Talk:Michael Savage (commentator)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Neutral Point of View?

Those maintaining this article should take into consideration the negative bias of the article. The article quickly starts to snowball into a Michael Savage bashing piece shortly after the introductory bio. Much of what follows the intro should be put in a section labeled Michael Savage detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.246.68 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific. I have worked really hard to balance this article out and cut down on the gratuitous negativity. Give me some particular examples of what you see as bashing. Ursasapien (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is hysterical with selective quotation. Nothing in it deals with why he has broad appeal; it is only written from the perspective of those who are offended by his work. In this term, it is a bad article. 70.107.104.75 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please look to find some material to balance this article. I think we are heading for GA status. Unfortunately, I think there are few writers that are commenting on his broad appeal (perhaps because they are jealous of it). Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The anon user does have a bit of a point, though I don't think the article is "hysterical" in its use of quotations. I'd say you could include a bit more material that's complimentary (though I don't think article is not neutral as-is). There's a quote from the first source that's useful here: "In contrast to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Schlesinger, Bay Area-based Savage mixes conservative diatribe and blunt observations with acerbic humor and a gift of gab. It has propelled him to the top of radio talk-show ratings as well as bestseller book lists." Clearly, he does have some broad appeal, despite (or because of?) the controversy. You could probably mention that. Esrever 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD cover

I don't think the use of the DVD cover image simply to show what Savage looks like qualifies as fair use. If it's being used for critical commentary on the DVD, then that's okay (which is why you can use it in an article on the DVD). Otherwise, I think it's out of bounds. It's probably easiest just to wait for a free image to surface somewhere. Esrever 03:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What about having it in the article in the section about his Freedom of Speech Award and the C-SPAN controversy? Ursasapien (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. My understanding of the fair use regulations is that things like book covers, DVD covers, album covers, etc., can only be used in the articles specifically about those books, DVDs, and albums. However, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I can't say if the use you're talking about is allowable. I suppose if you're talking about the DVD as part of the C-SPAN controversy, it might be okay? Esrever 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Views Section

Considering Michael Savage's very conservative viewpoint, I question the accuracy of the statement (in bold), "Michael Savage calls himself an "independent-minded individualist" and says that he "fits no stereotype." Savage criticizes "big government," accuses the media of "liberal bias," and champions environmentalism and animal rights".[10] With the link to the cited source broken, the words in bold should be removed (or a new (citable) source found to confirm the statement). Johnreyn19 09:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)JohnReyn19

BE BOLD! Remove the statement or, better yet, find a new source for it. Ursasapien (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I took care of it. Now it does not deal with the other places that reference is used. However, urls often go stale, so we are faced with a choice. Never use web sources, constantly update sources, or trust that the information was vetted when originally posted and leave them alone. Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You can also go to the internet archive, http://www.archive.org/index.php, and pull the stored version of just about any webpage (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/bios/Savage-bio.shtml). Mrdthree 11:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I forgot about that. I have now linked the footnote to the web archive of the original page. Ursasapien (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Scope: Better, but still a little POV

First, I would like to compliment the writers/editors for significantly improving this article. However, there is one important aspect of Michael Savage that is missing in this article I would like to see addressed as an effort to further improve this article, that is:

This article fails to objectively convey to the reader who Michael Savage is. Namely: There is too much focus on the controversial aspects of his commentary (i.e. homosexuality, immigration, strong language, ect.), and nothing about the more benign side of his commentary which is the majority of his show, such as: personal stories, philosophy, history, humor, food, health, anthropology, travel, pets, family, cars, novels, books, film, television, ect. Savage runs the gamut of the human experience during his three hour program. An outsider would not have learned this critical fact about Savage by reading this article.

I’ll admit the political aspect of his program and his controversial comments will be what he is most remembered for by outside observers. But to his avid listeners they will remember his stories from childhood cleaning bronze statues in his father’s antiques store, One Arm Frank, Dead Man’s Pants, The Nunn’s Suitcase, Using his espresso machine, on and on. If these stories along with the countless hours of borderline babbling commentary that is no-less interesting that I can not possibly recall comprise a significant portion of his program, shouldn’t they be mentioned, if not featured in this article?

The reality is we know very little about this man other then what is broadcast over the radio. I am arguing that it is his persona conveyed through nonpolitical commentary that has made him successful as a radio talk show host. Usually these stories are tied in someway to current news stories or political issues, but that tying in is never necessary to make Savage interesting or a provocative speaker. The point being he is more then a political commentator.

And finally… This article is still a little POV. The Point-of-View being Savage is someone to dislike, whether it be for his views on immigration or homosexuals, which this article fails to mention Savage often states he is a sexual libertarian. However, that does not mean one condones homosexual behavior. Finding that behavior repulsive is the natural response for a heterosexual, and vise-versa. Savage often boosts about the conservative homosexual listeners he encounters on the street of San Francisco, no mention of this?

The impression I got from this article is Savage is an outright bigot, fascists, homophobe, racist, ect. The danger is the implication is: his listeners must be these things as well, because if they listen to this man, then they must believe in what he says. This plays well into the hands of Savage’s detractors, because these labels enable critics to marginalize and isolate Savage, his show and his listeners. Based on my observation that the authors of this article missed the major nonpolitical aspects of his commentary, they must not have listened to him enough, therefore they must not be qualified to write such an article.

Many of the listed sources are from groups like Media Matter, or Salon.com, which are politically polar-opposite to savage and natural detractors, which are hardly non-POV, even if these places correctly site Savage. If these sources choice of quote selection were a part of a sample in a scientific experiment, an analogy for their sample would be as if the experimenter walked into a movie theater wanting to study the mean height the audience as a group could jump, and concluded they could not jump at all due to the fact they only sampled people in the disable section seated in wheel chairs.

I can fully dissect this article to prove my points ad nauseam, but that is not my aim here. I just hope to see this article illuminate the man more completely for the sake of accuracy and fairness. I happen to respect Wikipedia and I hope this article could show a little more respect to this man, if not for Savage, but for his 8 to 10 million listeners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.193.52 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say I know where you are coming from. I have difficulty with another article. I see POV but I am apparently in the extreme minority. However, it would be very helpful if you would, "fully dissect this article to prove [your] points." I have diligently worked on it for quite some time. I thought the article was fairly balanced at this point. Can you give me a specific area you object to or that you feel is imbalanced?
Most of the Media Matters cites are used because they quote his show directly. MM's commentary is not used, as far as I remember. Now you can still say there is bias because MM is selective in the quotes they choose to highlight, but I think direct quotes are important to convey a proper sense of this man. I have found no web source for transcripts of his show, so this is the next best thing.
Regardless of all that, please be bold, contribute to the article, just be prepared with reliable sources to back up your additions. Best of editing to you. Ursasapien (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inquisitive minds want to know...

Is he any relation to Dan Savage, the famous gay writer? I expect not, but it would be so great it that were true. :) Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's doubtful. As the article states, Michael Savage is a pseudonym. His birth name was Michael Weiner. Ursasapien (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I probably should have noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Terraxos (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would that be great if it were true?Lestrade (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Michael Savage's origin

Being a newly registered user, I'm not allowed to make changes to this article. Nevertheless, as Michael Savage admitted during his recent radio shows, his family origin needs to be changed from Russia to Belarus. His family immigrated from Minsk which is a capital of Belarus. Rmoroz (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says he is of Russian descent which would certainly include Belarus. The other issue with adding this information is documenting it with a proper citation. Do you know anywhere that they have transcripts of Michael's shows? Ursasapien (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasting Style Section

This section has no reference citations and smacks of original research. 70.58.66.127 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though I like the section, think it is relevant, and completely agree with it's analysis, I must also agree that it sounds like original research (with a touch of synthesis). I have tagged it for citations and will give editors some time. I do know that there has been information published about his broadcasting style, but I do not recall reading any of the information in the current article from another source. Ursasapien (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography Section

There is a book missing from the list, it is a self published paperback that has been available for years now, called "The Death of the White Male." It is obscure, but worth mentioning. I can't find much out about it... there is some stuff here [1] and here [2] 70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! Great find. Thank you. Ursasapien (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Former agnostic/atheist

Rambone has added this category a couple of times. Savage may well be a former atheist and may have said as much on his radio show. However, to be included into a Wikipedia article, we must have a source. Someone hearing him say it on the radio constitutes original research. If we had a transcript of his radio show or someone quoted him or if he wrote as much in one of his books, then we could source the information and keep it. Without a source, we can not. Ursasapien (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a undisputed fact that he was an atheist. It isn't hearsay or opinion. Rambone (Talk) 12:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Satire taken as fact

This section...

On December 12, in response to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win, Michael Savage claimed that "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation".[50]

is clearly satire, and needs to be represented as such. Instead of 'claimed' it should read something like 'satirically stated' or better yet, the entire sentence should be removed from the article. This is Wikipedia, not Media Matters for America.70.58.66.127 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe we can state in the article that this was hyperbolic satire, as that would be original research or synthesis. If we had a source, where Savage said "I clearly was speaking satirically," then we could certainly use your wording. I did, however, change the statement to "On December 12, in response to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win, Michael Savage said "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation"." I feel this allows the reader to make up their own mind and is not leading to any particular conclusion. Ursasapien (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If it is not leading to any particular conclusion, then would you object to my putting this quote in the article for the Nobel Comittee?70.58.66.127 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not edit that article and I am not sure where it might be relevant, but I personally would not object. Perhaps, under "Criticism" you could put the statement, "On December 12, in response to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win, Michael Savage (a talk-radio commentator) said "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation"." Ursasapien (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it is not controversy or criticism, it is satire. Putting it under "Controversies" casts an interpretation 70.58.66.127 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Satire: "Satire is strictly a literary genre, although it is found in the graphic and performing arts as well as the printed word. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement." As per Wikipedia. What vices, follies, abuses..etc is Michael attributing for "improvement?" Do these people have a higher disposition commiting, defending, or encouraging sexual acts on children than the General Public at large? No. This is not Satire, but purely insulting. Hence it's need to be stated as Controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.2.59 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So we are allowed to post quotes out of context? I can go to any person's wiki page (a comedian for instance) and post one of their sarcastic comments to sound like they were being serious, and put it under the title "Controversy"? I'd like to know the WP policy on this. 2nd Piston Honda (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we must be careful, either way we go. First, we are technically allowed to include any information that is published in reliable secondary sources. However, to maintain a neutral point of view we must keep the information we include in balance and present quotes in context, where we can. The problem is context is tricky, because it includes voice inflection plus non-verbal cues. WP policy standard is "information that is notable, verifiable should be included. However, it is only a "controversy" if a reliable secondary source documents the controversy. Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Savage has a daughter

Michael Savage also has a daughter, so her name should be listed under "children." 71.202.242.152 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! If you know the daughter's name, add it. Ursasapien (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding controversy section

I have a tendency to agree with Honda that the "controversy" section can easily become bloated. Savage says many things that Media Matters considers controversial and (consistent with their purpose) they write a new article about him at least twice a week. Perhaps we should use the rule of thumb that before we consider any additions to the Controversy section, we must have at least one other source besides Media Matters. Ursasapien (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Views on Christianity

We definitely need documentation of Savage's beliefs from reliable sources. These sources should not include CAIR, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or even Media Matters. Certainly, if one of these sources quotes Savage we can use this information as part of the evidence regarding his beliefs but we know that these groups have an adversarial approach and have reason to present a negative view of the subject of this article.

I reverted a huge section, not because it was all bad, but because I found it impossible to make it conform to NPOV. With unsupported text like, "his views are frequently quoted by prominent conservative Christians, whom he vigorously defends on his show" throughout the addition, it quickly became too difficult to try to fix it. Perhaps I will try to add a bit here and there. Ursasapien (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Okay, I'm puzzled-- I don't mind having my research questioned (I'm a media historian; I'm accustomed to having people ask questions of me!), but because I didn't just get this stuff from mediamatters.org-- you can listen to the clips from his show yourself. So how do I document his views better than what he himself said? And why leave in the totally unsubstantiated (and totally false) assertion that he says he won't convert to Christianity? Based on what I've heard, he is very much Christian-identified, although, as I noted, he has never formally converted as far as I can tell.
You are right to be puzzled. I had meant to remove that bit, but I had been waiting for someone to respond to the "citation needed" tag. Part of the difficulty with this article is that, as far as I know, there is no transcript service for the Savage Nation radio show. Therefore, the only way we can cite information is through his books or Media Matters (which serves as a selective transcriber of his show). From what I have heard, listening to him regularly, he is certainly friendly/sympthetic to the Christian (or Judeo-Christian) world view but he is most certainly Jewish. Even if he is not observant to all the tenets of Judaism, there is no evidence that he has converted to Christianity or even identivies himself with Christianity. He is Jewish until we can document otherwise. Ursasapien (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, (this is completely original research but) I interpret his comments about Jews in a completely different way. It is part of a long tradition of a member of a particular ethnic group poking fun or critiquing itsself. Whether it is a black commedian or my Hispanic office mate, this is done all the time. If anyone has ever been to New York City, Savage's schtick is not all that unique. Ursasapien (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't listened to Savage for about a year now, but I used to listen every day (as entertainment) during commute. I have heard Savage self-identify as a Unitarian (Universalist), several times. Of course, I can't put it in the article because, as mentioned above, there are no transcripts (that I can find). I have heard him say this during many of his ruminations. He believes that there are many roads to God and that anybody who claims they have monopoly on the Truth is deceiving their flock. He has said that anybody who lives a "good and moral" life will get "rewarded in the afterlife". Of course, most likely because of his background, his personal idea of what constitutes a "good and moral" life is shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs, but he has said that there are Buddhists and Hindus who will be in Heaven. He is an ethnic Jew who is a Unitarian, we need to work on finding a source for that.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur, William. His Universalist beliefs used to be in the article, but they were dumped when a source could not be found. However, I think we need to redouble our efforts to find a good source for this information. Additionally, someone somewhere must have a picture we can use for the article. With a little more copyediting, a photo, and a little bit of luck, we could make this article an FA. Ursasapien (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)