael has absolutely no responsibility to deny it. He did not make the allegation. This is similar to the question, "How long has it been since you stopped abusing your wife/children?"

I agree with you that the interpretation of the letter is an issue as well. However, when the text of the letter has been put into the article, many complained that it was unclear. I believe that it is not truly verifiable that the letter was written by Michael and there is no way to know what he meant by the text. In the end, I think Michael says enough that his article could portray him accurately and neutrally by just quoting some of what he says. I don't see the need to have "some say he was abused by his father . . . is secretly homosexual . . . once aspired to be Lenny Bruce . . . is considered dictatorial by his staff, etc. Ursasapien (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Things are only controversial if there's been a controversy about them. Where's the controversy about the supposed "calling card"? Have folks written articles about this? If so we should cover the controversy rather than hiding it. As for the letter, I don't object to leaving that out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Media Matters

• The Media Matters Organization is an organization centered on a political ideology, and therefore violates the neutrality of the article. --SirAndrew1 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked their website and they say they are "progressive". I don't think they're a fringe wbesite. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fringe or no fringe, it is still ideologically oriented. --SirAndrew1 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't know, "Progressive" is a codeword for fringe leftists in American politics. 2nd Piston Honda 07:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Having had a look at Media Matters i really cant see the problem. Mission statement aside, they do seem source and cite everything

they've said he said. Hitmen for the gay mafia or not. 203.161.8.229 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then people are more than welcome to go to the primary sources or LEGITIMATE secondary sources to find information. Not a politically oriented site. --SirAndrew1 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd Piston Honda, your statement alone validates the inclusion of the Media Matters link. Please read the progressivism article here Shabeki 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, all citations of Media Matters have been removed. I will endeavor to find primary and legitimate secondary sources later this morning...--SirAndrew1 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I need to add another heading, but I would say the Salon articles are more problematic than the Media Matters articles. David Gilson seems to have a personal axe to grind with Mr. Savage and I do not think it is appropriate to include Mr. Gilson's diatribes in Mr. Savage's article. Michael (Weiner) Savage says enough. I think we can have an article that portrays him accurately without including Mr. Gilson's apparent vendetta. Ursasapien (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• On another note, most of Media Matters reports/articles come directly from what Mr. Savage has stated on his radio show. I think we could use the transcripts of his show as a substitute reference in most cases. Ursasapien (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• From the Media Matters About Us page:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Please do not source Media Matters. Find legitimate sources. --SirAndrew1 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason I fear that ultimately Wikipedia will fail as a valid encyclopedia. Most conservative folks don't consider Wiki a valid source for info, because many of the authors use sources such as Media Matters, which by nearly all conservatives is considered a very far of left source. It's all pretty much POV when it comes to public figures. Savage/Weiner is a public figure, and he has his fans and his detractors, and everyone with a view will find some source somewhere that backs up their view. Letting everyone write an encyclopedia is a great idea, but one of the reasons why Wiki gets such bad press.Kf4mgz 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes Media Matters illegitimate? Because they point out all of the right-wing bias in the corporate-owned "mainstream" media, using actual FACTS to support their case? BobCubTAC 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Progressive" sources are allowed on Wikipedia. So are conservative sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. This was my point earlier about George Soros. Bill O'Rielly was an "un-allowed" source due, not only to bias, but also that his allegations were not verifiable (i.e. "Soros is attempting to take over the US political system"). I am not saying that this necessarily applies to Media Matters, but I feel strongly (especially in BLPs) that we can not simply include information, just because we have a source. A source that says Michael Savage wishes to exterminate all Muslims is make the kind of synthesis that exposes WP to risk. A quote from Mr. Savage's show does not. Ursasapien (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to using a site for transcripts and recordings of Savage. Do we think they are hiring an actor to impersonate Savage? Are they fudging the transcripts? If not, then they appear to be reliable. If Bill O'Reilly's website hosted clips of Dennis Kucinich saying something I wouldn't object to linking to it as a source for those comments (so long as the material is relevant, etc.). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the point is there is no objection to using transcripts of Michael's show. It is the subjective analysis done by Media Matters, after the fact, where the trouble lies. That being said, I have no particular problem with Media Matters when they quote Michael. The problem is taking a bit of his schtick out of context and then using it to make some polemic point. I think BLP requires us to be careful to portray him neutrally and use what he says on his radio show in context. Now David Gilson is another point, but I'll go there later. Ursasapien (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How to call-in

What's the number to get on Savage's program? The number is not available on his website. -Amit

1-800-449-8255 69.181.156.67 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Article length

Isn't this article too long? Should it be broken up in to some sub-sections (like a sub-article on his stated beliefs)? As it is, the article is difficult to digest and seems to grow with each new thing he says on the radio. Ursasapien (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the non-biographical info should probably be split out. Maybe "Political views of Michael Savage"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I chose Views expressed by Michael Savage to avoid the "personal" vs. "political" views argument. Ursasapien (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good choice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we need to improve this article?

I would like to move this article towards GA nomination. What do we need to do to improve this article?

Suggestions:

• Create sub-articles to reduce the size of the article to a manageable size.
• The trivia section needs to be integrated into the article or removed.
• POV issues need to be cleaned up and tag removed.

Okay, we have a good start. I think the Credits, criticisms, controversies, and financial support for causes section could be cleaned up a little or maybe split off into a sub-article. Additionally, I have summarized his career as a commentator and created a more detailed sub-article on the The Savage Nation Radio Program and his time at MSNBC. I am just about ready to nominate it for GA status. Any objections or suggestions? Ursasapien (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate

Savage is listed in the bottom template as an "Independent" candidate in the 2004 election, although there is no mention in the article, no scource and I do not remember him actually a candidate. - Libertyville | Talk 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually he is listed as a potential independent candidate for the 2008 election. He had intimated that he would run on his radio show and, as far as I know, he has not officially withdrawn or said that he is not running at this point. Ursasapien (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the "gay letter."

This really doesn't belong here. Anyone with a modicum of neutrality left in them about this man should be able to see that including this passage in Savage's wikipedia entry is just a sorry attempt to further a tired and false slander on him by people that wish to discredit him. The ACTUAL letter does not have any sexual overtones in it.

"One such letter describes an encounter with a black man, interpreted by some as sexual in nature.[11] Savage has denied that the letter had homosexual overtones, claiming that it is part of a "smear campaign" by "gay fascists."[11]"

These two sentences are also very poorly written. One such letter? This is the first time any letter is mentioned. Does it read like this because it is copied word for word?71.35.155.14 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the result of a year of wiki-editing by various warring factions. We have included the actual text of the letter and even deleted the information outright. Personally, I think it is obscure and the text of the letter does not help illuminate the meaning at all. The question is what are these "finger tricks" he is speaking of, and even more than that, does it matter. Ursasapien (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely too obscure to include here. Google Michael Savage and his Wiki article is the first result after his own website. He has repeatedly commented on Wiki's slanted article on him and has even vaguely threatened legal action. Recounting all the smear campaigns against him is not Wikipedia's purpose or place, and this insinuation of his being a closet homosexual because he once wrote the words "finger tricks" in a letter to a beat poet is too close to slander.71.35.155.14 01:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly obscure, it's mentioned in nearly every single media account I've read about Savage and is adequately sourced. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found it in none of the media accounts I have read, but I think we are looking at different sources with different slants. Regardless, what is obscure is the meaning of the text (even if you get past the issue of proving that he authored it). I could find adequate sources that George W. Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard "was found unfit for flight status after failing to obey an order to submit to a physical examination." I suppose that my point is the authenticity of the letter and the meaning of the letter is clearly ambiguous, so I think we ought to err on the side of caution. Ursasapien (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was sourced material "temporarily" removed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My thought was to determine the authenticity, meaning, and relevance of the documents in question on this talk page, before exposing the WikiMedia foundation to liability. It can easily be added back, but I think it is unecessary and potentially harmful. Having sources is not a defense to libel. I think WP:BLP demands that we bend over backwards to authenticate information. Ursasapien (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Our sources for this article include GQ and New York Daily News, not some letters or postcards. We can easily verify what those articles say. Is there a dispute about them? As for libel, has Savage sued GQ or the New York Daily News? If not, why would he sue someone who simply repeats what those publications have printed? We should certainly be careful with any biography of a living person, but I don't see how this material is a problem nor do I see any requirement in BLP that we personally authenticate documents. Any personal efforts we make to obtain or interpret these documents would not help this article because findings based on our own research are prohibited by WP:OR. What we can do is to report on any comments the subject has published about the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Mr. Savage would not sue WikiMedia, just because he has not yet sued GQ or the New York Daily News. I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I also do not see this information as crucial to this article and I think it makes it more POV. I feel undue weight is given to this portion of the article. Without the inclusion of the letters, there is already ample information about his change in attitude/beliefs. Let's say that I found a couple of articles referencing letters Bill Clinton had written to Gennifer Flowers detailing where he would like to stick a camera. Is this necessary for the article on Bill Clinton? I think not, given the portion that it covers in his life. A simple mention of the relationship is enough. GQ has been known to do parody and I think we should be careful about including this information. I am really interested in getting this article to GA and I do not think this is the way to do it. Perhaps we should have Jimbo Wales review the article when he has the time. I know he has taken an interest in this article in the past. Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to quote from the correspondence. While "Wikipedia is not censored", it doesn't need salacious details either. We can't rely on our guesses about the subject's likelihood to sue as the basis for our editing decisions. Let's rely instead on the same Wikipedia policies we use for articles on everyone else. I'm open to rewriting and condensing the material, but omitting it entirely would be censorship and would diminish the biography. It isn't simply a matter of showing that his views were different in the past. Important incidents in a subject's life should be included, and a gauge of what's important is what's been reported. Can someone who's familiar with this stuff propose a fresh draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Gennifer Flowers article does include some rather graphic detail. I'm not sure if that's the standard we should meet, but it has been offered as an example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

{Unindenting for easier reading} I am all for this idea. The difficulty in the past has been including enough detail that future editors know what we are talking about. I would truly like to see someone else take a crack at reviewing the original sources and composing a clear summary (illustrating the change in Michael's views while omitting the "salacious details"). I am currently too emotionally POV on this subject to do it justice. Ursasapien (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When the "salacious details" are the subject of significant media coverage, then our coverage is incomplete if we omit them. We needed dwell on them, of course, but we can't ignore them either. Discussing the relationship without the correspondence, which itself has been a focus of that media coverage, would also make our coverage incomplete. We can dispense with quoting it if that is what is necessary to forge a consensus, but omitting it is not an option, in my opinion. To touch on some other past comments, first, let's leave the law to the lawyers. If we stick to reliable sources and WP policies, we needn't come up with other imaginary scenarios to worry about. Second, speaking of reliable sources, the GQ article isn't "parody", it is a legitimate news article by an experienced journalist, and the fact that they may include humor pieces in issues of that magazine is not grounds to keep removing this legitimate source from the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "significant media coverage"? I had not heard of these allegations until I came to the Wikipedia article and I have read a lot about this guy. My other thought is that this article, like all articles needs to strive for neutrality, which is achieved by balance. Look at Adolph Hitler's article, especially the sexuality section. I think this is really balanced, not leaving anything out, but giving the different viewpoints due weight. Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general with your thoughts on neutrality and balance, but I don't see how that is served by leaving out this relevant and sourced info. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to achieve neutrality and balance, using Adolph Hitler's article as an example, is to do the research and talk about his heterosexual relationships, indications that he may be/have been homosexual (which is how I read the information you want included), and then some statement (already included) that he denies being homosexual, he has never confirmed that he is heterosexual, and he may be largely asexual now. Of course we would have to do the research and be able to cite sources for all this. I don't see the urgency to include this material. It comes from sources very antagonistic to Michael and it seems little effort has been made to balance it with sources that favor him. There are no angry mastodons that will trample us if we leave this out for a time until we can find some material to balance it. Ursasapien (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, too, Hitler's sexuality. Otherwise, Ursasapien's suggestion is pretty good. I encourage that editor to add the information as it's found. Meanwhile, let's include what we've got. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when we think of balance and weight we should consider the whole of Wikipedia's material on this subject. We have three articles about him (the bio, the "views" and the "career"), one on his current show, and three on his books. This article is focused on the actual events of the subject's life rather than his career, writings, show, or beliefs. So although this topic is only a fractional part of the subject's entire life and notability, a section in this article is only a fraction of our coverage of him. Another point is that the subject apparently has been outspoken on many issues that I suppose are related to this material. To the degree that he comments on the behavior of others on certain topics his own history becomes relevant as well. If I may use another example, we don't shy away from saying that St. Augustine was a bad man when he was young, but it was his later life that made him notable and which matter most. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The tag has been removed--I made several edits to reduce POV including the removal of the tangential 'gay letter' section. Antonrojo 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I want the POV tag back up [personal attack removed] insist on the inclusion of the "GAY LETTER."71.35.155.14 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The simple inclusion of sourced material isn't POV, though our treatment of it could be. Can you propose how we can cover the letter with a neutral point of view? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now how on earth would we recount a smear campaign with neutrality? Use some logic, please. Savage, as a longtime acquaintance of Ginsberg who should know, has claimed that Ginsberg was a pedophile. How bout we include that in Ginsberg's entry, hmmm? Of course we wouldn't. Recounting smear campaigns against someone is not wikipedia's place, and I have to question the motives of those of you who are fighting endlessly to include this GAY LETTER section.71.35.155.14 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. I can't tell if you are saying that the letter is fake or real. What sources are you relying on? As for Allen Ginsberg he was a member of NAMBLA. Do we say so? Of course we do. Why would we hide it? Is saying he was a NAMBLA member a "smear campaign"? No, it's being honest about the subject. If this letter is real why would we hide it? It's been reported on in major sources such as Salon. We haven't had anyone assert that the letter is forged or fake, so if you have such evidence please share it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Correction. I see that the subject himself says he may have written Ginsburg, but that he believes there is forgery involved in this purported correspondence. The situation may ease as the most controversial material may be omitted per Ursasapien's plan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My issue, with POV, is this section clearly implies that Michael experimented with homosexuality during this time in his life. However, that is not the implication in the original source (at least SF Weekly). The article portrays a young man, enamored with beat poets, who played up to them but was fully heterosexual at that time. In fact, that article would seem to discount the entire "Shift in philosophy" section in some ways. It seems that Michael was always driven, idealistic, and somewhat hungry for money and fame. The only change appears to be in how he would attain this. Instead of trying to "suck-up" to the counter culture, he "became his father" and an iconoclast of the backlash to the counter-culture. Ursasapien (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid implying anything. We're on the right track here. First, there doesn't appear to be any objection to omitting the, um, "a-hole" text. Second, a complicated handshake isn't automatically, or even commonly, homoerotic. That detail appears vanishingly minor anyway. The Ginsburg stuff is much more relevant. It's not our job to judge a life, but a theme in this part obviously appears to be that he socialized with a crowd that he later rejected. That's a common theme in the biographies of commentators, politicans, religious leaders, and others. If any of the articles about him are true, the subject clearly has experimented with an unusual variety of constructs, disciplines, and careers along his path. And I'm sure he's still evolving. There's room for all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why this was removed?

I moved several sections, including some of the article about his stint at MSNBC to a sub-article. I did this to make the article more readable. I think it would be better to have a more streamlined article, but I am open to suggestions. Additionally, I think we need to be careful about the balance of this article. Having a balance of negative and positive information, while not giving undue weight to either side, helps to make this article more NPOV. By shifting some information to sub-articles, I think it helps the balance of this main article as well as the sub-articles. Ursasapien (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Early life whitewashed?

Michael's father is described as "gruff and profane" and is said to have "had a chip on his shoulder and was always mad at the world." To me, this describes Michael to a tee. I think the fact that his father "was tough on Michael, [and] there was nothing Michael could ever do to please him," is important information and we already have sources. His first wife also has a lot to say about Michael's personality. Shouldn't we have more information about his life before talk radio? Wouldn't this make for a better, more explanatory biography? Again, to me, this gives a better picture into who Michael is than the whole "gay letter" thing.

There's room for both. We don't need to choose one over the other. Add it all. We've got room. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

SF Supervisors' Condemnation

No POV Here, Eh?

"The dissenting vote was by indicted San Francisco Supervisor Ed Jew, who is presently facing trial on nine felony counts of perjury, false statements and voter fraud, and the focus of an FBI investigation." 72.194.122.14 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)John D.

Reduce the size of the San Francisco city vote condemming Savage

Is a failed effort to censure the subject by the SF Supervisors worth so much space? We could easily summarize it in a sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a result of the event being a current event. However, I agree with you that this information could be compressed (maybe to a three sentence paragraph). I especially think that none of the Board of Supervisors' names should be included. Ursasapien (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The SF vote is inconsequential when compared to controversies introduced by Savage such as the Dubai government backed Dubai Ports World attempted purchase of US infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.217.81 (talk) 04:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

SF Sups Vote

I think it be better to have the actual vote of the SF board listed instead of - "The resolution was one vote short of being passed unanimously by the Board." - I think this is a biased statement that can be biased either way, if the vote was 2-1 it makes a big difference then if it was 99-1, why not just put up what the vote was if you are going to mention it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.3.247 (talk) 22:57, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

If you think the "vote count" (i.e. 5-1 or whatever it was) then add it. IMO this is a relatively minor detail of this person's biography and is only relevant because it is recent. I strongly discourage the listing of the names of the SF Supervisors or any descriptive comments about the individual supervisors. Ursasapien (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article status

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

While the article is very well written, it still needs some minor cleanup throughout, especially regarding the MoS and the citations. For one thing, citations should always go outside of any punctuation (e.g., "Savage maintained a correspondence with Ginsberg across four years ^[11]." – the period should come before the <ref> tag). You should also close up any spaces between the citation and the punctuation. In addition, since everything covered in the lead should be covered later on, you don't need to put citations in those paragraphs (though do make sure to cite the same statements later). Not a big deal if you choose to leave them there, but it makes the lead look a bit "cleaner." You could stand to expand the lead, too. I'd probably suggest including something about the controversies in there (you probably don't have to be specific, but it's worth noting in the lead that they exist).

You don't need to wikilink things twice, so there's no need to provide multiple links to Savage's books, nor to nutritional ethnomedicine. Wikify all the dates (i.e., turn July 7 into 7 July) and June 9, 2007 into June 9 2007 – for consistency's sake if nothing else). Provide a wikilink to the Haditha stuff on the first reference (not in the sentence about Spielberg).

Note that it's the New York Times Best Seller List, not the Bestseller List.

Clean up the list of books by Weiner/Savage. For example, it's Herbs That Heal: Prescription for Herbal Healing, not Herbs that heal : prescription for herbal healing. The usual rules for capitalizing book titles should be followed. Since you provide ISBN's for the Weiner books, can you do the same for the Savage books?

A couple of your references seem to be offline now, especially this one, which you rely pretty heavily on in the article. This one, too, no longer comes up for me. Without being able to look at those sites, I can't really say that the article has reliable sources.

Everything below needs a reference:

In 1994, in what he called "the last straw," his final health and nutrition manuscript Immigrants and Epidemics was rejected by publishers for being too politically sensitive.

On 9 October 2006, Savage called former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright a “traitor” because the Clinton administration was in office when North Korea bought two nuclear reactors from a Western company in 2000.

However, he has more recently stated that the chemicals in marijuana make it too dangerous to be used as medicine. On his program, he condemns the recreational use of marijuana, occasionally devoting his show to "marijuana horror stories."

Savage has remarked that the book is "easier to digest" than his previous political books.

In addition, the citations themselves need to be cleaned up. Don't just use {{cite web |url= |title }}. Instead, use some of the other fields, especially |publisher (when that's apparent) and |accessdate). Turn things like <ref>Dave Gilson, [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/20/savage/index_np.html "America's laziest fascist"], [[Salon.com]], [[May 20]], [[2004]].</ref> and <ref>URL</ref> into something using a {{cite}} template.

Also, I don't think you need the note where you cite Savage as controversial. As noted above, you don't need to put citations in the lead, and it's pretty apparent from the rest of the article that he's controversial. Perhaps those links in the note to other websites calling him controversial could be used as citations later on.

Your 14th footnote has a red wikilink to Michael A. Weiner, which is unnecessary considering the article the user is reading is about Michael A. Weiner.

I think the article does a just-okay job of promoting both sets of views, as it leans a little heavily to the criticism side. For example, surely there's more than one honor (a term I'd use over credits, by the way) that Michael Savage has received. The only honor that's mentioned is discussed in the context of criticizing Savage's audience, so it all comes off as just a bit one-sided.

This image, this image, and this image all need fair-use rationales. I don't think it'll be hard to put them in there, but they still need to be on the image's page for their use in this article (and in other articles). As someone's already noted with the {{reqphoto}} template, it'd be great if you could find a free picture of Savage to include in the infobox (that's the only reason I'm not passing criterion 6b, but it won't stop this from being a GA in the end).

All in all, this is pretty darn good article on Michael Savage, and with a little cleanup it'll end up as a GA. I'm putting it on hold for now. If you have any questions, you can post them here. Cheers! Esrever 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the nominator, I have been working very hard to improve this article. I believe I have completed most of the task that you have requested. I certainly appreciate your assistance, as well. Can you give it the once over, again, and note any additional changes I need? Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You have indeed been very busy with the article. I'll try to give it another look this weekend to see if there's anything else lacking. Good work so far! Esrever 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a little cleanup work myself this weekend (nothing major, just cleaning up the odd {{cite}} tag or two, moving punctuation, etc. It was all just little stuff that doesn't really affect GA status. The only things I see that could still stand to be fixed are the lead (expand it a bit if possible) and a little further cleanup of references (at the very least, they should all have |accessdate info, especially the online resources). That's all pretty easy to do, I think. With that in place, this'll end up as a GA. Esrever 17:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What, specifically, needs to be put in the lead? Ursasapien (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say including at least some of the info on the controversies themselves would be a good idea. The general idea of the lead is that it summarizes the information available in the article. Since Savage is clearly controversial and since those controversies are covered in a substantial way in the article, I'd say the lead should include them. Without that information, the lead's a bit short.

In addition, one of the references is now broken (see the reflist at the bottom--it'll be obvious which one I'm talking about). I don't know whose fault that is, but it should be fixed when you get a chance.

Also, see the comments below about NPOV. Esrever 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt to expand the lead. Let me know what you think. Ursasapien (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. Obviously, there's still room for improvements (as there is in every article). Keep the NPOV stuff in mind, and work on finding a suitable free image of Savage himself. Congrats on the good work. Cheers! Esrever 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)