![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have twice added a note about needing a citation regarding his religion, and twice my change has been reverted. Rather than exacerbate this edit war, I'm talking about it here. My stance is that there is no source that I can find stating that Michael Savage practices Judaism, and that we either need to remove the claim about his religious beliefs, or find a source for it. Here is a copy of the dialog I've already had, from edit summaries:
Me: "I don't believe Savage is currently an observant Jew, and I can't find anything one way or the other from a cursory search of Google, so I think this needs a citation."
Zsero: "he's not observant but he's still a jew"
Me: "Requesting citation again on his religion, as, even though he is clearly an ethnic Jew as the person reverting me pointed out, I can find no evidence he is a religious Jew."
Zsero: "the distinction you draw is meaningless. his mother was a jew, so he is one. his religion is judaism, whether he practises it or not."
Zsero, if Michael Savage claimed that God does not exist, would you still say he was Jewish under the "Religious beliefs" label? His ethnicity is certainly Jewish, but a Jew ethnically can practice any religion, just like any person can. You aren't automatically a religious Christian because your mother is a religious Christian. You aren't a religious Jew simply because your mother is a religious Jew. Do you understand the difference between the Jewish ethnic group and Judaism, the religion? --Mister Magotchi (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
And by your approach, Madeline Albright is Jewish too? When are you planning to edit that article and change the infobox?Mattnad (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess there are a lot of people here who never listened to his show. Michael Savage does believe in God, and has never practiced any other religion but Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
FattyJoe is right. I've listened for several years, if only intermittently, and he regularly has a replacement host on major Jewish holidays. 38.115.185.13 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Nobody in Chicago
Michael Savage is Jewish, and he is never "very careful to never explicitly say what he practices or make a claim." He stated that he is Jewish many times on his program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is his religion or lack thereof such a big deal? got some anti-Semites on here, is that the problem? nobody cares...184.193.126.177 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Half of the article is criticisms and controversies - just a slam piece with no pretense to information. This is to be expected from wikipedia, which is controlled by 14 year old shitheads.76.105.74.127 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In the section titled Criticism, the phrase "Radical Muslims" in this sentence: "On April 17, 2006, he said of Radical Muslims" is a hyperlink to the Islamism page on wikipedia. Is this an accurate representation of the phrase? Perhaps it should link to "Islamic Extremism" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.40.147 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI He called Elena Kagan A " New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through." (Proven false BTW) Might want to add something on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.247 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a little confused by this statement as "proven false." Please enlighten me. When and how was it proven false that Elena Kagan was a Marxist lawyer through and through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"His hypocrisy was not lost on commentators" is about the most blatant violation of NPOV I've ever seen. It is absolutely unacceptable for WP's editorial voice to call Savage a hypocrite. The most that could be allowed, if this were a significant reaction by many notable commentators, [BLP violation removed], would be "Some commentators accused him of hypocrisy".
As to the substance of the matter, there is obviously no hypocrisy in demanding the right to speak ones mind on ones own show, and also the right to keep other views off that show. The right to free speech includes the right not to be forced to speak; that is why the St Patrick's Day parade in NYC has the right to exclude the gay Irish clubs from marching under their own banner. The caller Savage cut off was free to say whatever he liked on his own show, not on Savage's. Any commentator who doesn't understand that is not worth quoting. -- Zsero (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've brought your complaints to the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Michael_Savage_.28commentator.29_.26_Huffington_Post_article. Why don't you see what other editors think there. I'd ask that you stop your reverts until it get resolved in the proper forum.Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, but the next time someone violates BLP by attacking a living individual in an edit summary, I'm going to lock this page so no one can edit it. Knock it off. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Wikipedia. The answer to whether or not Michael Savage is a hypocrite by cutting off a caller can be resolved by asking one simple question. Did Michael Savage violate the caller's First Amendment Rights by cutting him off? The answer is clearly no. Michael Savage is an advocate of the First Amendment but Michael Savage's cutting a caller off, no matter whose show it is, is not even a First Amendment issue. Therefore, by calling Michael Savage a hypocrite based on these facts is illogical, and by doing so only strenghtens Michael Savage's argument that "liberalism is a mental disorder." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Savage claims to be a defender of freedom of speech. Yet, he sues the creators of web sites that dare to criticize him. He does so under the flimsiest of arguments. Read about is lawsuit against Michael Savage Sucks.com and Savage Stupidity.com. Of course there was his lawsuit against CAIR after it made a 4-minute compilation of his rhetoric. His propensity to go crying to the courts when someone dares to post criticism of him while he considers himself to be championing freedom of speech strikes me as his being a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiqwe1 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael Savage is a defender of freedom of speech. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with being a defender of freedom of speech and filing a cause of action against someone who has harmed you. Trying to make this link only proves Mr. Savage's statement that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." However, in this particular case it strikes me as a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The facts of this case in no way contradicts the fact that every American has the right to defend one's honor and good name. This in no way equates that that person is not a defender of free speech. Winning or losing in court is irrelevant. Like I said before, to make this conclusion only proves Mr. Savage's statement that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." See, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. The Hustler parody featured a picture of Falwell, and an "interview" (that never took place) in which "Falwell" describes his first sexual experience as occurring “with Mom” in an outhouse while both were "drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time" and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards. Finally, when asked if he had tried Campari since, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You don’t think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?" The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page, reading "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody." (Wikipedia, Hustler magazine, Inc. v. Falwell) In Hustler v. Falwell, the court found that Hustler Magazine was in it's right under the First Amendment to print the parody. Based on your theory Falwell would be a person that was against the Freedom of Speech because he brought a law suit against Hustler Magazine to defend his good name and lost.
Oh, and I guess Mr. Savages just beats up on the little guy like your statement says, and you give CAIR as an example of the little guy. Oh really! You are the person who shouldn't let the facts get in the way. So is this all the looney left has to attack Mr. Savage as being a defender of the Freedom of Speech that he is a staunch defender of his good name and reputation. Is that all there is?
You stated your personal opinion that when Mr. Michael Savages sues a web site to defend his honor and good name that he is a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech. You stated your personal opinion that it is Michael Savage who is the big guy beating up on the little guy. You stated your personal opinion that CAIR was one of those little guys that Mr. Michael Savage beats up on. (CAIR the little guy? Did I miss something?) You stated your personal opinion that because Mr. Savage was not successful in defending his good name against CAIR that this meant that Mr. Savage was a hypocrite. When it came to Mr. Savage vs MS Sucks.com you gave your personal opinion what Mr. Savage should or shouldn't have done. After all your PERSONAL OPINIONS, you have the audacity to tell me, "This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions." Your statement is a prime example why this country needs a great talk show leader like Michael Savage, a person who is a staunch believer in the Freedom of Speech and person who has the courage to fight those who try to tarnish is good name. Your statement, "This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions," is living proof that Michael Savage is correct when he says that, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." Like I said before, the only thing the looney left has to attack the Great talk show host Michael Savage in regards to the First Amendment is that he is a staunch defender of his good name. And he does not pick and choose his oponents. If this was the case, he wouldn't have defended his good name against CAIR. Is that all there is? Is That all there is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Before I write my comments, I must thank you Mattnad for the following email that I received today in my mailbox:
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Michael_Savage_(commentator) for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mattnad (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fattyjoe"
You officially complained aboout me even though all you did here was to continuously impose your personal opinions regarding Michael Savage. And when I tried to address the fact that your personal opinions were wrong, you told me that, "This talk page is not the place for your extended personal opinions." Then after I responded to that, you had the above email sent to me. And you have the Audacity to call Michael Savage a hypocrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjoe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
If you read all of the above and you are a reasonable and sensible person, you can come to a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Michael Savage is correct when he states, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." Mattnad has without merit attempted to silence me on this issue. Obviously Zsero, who was staunchly oposed Mr. Savage being a hypocrite, was silenced. If you look above, not long after Zsero was threatened, you no longer heard from him. Is it possible that such an outspoken person stopped posting on here. The ones calling Mr. Michael Savage a hypocrite regarding the Freedom of Speech went to lengths to silence those who oposed their opinions. Isn't it ironic. Talk about hypocrites. They critisize Michael Savage for defending HIS NAME for running to the courts, and then they run to the wiki police when you disagree with their twisted opinions. When Michael Savage went to the courts it involved his name. No matter how you twist it or bend it or turn it upside down, or do anything you want with it, the truth be said that all the court cases personally involved Mr. Michael Savage. Winning or losing in court is irrevelevant, he can do what he wants as an American when it involves his name. It becomes a personal issue. Mattnad claims this is wrong, which is his personal opinion. But then he runs to the wiki police to complain about me. Does this article personally talk about Mattnad whoever he/she is? NO! Such Irony. I'm sorry Mattnad, I'm not a shadow boxer. All I can say is that one thousand opinions from one nameless person does not equate to a single conclusion. Therefore, I rest my case and conclude my discussion on this baseless accusation that Mr. Savage is not a defender of free speech.
silly statement that betrays WP editors' typical slant, as the vast majority of Americans(70+%) oppose illegal immigration also....kind of like saying "he outspokenly opposes pedophilia"....who the hell cares and is it controversial or noteworthy? no...
184.193.126.177 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed some material about some comments he made cited to MMfA. Maybe if this is truely noteable and well covered by MS media, it can be added to his sub article about his show, if he has one. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Then why is he here attacking the Jews? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQkvaho-V0 --195.74.250.115 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The following section was removed from the article based on "criticism sections strongly discouraged". While that may be true, I have not thoroughly reviewed the content at all but it (or some of it) may actually form a valid starting point for a "critique/analysis" section which is a valid section for commentators. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In July 2005, conservative writer Bernard Goldberg ranked Savage number 61 in his book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Goldberg wrote that "Savage's brand of over-the-top bile...puts him right in there with the angriest haters on the Left."[1]
Most of the sections in this article read like Savages autobiography. Does it all need to be as big as it is? Can't we afford to have a little less then a short story for each section? It's very difficult to read the article Woods01 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect to state that the current government is of the Conservative Party (Tories). The nation is under a coalition government between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
What relevance to this article is the following statement? This doesn't seem to have any connection to Michael Savage, let alone that phrases like 'earlier this month' should not be used unless the author plans to update the date every month.
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as the offshoot CAIR Foundation, was included earlier this month on a massive list of 275,000 organizations that the IRS said were losing their tax-exempt status because they did not file required annual reports. Most of the groups on that list are presumed to be defunct, but CAIR is not—its website continues to solicit "tax-deductible" donations.[74]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.119.118 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Michael Savage. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Michael Savage (commentator) → Michael Savage – Primary topic. Page views: commentator 30,259, New Zealand politician 1,536, Canada politician 297.Marcus Qwertyus 04:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
A non-fugitive NATO citizen getting barred from setting foot in the UK is without a doubt one of Weiner's most notable accomplishments!
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." "Provide an accessible overview" "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. "
"Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." etc...
Added to lede section:
See also WP:BRD. Any major problems?
--68.127.84.95 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
He claims that he got where he is by hard work but he seems to think that isn't the case for the rest of the people in the media. He believes in groups like Bilderberg deciding who gets certain positions in public offices etc yet he doesn't seem to notice the excessive amount of Jewish radiohosts like himeself holding mainstream media positions. If you are looking for the truth Mr Savage aka Mr Weiner doesn't seem to be objective enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.29.57.215 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You want to know about me? Last time I did a Wiki search on my name, fewer than a dozen of my contributions showed up. If you see a problem there, (I don't,) I suggest talking to Wikipedia about upgrading their software. (But to Big Picture it, of the two of us, I'm not the one hiding my ID or world view.) I support Wiki's original world view & premises, and to that end I can be more helpful as a nonWikiClubber, —solving problems and abuses that you may never be exposed to while wearing your badge.
--68.127.84.95 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Pretty serious statement, "Savage donated $5,600 to the campaign of Democratic candidate Jerry Brown in the 2006 California Attorney General election.[51]" Link "51" points to - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/MNR.TMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.129.44 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Key potential problem is... that article identifies Weiner as primarily a "conservative" rather than as entertainer.
Weiner is a "radio personality" and as such, a somewhat talented entertainer, much like the tummlers of earlier era. His ethic and aesthetics with regard to entertainment may have significant ties with his 1940s-50s cultural background in The Bronx.
Weiner (like many of his ilk) might be most clearly seen in history as as a comedian. He is certainly not in any sense a political figure, nor by any standard, a legitimate intellectual commentator. Even Glen Beck, with some insight, once called himself [primarily a "clown."
--Banned contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That's one reason wikipedia is so uninteresting, your reliance on secondary sources. Let's not have any serious critical thinking, just parroting of other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.76.177 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
So yeah. I'm going to ask a really simple question here. And it needs an answer. Does the Savage (Weiner) family still gain finanically from Rockstar Energy Drink? --71.32.220.235 (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC) And the answer is -YES. Savage with his so called degree's in health and nutrition put the startup money for his son to poison America's youth with over loaded caffeine sugar water. Either causing arrhythmia or rotting teeth. And some have claimed that Savage has embellished his education. Probably did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What a fanciful story. As if Mike Savage never heard of Goodwill or hand me down furniture. And what kind of college educated dope cant do better then using cardboard? Beyond belief that cardboard could even be used as furniture. If he can invent that... S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Under Bibliography, why are there two sections named "Books as Michael Savage"?173.72.111.115 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Hans Wurst
Seems like it should be omitted, but kept in Early life? College Watch (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is there nothing mentioned of his controversial comments that keep getting him fired from jobs? This is a very incomplete article that appears to have been written by his mother.64.105.136.162 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
" ... while critics have characterized them as "fostering extremism or hatred." He opposes illegal immigration to the United States ..." Just who FAVORS illegal immigration? Liberals, lunatics, criminals, anarchists? And illegal immigrants, of course! 66.81.246.80 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to open a discussion here about this topic: This article about Michael Savage needs a picture of him. Are there any pictures out there that are obtainable? If so, please post them in this section and we'll start discussing the picture to use. Thanks. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Savage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
About this, as I noted in my revert, it is WP:UNDUE and not encyclopedic. User:Wikiryan27 that was your first edit here. Please do have a read of UNDUE; when I say "not encyclopedic" I mean that we generally don't have long quotes from somebody about some issue, anywhere in WP like that. We summarize. Please see WP:NOT which describes what is enyclopedic, and what is not. I look forward to hearing from you after you have read those things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Savage/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
09/20/2007: Nominated for GA status. |
Last edited at 01:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Savage. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
about this, added here, here, and here: On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease. [11]
References
((cite web))
: Check |url=
value (help)
((cite web|title=EXCLUSIVE – Michael Savage Reacts to Being Pulled From Radio Following Hillary Health Segment: ‘Pure Sabotage’|url=http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/26/exclusive-michael-savage-reacts-pulled-radio-pure-sabotage//|publisher=Breitbart|accessdate=28 September 2018))
was added again here with yet more bad sources:
On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease. [1][2][3][4]
References
((cite web|title=EXCLUSIVE – Michael Savage Reacts to Being Pulled From Radio Following Hillary Health Segment: ‘Pure Sabotage’|url=http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/26/exclusive-michael-savage-reacts-pulled-radio-pure-sabotage//|publisher=Breitbart|accessdate=28 September 2018))
In my view the content is not reliable for the source and is just adding conspiracy theorizing to WP. I will post the last version at RSN.
Please leave this out until the community determines if this OK. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Michael Savage. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/3/162352.shtmlWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Michael Savage. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the section of how his liberal enemies would describe him, as there is no analogous section for Jon Stewart and others, although many consider Jon Stewart very hateful in referring to Tea Partiers as "Tea Baggers" etc and swearing so much (saying "f*ck you" to Sarah Palin onstage). Jon Stewart is not described as "hateful" in his beginning intro section, or anywhere else in his article. It all contributes to the fact that wikipedia has a liberal bias. It is not a serious academic resource if it has such a liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Savage. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.hawes.com/2004/2004-01-18.pdf%20The%20Enemy%20Within((dead link))
tag to http://www.hawes.com/2005/2005-05-01.pdf%20Liberalism%20is%20a%20Mental%20Disorder((dead link))
tag to http://www.hawes.com/2006/2006-05-14.pdf%20The%20Political%20ZooWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Savage. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to be "that guy" but I feel compelled to do so as there are further criticisms of Weiner that are going unaddressed in the article. This potential ref: ((1), coming out of the Southern Poverty Law Center (official website) lists most of the more controversial statements, quips, and policy positions coming out of the mouth of the commentator that are already addressed on this page, but the page doesn't list the whole story. Particularly alarming are the references within the SPLC page in which Savage/Weiner is on record having expressed belief in the existence of a "white genocide", putting him ideologically in similar ground with white nationalists. This is not to say that he himself is a white nationalist, and the article certainly shouldn't allude to it if that's not what the reliable sources in question point to, but I myself don't think we can just sit there and deprive our readers of politically pertinent information about his viewpoints by excluding this important bit of verified quotes and interview records. The question I'm asking other contributors here is, how should it be incorporated into the criticism section, should there be consensus for doing so? There's nothing in the SPLC article that hasn't already been verified; including it is in no way shape or form against anything in the BLP policy. And SPLC, if that doesn't comprise a notable group with notable coverage on a notable political issue with a notable commentator (you get the idea), I don't know what does. Looking for feedback, thanks folks. ---- NOTE: I have edited this initial post to be more clear. Look at my contrib section if you want to read the original.---EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 20:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit of 02:50, 15 October 2018 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, under old Line 123, deletes most of the last para of the section "Criticism", leaving a dangling comma + a ref. The deleted text & refs do not appear elsewhere in the new edit, though the edit reason seems to be simply "recategorize". Perhaps the edit was unfinished. The para or the deleted part should be reconstituted (I don't feel competent). Login54321 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)