|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thom Hartmann article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Schooling
- 2 External link?
- 3 cleanup & cite
- 4 Educational background
- 5 Ayn Rand mention
- 6 Separate Article for Show?
- 7 Random...
- 8 Former psychotherapist?
- 9 Who's the number one progressive host?
- 10 Hartmann as a psychotherapist
- 11 We need a source for Hartmann's consulting and training...
- 12 Pacifica Radio and impact on listenership and number of stations
- 13 There should be an infobox on this entry
- 14 Clean-up and Controversy section
- 15 Education section
- 16 DJ in the late 1960s?
- 17 Recent content removal
I did when I dropped in this evening. CoastThinker 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- That remark is from October but it was not signed and dated ;) Dr Debug (Talk) 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Classic newbie mistake on my part. CoastThinker 04:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
cleanup & cite
- strained expression needs ironing out.
- needs citations for add/adhd stuff (at the very least).
will try to do some of this myself when i get a second Jackk 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the citations for the ADD. He has a whole section dedicated to it and added a bibliography. I don't know what you normally do with revised editions. Should we put down the original year or just use the year of the latest edition. Dr Debug 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a run through with an eye to grammar and readability; somebody feel free to beef up the references. CoastThinker 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I checked and added them the last time, but grammar and readability aren't my strong points. I reinserted ref 5, but it is referenced already ;) Dr Debug (Talk) 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- If Mr. Hartmann was born in 1951 then he would have been 13 years old when Goldwater ran for president in 1964 and attending MSU in 1967 at 16 years old would have been quite an accomplishment. Either the early life facts are incorrect or Mr. Hartmann was born earlier than 1922.214.171.124.29 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why is there no mention of Mr. Hartmann's educational background, degrees, institutions etc? Curiously, this information is also absent on all of his web pages and pages referring to him. For someone who speaks authoritatively on so many subjects and with as much influence as he, this is critial information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 07:47, March 6, 2006
To be fair, it would appear that Hartmann is the same as Rush -- little in the way of formal college education and some very iffy avoiding of the biggest war of their lifetimes. The difference is that a person could edit an article about Rush and make that point, but if anybody were foolish enough to do that about a liberal/progressive, they would quickly be accused of vandalizing. So it isn't possible to repair the article on Hartmann even though it is obviously flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I also find no web references to Hartmann's formal education. The above anonymous poster connects this 'critical' information to Hartmann's influence. Hartmann is a radio talk-show host, for which there is no formal education. The fact the above poster is seeking such information speaks to Hartmann's ability to grasp and make important contributions to diverse fields. In my introductory paragraph I describe him as a "lay scholar", which I think is a useful term for people who have, on their own, achieved competency in an area of study and are in a position to add to a body of knowledge surrounding it. Suppose that Hartmann has no academic credential. I suggest the above poster refer me to a single Wikipedia article that mentions lack of academic training as anything but a source of pride or as a source of derision. Making a point of it would seem to be a petty distraction. CoastThinker 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- It certainly is relevant and useful information to note, one way or the other. No doubt Hartmann makes the college dropout Rush Limbaugh look like a mental midget, even without the benefit of a whole year of college Limbaugh supposedly had, yet one gets the impression Hartmann is something more akin to a dilletante as opposed to the honorific title lay scholar, though ably fighting the good fight on Air America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Everything I can find indicates that Hartmann has no college degree or degrees. Also, it isn't clear how a college dropout avoided Vietnam, but perhaps his SDS efforts were so radically leftist that he wasn't deemed desirable by the military? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK: Education and draft status
Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. But he dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class. His mother was not entirely surprised. As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."
Limbaugh's birthdate was ranked as 175 in the Vietnam War draft lottery. No one was drafted above 125. However, he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to either a football knee injury or a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.
THERE YOU GO !! Let's have an "Education and Draft Status" section for Thom, too! What's good for the liberal goose is good for the conservative gander, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Katr67 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ayn Rand mention
Even though Thom debates members from the Ayn Rand Foundation (I used to book the guests on the show myself), he equally if not more often debates people from the Heritage Foundation and conservative columnists. That comment was pretty random. Zenpickle 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't Libertarians (which members of the Ayn Rand Foundation would be) considered to be fiscally conservative, even if they're socially liberal? Phil 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's a sticky area, and it depends on whose definition of liberal and conservative you use. In a way, Randies and Libertarians are classical liberals. I tend to stay away from the "fiscally liberal" and "socially conservative" framing of arguments because those are media created distortions of political science. If anything, I'd put them in the classical liberal camp but still generally call them conservative. The common theme of liberalism since even before John Locke has been the deconcentration of power, depending on what the institution of concentrated power was at the time. Conservatives have traditionally supported governments, but as governments have become more democratic (less concentrated in a minority of rulers) and corporations have gained more power, they have leaned against democratic governments and more towards corporations. The Randies and Libertarians have been against democratic governments placing regulations to check the power of corporations. For this reason, I would put them in the conservative camp. Zenpickle 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd call that a pretty good rough generalization, Zenpickle, but since I consider myself to be both a former objectivist and former libertarian, I feel I must state that "official Objectivists" (Students of Objectivism) would never call themselves conservative or libertarian, in fact, they try to have as little as possible to do with anyone who has ever called themselves a libertarian (because Ayn Rand thought all libertarians were anarchists, and evidently thought all anarchists were anarcho-communists), and probably would object to being called any kind of a liberal either (although in the movie The Passion of Ayn Rand, Rand is made to say that she wants to appeal to liberals over conservatives). Most libertarians, on the other hand (although largely influenced by Rand), would not object to being called social liberals or classical liberals. Shanoman (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'm sure I didn't tell you anything you didn't already know, Zenpickle; sorry if it seemed I was needlessly splitting hairs, but of course, that's what Randians are trained to do. In a nutshell, Phil, I'd say libertarians are like Republicans without the Christian notion of public morality, and that Objectivists are like libertarians in an extreme straight-jacket of Randian notions of rationality and reason. Both Libertairs and Randies view any and all taxation as "socialism", so in that sense, at least, they're like "uber-conservatives", only [usually] without religion (necessarily so in the case of the Randies). Also, you may be interested to note that in continental Europe, Australia, indeed about everywhere else in the world, nearly all "liberal" parties are considered right-wing (or at least very pro-corporate and pro-global capitalism; see neoliberalism); even Canada has "liberal-conservative" (or is it "conservative-liberal"?) parties; in international useage, the opposite of conservative is not liberal, but left (be it labour, social democrat, democratic socialist, or radical leftist). Shanoman (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Separate Article for Show?
With Thom replacing Al Franken's show, should we consider creating a separate article for his radio show. Franken, after all, had his own article, and this certainly increases the notability of Thom's show, and the separation would help make this article feel less cluttered. ShawshankRedemption 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say no. Franken had an extensive career that was public and notable prior to the AF show. Hartmann, not so much (not to belittle his career - but lots of people with business careers don't merit a WP article.) If the article feels cluttered, clean it up within the existing article. -Pete 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- But Hartmann was also an author, and has written many books. He is one of the only talk-show hosts to have a main article about himself, but not about his show. It feels weird discussing the format of his show, for instance, in an article about him as a person. ShawshankRedemption 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Let me clarify: In the present article, it seems to me that the items relating to Hartmann as a person are generally notable insofar as they reveal the background, qualifications, and personality as a talk show host. I would contend that he is far more famous as a talk show host than anything else; I suspect that most people who read his books are listeners of his show. Thus, maybe the entire article should be MOVED to "The Thom Hartmann Show," with a redirect from Thom Hartmann.
- It may be that there is merit to having two separate articles. If you think that's the way to go, I think that a good first step would be editing the current article to reflect the distinction more clearly, and make sure that both sides are fleshed out and pretty well stand on their own. (I think that would be worthwhile regardless of whether the article is ultimately split.) Once that is accomplished, splitting the page into two might make sense. But I think that at the moment, creating a separate page would only add to the rather disorganized state of the current article. -Pete 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just wanted to comment on this quote: "it seems to me that the items relating to Hartmann as a person are generally notable insofar as they reveal the background, qualifications, and personality as a talk show host", those who know them for his work with ADD and ADHD might disagree. I'll agree, the article should be organized first, but I'd argue Mr. Hartmann was more of a Jack of All Trades than Mr. Franken was, and recognized in many of the fields he worked in (especially relating to the Hunter/Farmer theory), albeit not as famous. 22.214.171.124 08:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough - all of that may be true. If so, I'd say all the more reason to first focus on making the content good and clearly delineating between the man and the show, and then consider splitting off a different article. -Pete 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"There is a new wave of fans who refer to Hartmann as Thom "The Hitmann" Hartmann, a tribute to former wrestling superstar Bret "The Hitman" Hart. They feel that Hartmann is a voice for the people, and that he "stands up to the bad guys and fights for law, order, and justice" similar to the way his near-namesake took on rasslin' bad guys in that ring."
Im a novice here so please forgive me. I have a question, is it appropriate to state that Thom Hartmann is a former psychotherapist? A licensed psychotherapist has a masters or Ph.D from an accredited program. I dont know if you want to apply the loose standards to a field that has recognition. It might imply that he can ethically provide treatment. I am a fan of him however, and I think that he has stated that he did not finish his undergraduate. I think that the "former psychotherapist" should be removed unless there is some evidence provided (a former job, education, etc). Hornung9 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Who's the number one progressive host?
I have added a specific estimate for Hartmann's audience size, and removed unsourced anonymous additions about him being the number one progressive talker and going back and forth with Rhodes for that honor. If you think Ed Schultz is progressive, he is clearly number one. Else it is a toss up between several hosts including Hartmann. See: http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 . I hope this doesn't rankle any noses. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hartmann as a psychotherapist
Actually, in Vermont there is a "Roster" of psychotherapists with pretty minimal requirements, and Hartmann's experience as both a licensed NLP Trainer and his 5 years as Executive Director of The New England Salem Children's Village qualified him for. He was on the roster for two years, and could legally practice psychotherapy in Vermont. Each state has a different definition of what is or is not a "psychotherapist" and California's is very stringent while Vermont's is very loose. Robsoray (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
We need a source for Hartmann's consulting and training...
The article had this info in it:
- In the late 1970s, he had been a trainer in advertising and marketing for The American Marketing Centers (now defunct), and in 1987 after returning from Germany founded the Atlanta advertising agency Chandler, MacDonald, Stout, Schneiderman & Poe, Inc., which did business as The Newsletter Factory. In that capacity he did consulting work and training for over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies as well as the NSA, CIA, and other government agencies;
I have removed the italicized statement (after fact tagging it and waiting for a source) until we can find where it came from. I think it's from his autobiography, The Prophet's Way, but I don't know. If it is, we can't, of course, just take Hartmann's word as fact for something so extraordinary. Depending on what source can be found, it can be reinserted as is, readded as Hartmann says in his autobiography..., or left out. Does anybody know where it came from? Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Pacifica Radio and impact on listenership and number of stations
- Hartmann's show also joined the Pacifica Radio network for syndication to non-profit and community broadcasting stations, and is now carried on Pacifica affiliates across the US, in Europe, and on the African continent, dramatically increasing his station count and listener base.
First let me thank the Robsorray for adding information. That Hartmann is on Pacifica is info the article wouldn't have otherwise.
I have fact tagged the above because I'm not seeing how the impact stated is happening. Just becuase Hartmann's carried on Pacifica doesn't mean that individual affiliates will carry him. It seems to me the main thrust of Pacifica is Democracy Now!, which is carried widely on Pacifica's many affiliates. The two I checked weren't carrying Hartmann. Also I didn't see there are any affiliates outside the US. I didn't find them at the website. If someone could point them out, and that they are carrying the program I'd appreciate it. Lastly, how much his listener base will increase depends on both how many Pacifica affiliates have picked up the show and how many people listen to the stations that do. How much that is relative to the 2,000,000 listeners Hartmann has is not established. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The claim has been added again with some unreferenced example stations. I've removed it again as it isn't properly referenced. First, example stations in the Pacifica network carrying him would not prove that Hartmann is syndicated by Pacifica because Pacifica affiliates carry progamming from other sources. Second, there needs to be definite specific reference pointing to the information, e.g. a URL. I looked up the first example, WPVM, to see if he's listed in their schedule and he's not. So we need clear proof here. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hartmann now, in addition to his for-profit show, offers a non-profit compliant version (noncommercial content during breaks) that is syndicated by Pacifica Radio Network (along with dozens of other shows to hundreds of stations) and his show is acquired by Pacifica affiliates via Pacifica's audioport delivery system at audioport.org. The five Pacifica-owned stations are each independently programmed - like the hundreds of Pacifica affiliates (over 30 of which carry Hartmann's show) - and none of those five have chosen to carry his show. Owned is different from affiliated. The Ghana and the UK stations previously listed both acquire the show daily from Audiport; the PD of the Ghana station was a guest on Hartmann's show when the clearance happened. Somebody from Pacifica was on his show last summer when Pacifica put him up on audioport for their affiliates. He regularly mentions Pacifica on the air. I hadn't checked any of his nonprofit stations' websites, but these volunteer-based stations are notoriously slow in updating their websites: if you're concerned about the veracity to the point of taking it off the site here, you may want to call the station. They do clear the show, via audioport and via a barix-based live stream, in the US, UK, and Ghana, via Pacifica. Here's the link for the UK affiliate - http://www.tynefm.com/index.asp?station=4 that gets the show via Pacifica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsoray (talk •
contribs) 05:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Diderot - thanks; I only get in here occasionally as I do a lot of international travel. It's much appreciated. Hartmann has said on the air in the past month that he is rolling out a new website in a month or so, which will explicitly state his relationship with Pacifica, list his Pacifica stations (he took a call from the Ashville one on Friday of this last week), etc., but that his current site is a kludge because of his affiliation with 3 different webmasters through the Air America days, all writing proprietary (and different) code that when he tries to fix crashes his site. I just added, by the way, that he's still the #1 progressive talker and #10 overall in the 2010 Talkers list - it just came out.
There should be an infobox on this entry
See the Rush Limbaugh page for an example of an infobox. View source to see the tag. Infoboxes make it possible for computer bots to grab the information from a wikipedia page and categorize it properly around the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Clean-up and Controversy section
I am a newbie to this and am not well versed with Mr. Hartmann or editing here at wikipedia, so please excuse any mistakes.
There are several broken links in this article, a couple of citations needed, and there isn't a controversy section. I use the term 'controversy' because it is a common section here at wikipedia. I know it is easy to ask for something when one isn't able to do so themselves.
- Many (most?) WP editors do not like "controversy" or "criticism" sections as they are notoriously hard to make NPOV as required by WP policies. Criticisms about individual events in a person's life, properly sourced, are fine in the body of a biography. Collect (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I deleted this section because it was unreferenced or only referenced with an unreliable source. Some of the information is verifiable (the homeopathic stuff), and can be found with a quick search on Google. I don't have time to finish it now and sort out what is true or not, but it shouldn't take long. There are references online. Sorry to blank it and not put anything back, but we can't keep up anything like that on a BLP. Thanks! Saeb(talkjorn) 03:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
DJ in the late 1960s?
"After being a DJ at Lansing, Michigan country music station WITL-FM in the late 1960s"
Recent content removal
An editor recently removed content stating that Hartmann is a vegetarian, saying that it was from a "self-published source" (his website). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillowmurder (talk • contribs)
An editor is routinely reversing my edit of this page without sufficient cause, his reasoning: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves"
That truncated version does little to establish a valid reason for the reversals, the full text of this rule is:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
1 The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. 2 It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). 3 It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. 4 There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. 5 The article is not based primarily on such sources.
This entry was in violation of exception number 1.
As pointed out in the edit history "This entry is self serving." I think unduly so, because it does not provide useful information about the subject.
To validate my reasoning, I think it is safe to say that we don't commonly point out that notable persons are omnivores either. It is not unique, and the only reason to include it is to suggest that it is somehow a notable characteristic. Removing this content removes bias, and is trivial.
- Hi, Pillowmurder. I've returned the sourced content to the article. I understand that you do not feel that certain information is useful to you, but please understand that you are not the only reader of Wikipedia articles. What is uninteresting to you may be interesting to other readers. Article content in an article about a notable subject does not itself need to be "notable" to appear in the Wikipedia article, it only needs to be informative, accurate and cited. For example, articles about people might give their birthplace - and while the fact that someone was born in Frogbutt, Oklahoma might not be "useful information" to you, it might be to another reader. The fact that a person "has two children" may not be of interest to you - it certainly isn't "unique" or a "notable characteristic", to use your words - yet such information is routinely included in biographies simply because it is, well, factual, encyclopedic, and informative, when presented in due proportion. Let me know if there is still any confusion about the issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)