Talk:Mike Malloy

Defunct Air America?

From the current state of the article- "i.e. America Radio Network

Malloy first gained national popularity with a radio audience when his program was syndicated between October 2000 to February 2004 on the now defunct I.E. America Radio Network"

The Air America Radio Network is not defunct, nor is his show discontinued. I am removing the 'defunct's and rearranging this section to be in the present tense.

--Ghoti 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted. You might have been a bit confused. The ie America Radio Network is indeed defunct. It was owned by the United Auto Workers, and Employed Mike in the years prior to Air America. BenBurch 11:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Mike Malloy has a point of view, but this page nevertheless seems very POV to me and I suggest the language needs a good bit of improvement. Calicocat 20:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great job on improving the Malloy page. While I am a strong Mike Malloy fan, I do have to admit the previous version of the page could have used some improvment. Thanks! Caseybuck

Thanks Caseybuck! I like Mike Malloy, too, but also wanted to make sure the article was NPOV which I think this is. Calicocat 03:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that Rush Limbaugh's page can say he's a college dropout, but if someone makes an edit saying the same thing about Mike Malloy's page, it gets reverted?

What on earth? This is the most POV article on here. I just changed it for the better. Wild statements and phrases like "illegal invasion of Iraq" (I believe the war authorization passed by Congress would disagree) and "Laura Bush's conviction for vehicular manslaughter" (NOT TRUE AT ALL, snopes.com discredited this claim-- no charges were filed.) Man, you'd think Malloy himself wrote this. I changed some but even still, I think this needs improvement.

Excessive quotes

The usual limit for quotes here is five, with excess going to our sister-project, Wikiquotes. In this instance, the number of nicknames and catchphrases is excessive. Why don't we cut each down to a few examples? -Will Beback 20:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to trim down the list to five each. -Will Beback 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion late, but I think the excessive quotes serve a good purpose here because they are quite characteristic of the show, and convey its flavor. I'd prefer bringing them back. Debivort 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a verifiable source for them? -Will Beback 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard all of them personally on the show, though that may not count. The broadcasts are archived at [1]. Debivort 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we limit them to five? We do that for Mark Levin, for example. -Will Beback 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This article and the corresponding one about Malloy's "show" are some of the finest examples of whitewashing I have ever seen on this so-called encyclopedia, and man that is really saying something. Every single quote has been excised; evidently Malloy's few (and that is being generous) fans don't want any quotes concerning his obnoxious views, including his Trutherism and his frequent wishes that conservatives would die, to be seen. Exhibit #73849593497458129567034824 in the case of "Wikipedia has no credibility, at all, on issues that are even remotely political". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate The Mike Malloy Show?

I'd like to move the stuff about the show over to its own page.

Or maybe merge the two articles? Piercetp 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

his show is cancelled in NYC

can somebody check?--71.247.176.250 19:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned it a couple of times, so I'm pretty sure that it's canceled. Its probably irrelavent to the article though, he goes on and off certain affiliates on a fairly regular basis. Pumpkin Pi 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How is a little-known, not very popular radio host losing his platform in the biggest radio market in the country "irrelevant?"

Even if he had millions of listeners in other affiliates throughout the country-which he doesn't-it would still be relevant, insofar as the New York media market is paramount.

The fact that he was dumped-in favor of the Satellite Sisters-is very relevant to any discussion of his (flagging) career, which was already anemic.

If you don't believe me, then I suggest you check out some left-wing blogs and fora-such as the Randi Rhodes Message Board-where this issue provoked intense discussion at the time.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

M'kay, you make good points. I made the previous comment only because Mike can be heard on XM, the internet and dozens of other Air America stations across the country. I thought that the closure of one source would do comparitively little to a listening audience of 500,000 strong. Pumpkin Pi 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

I have asked Mike to provide an image with known copyright status for inclusion. BenBurch 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving Catch Phrases & nicknames

Should we move these sections to The Mike Malloy Show where they may be more appropriate? This would effectively remove most of the content that violates what can be in a Wikipedian biography. What say you? Pumpkin Pi 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Talk show hosts get two articles: a personal one, and one for their show. I am assuming that the catch phrases and nicknames are leftovers from the days prior to the existence of The Mike Malloy Show article. --Asbl 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it after we figure out the implications of the apparent removal of Mike from AAR (see below). Thanks. Pumpkin Pi 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Malloy fired from Air America

According to this post by Malloy's wife/producer and his own website, he is no longer with AAR as of 8/30/06. --Fightingirish 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a surprise... it seems like the network showed him the backdoor overnight. I'm streaming Randi Rhodes right now that he's supposed to be filling in on, and its Thom Hartman instead of him. Let's see if an official Press Release is given out from AAR before we edit the article. While the evidence is strong, it would be nice to double check from another source first. Pumpkin Pi 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never Mind, Mike's homepage confirms the termination. [2] Bring on the editing... Pumpkin Pi 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the AAR infobox and category. I also changed one instance of "is" to "was" in the intro. Someone before me got most of them, but missed that one. Crockspot 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work, we'll stay tuned to see what happens next. If there is no formal Press Release, Peter Werbe may have something to say about the matter this evening. Pumpkin Pi 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

SON OF A *****!!!! I was about to pay for Air America's premium service. Sure as hell won't now!Spazzz 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC) ((EDIT: Forgot to log in))

Head On Radio Network

I added a section on the rebrodcasting of best of episodes dating back to 2003 on HORN. Some have said that once HORN gets its finances straight that they may hire Malloy for a live show. Does anyone have any concrete information on this? Ben? Pumpkin Pi 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some research on it and right now it appears to be nothing more than speculation. Mike did state in a radio interview on Harrison on the Edge a talk program in LA that he was compleately blindsided by this and he was amazed at the response he had recived thus far over this issue. He said he and Kathy were "still pretty much in shock over it all" and that "As Arnie said, I'll be back." Spazzz 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ((I really need to remember to log in before I start posting stuff.))

No worries about the log-in, I do the same thing. Anyways, you're absolutely right, as of now everything is purely speculative about Malloy's future. On his message board [3], word is that he will be doing an interview similar to the one with Harrison later this week to update us on the latest information. Untill then, cheers. Pumpkin Pi 02:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nova M Radio

I'm making a section on this based on the information here: [4]

Feel free to edit Pumpkin Pi 03:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important that this "ENCYCLOPEDIA' not be without its corrections and clarity. Mr. Malloy sent me a threatening e-mail with nasty and severe profanity because I simply disagreed with him. No more. No less. I forwarded this e-mail on to management at WLS on a Friday Morning and he was terminated that afternoon. So my editing on Mike Malloy's profile is not without merit nor witness.

The information that he was terminated because WLS had purged left-leaning talk show host is Mr. Malloy's is an attempt by Mr. Malloy to cover up the real reason why he was terminated. Although my information could be construed to be inflammatory, however, it is to be understood that this website is not be used for strictly propaganda and self promotional purposes but it is to be used for the purpose of educating the public. For Mr. Malloy to write this also is to be noted that there are no witness' that he was terminated because of his leftist opinions. I think it would be important for the reader to decide who is right.

My information that I write will stand.

I am not sure why this is relevant to wikipedia. Your claim that you somehow got him fired is, at the very least, unverifiable. Also, he is still syndicated by Nova-M and talk radio doesn't have a record of firing people because they are too inflamatory politically. The main thing is, your post has nothing to do with what is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.140.103 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WLS

I found this section to be quite POV, in the pro-Malloy direction. Someone saw the need to add anti-Malloy POV for "balance". POV from either side should not be in the article, so I rewrote the section to be completely neutral, leaving no need for "balance". - Crockspot 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it was POV so much as uncited - after all, whether he had the top ratings in 1996 is verifiable - though a google search was superficially unhelpful for me. Whoever wrote it initially - please provide your source. Debivort 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it isn't sourced, it is assumed to be POV and OR added by the contributor. If there are reliable secondary sources that talk about why he left the station, etc, then it can go back in, but lacking any reliable sourcing, it should stay neutral, factual, and uncontestable, ie., he worked there from X to Y. - Crockspot 16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure what "added by the contributor" means - we're all contributors right? But I agree, unsourced = out. Debivort 17:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• By that I mean, whoever contributed the text originally. The problem with a lot of these types of articles is that they are usually put together by fans, who tend to paint a somewhat rosy picture of the subject, and who tend to know more about the subject than is published in reliable sources. Then someone who hates the subject comes along and feels the need to add countering information to add balance. WP:NPOV calls for neutrality, neither a rosy nor a crappy picture, just the uncontested verifiable facts. I actually would still like to see some sort of citation verifying his employment at WLS, but unless people are contesting that he ever actually worked there for those dates, it's not a hot issue. - Crockspot 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just released from BLOCK status because I keep editing Mr. Malloy's employment at WLS. First of all. Yes, he was employed there. He had a 10:00 to 12:00 time slot. Second, he was terminated because his lack of civility with his audinace on and off the air. One of the reasons I was blocked was that I was adding some information that wasn't verified. My question is, by who? What I was writting wasn't heard from a third party. It was I who had this entaglment with him. Mr. Malloy or someone wrote in this profile that he was terminated because the station was letting go all left-leaning talk show host(s). I don't know if that is true but THAT WASN'T VERIFIED. Someone recent edited Mr. malloy's stint at WLS radio that he was simply employed there. I can accept this edit. Capsource1

• Capsource, your edits were being reverted because at wikipedia, no original research is allowed. As Crockspot said quite well, articles on controversial people are mostly written by fans (in this case mostly liberals), but also attract those with against more progressive ideologies. Unfortunately Capsource, regardless of whether your claim is correct or not, it would not be appropriate in a wikipedia article even if you were a fan talking about your experiences having a picnic with Mike and Cathy. See the first pillar of wikipedia for more information (Wikipedia:Five pillars) I hope that this explains why we had to revert your work so many times. Its nothing against you, its just that we must respect the rules of this website. Pumpkin Pi 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I understand but let me ask you a question. In the body of his stint at WLS it said that he was terminated because WLS was purging liberal-leaning talk show host. Isn't this a biased statement? Isn't this information unverified? Doesn't that tend to make him looke like a 'victim'?

That's why I challenged the statement. I tend to agree that my writings on the matter were inappropiate but I made an attempt to point out that what was written was also inappropiate. At this time I see that it was removed and that's what I was attempting to accomplish.

• First of all before I comment on this let me just throw out a little self disclosure here and say I am an avid Malloy fan. However as a Wikipedia editor I try my best not to allow my personal feelings on any given matter to POV my edits I also am relitively new so if my argument is flawed please feel free to point out how. It is a verifiable fact that all of WLS's left leaning radio hosts were replaced by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Therefore I feel the statement that Malloy was fired as part of a left wing purge is a valid statement. I also feel however that there should also be documentable proof of Mike Malloy or another news source stating as such. Then the statement should stand. However a middle ground approach could be to simply state that his program was replaced by, whatever. I belive this to be the core issue. Neither viewpoint has been sourced to my knowlage.

• You say "It is a verifiable fact that all of WLS's left leaning radio hosts were replaced by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity." You made that up. You invented your own POV as a "verifiable fact." It's spun from whole cloth. It's fiction. It's false. It's crap. You show yourself to be a self-righteous counterfeit, sham, fraud, and phony. "verifiable fact"??? Go ahead, verify it. Try. Malloy in 2000 [5] but Jay Marvin in 2004 [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310439/posts] Oh, excuse me, it just took YEARS for WLS to finish its purge. "let me just throw out a little self disclosure here and say I am an avid Malloy fan." Now THAT is the TRUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.49.229 (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nova M Radio Affiliates

What is the best way to catalogue this? To my knowledge the former AAR affiliates in at least Seattle, San Diego and Florida have released statements similar to this one: [6]. I'm sure I'm missing some, and Malloy has stated that he has set up a dialogue with about a dozen stations around the country. Thus, how should we document this? Should we list the affiliates as they start to carry the show, or just edit the current broad statement, "It remains to be seen whether Malloy's former affiliates will carry the program"? Pumpkin Pi 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Documenting Nicknames

Is an audio clip sufficient sourcing? BenBurch 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a policy to determine how many nicknames would be too many, too few or just right? Do you seriously believe anybody's making them up? And should anyone be compelled to search through hours of archives at whiterosesociety.org? It does no harm. Leave it be, in fact this section should be reverted. 70.18.126.18 03:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush Crime Family

I believe that primarily the "Bush Crime Family" statement is about the Bush family and at best secondarily about the associates. Starting with GWB, he had three insider trading issues while his father was president. There was wheeling and dealings that he and his business partners did to get land around Arlington stadium on the cheap, originally purchased through citizen sales taxes. He had a DWI arrest where the paperwork has been lost. He was involved in "pranks” during his college days that were criminal (theft). etc…

His grandfather did illegal business with the Nazi's during World War 2. At least three of his children or nieces or nephews have had drug and drinking related arrests. His brother Neil was part of the savings and loan debacle. His wife was involved in a car "accident" that killed her ex-boyfriend. etc… A truer description of a family has never been quoted.

Nov. 25: Sam Bush and Prescott Bush, W's great-uncle and grandfather, respectively, were tried for treason in 1942 under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" by the U.S. Justice Dept. As a result they were forced to liquidate Union Banking, their Nazi-money laundering company. The proceeds of this liquidation, 1.5 million each, were used to start up the Bush family oil concerns in Texas. Thus, George W. has Nazi change jingling in his pocket while he has never spoken about this and has in fact spoken at Holocaust events. Please google to see my article on the Bush-Nazi connection that appeared in April 2001 in the Jewish Advocate and which was subsequently referenced by Michael Moore in his book "Stupid White Men." This is not meant to defend Mike Malloy in any way, but rather adds to previous commentary on the Bush family. Susie Davidson

New passage

The new text by 65.96.122.136 is contains many weasel and POV words, and lacks citations. It also strikes me as par for the course for political talk radio. I am inclined to remove it. Anyone have thoughts? Debivort 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead with this reversion per the summary here and at User talk:65.96.122.136. Debivort 17:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to neutralize my text in certain places, but in looking over both Malloy's Wikipedia entry and this talk log, I see that there is as much POV cheerleading for Malloy, and also that you have consistenly defended Malloy so that you yourself might appear to be unobjective. I am an Air America listener and thus not unobjective, but would not put that within my comments. Also the mid-article inclusion was a first-time error which I deleted as soon as I saw it. Susie

• Hi Susie, welcome, and thanks for registering, as well as joining the discussion of your edits. I'm afraid there are still a number of concerns with your passage. However, maybe I should address your above comments first. 1) If you see other aspects of the Mike Malloy article that are POV, you should remove them or tone them down, rather than add new POV content. 2) POV on the talk page is unfortunate, but not regulated by policy. It is also fairly inevitable, as the talk page is where all the details should be flushed out. 3) As for my personally having "consistenly defended Malloy" - it's possible I'm POV, but I try not to be - the most that can be expected of anyone. In several cases, I have relinquished my own editing stubborness, when persuaded that the text I was defending (but didn't personally write) was not consistent with the POV policies (see above discussion with Capsource1 and Crockspot).

Now for the meat of it. You need to "neutralize" your text in all places. Examples of the current version that are clearly POV include: "As far as airing any defense" = weasel words, "below-the-belt tactics", "at least one"=weasel words, "tried to defend", "stretched out his own anti-Israel commentary," etc. etc. etc. Because these weasel words and POV phrases are so prevalent, I express my continued doubt that the paragraph can remain in anything near its current form. Moreover...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of anecdotes. Assuming it happened (it remains unsourced), this particular incident is not particularly important or noteworthy. This sort of exchange happens almost everytime a conservative calls a liberal show, or a liberal calls a conservative show. Would you see a paragraph like this in an Encyclopædia Britannica article? I doubt it. Please consider a heavy revision of your edit. Debivort 17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and although I don't entirely agree with your comments, I'll revise my paragraph again. I do not see my stated instance of Malloy's conduct as anecdotal but rather a concrete example of his style, to fit within the "style" section and to precede another paragraph of commentary on Malloy's style and how it has been taken. I did not say "he is known to do this" but rather the more objective "on at least one occasion" so as to allow the reader to decide whether this was one occasion, or typical of Malloy. I do not see how if this sort of thing occurs on say Rush Limbaugh, it should also not be stated in an encyclopedic entry (which should include both definitions and examples). I'll work on the weasel words. And I apologize for leaving out the t in consistent and thank you for repeating my error so as to draw my attention to it. As a final note, I have also added content to the talk section on the Bush crime family and the Nazi dealings of Sam and Prescott Bush, but this was not to defend Malloy but rather to state history as it occurred. Susie

• The reason I believe this section is not encyclopedic has to do with its length and relative prominence compared to other briefer descriptions of malloy's style. The article already indicates that his commentaries are mocking, relentless and vitriolic. Adding a long story consistent with those descriptions seems to add very little. Also, by your own reasoning a supporter of Malloy could come along and add a long paragraph about a nice conversation he or she heard Malloy have. This too would be redundant and add little. I would refer you to the articles on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Randi Rhodes (all controversial political radio hosts with more prominence than malloy- and presumably more need for detailed encyclopedic descriptions). None of these pages has a single anecdote like the one you have included. I would encourage you to find a way to merge the text into the existing sections. Debivort 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• The point of the paragraph is all in the first sentence. The rest is superfluous, and not encyclopedic. I moved the first sentence to the end of the Background section, and removed the rest. A statement like that should still cite a source, but since the entire article lacks sourcing, and it probably isn't a disputed statement (I could be wrong), I'm letting it slide for now. But this article is in serious need of some sources. Crockspot 01:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

templates

So, what do you all think of the citation and clean up templates at the top of the page. I wonder if they are there to discredit the article, with an air of legitimacy. Do you all think they are needed? Is the article really that bad? Is it really missing sources?

On a personal note, I have this image of users running around adding these tags to pages, without doing the work needed to fix the articles to their standards, and maybe just doing it to boost their edit count, and I think to myself, what if they had just spent that time trying to fix the article, rather than passing that work off to other editors while leaving a distracting banner across the article top. Maybe I have gotten to cynical. Thoughts?? Debivort 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"Due to intellectual capacity and emotional issues, he did not obtain a degree"

That is spectacularly NPOV. The entire first part of that sentence should be removed. 69.232.47.222 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That was part of a bunch of POV vandalism. I couldn't revert it earlier as I was up against the 3revert rule. Fixed now though. de Bivort 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike's political views

Why was my note about Mike's views on Democratic Socialism deleted?

Controversy over 9/11 conspiracy

Debivort, please explain why you removed the 9/11 conspiracy quote from the article. I put it back in for now. Thank you. Kgromann (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Malloy says tons of inflammatory things on a nightly basis. This particular one is not special. Giving it a whole quote is undue weight and a violation of wp:npov. The sentiments conveyed by the section you added are already conveyed in the style section. I would suggest keeping the narrative general, citing up the style section, and not giving undue focus to any single quote. de Bivort 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll put the quote in the style section then. I'll put it in as an example of his views on conservatives since the first paragraph in the style section is mostly dedicated to describing those views. Thank you. Kgromann (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still undue weight, you need to provide a source for why this quote in particular, is notable. de Bivort 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, De Bivort. You don't think it's a good thing to show, with a quote from Malloy himself, his views on the people the article claims he has negative views towards? How is that POV? I'm really confused. There are many other quotes in this article and none of the sources explain why those quotes are, in particular, notable. So why is it different for this quote? Are those ones undue weight as well? At least this one is sourced unlike many of the other quotes in the article. Let's try to reach some sort of compromise on this one. I won't put the quote back in for a few days, but if I don't hear from you I'm going to put it back in because I feel it doesn't violate any WIKI policy and it helps describe his feelings towards conservatives (it adds to the article). It also helps make this article seem like less of a fan site which is a tag on this article. Kgromann (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the section on undue weight? You should probably also read the section on sourcing. The pertinent point is that wikipedia needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. What you've given is a primary source. As for the overall sourcing - yes, this article is flimsy with respect to sources. Both the positive and negative points about malloy should be expanded and cited properly. But, I don't care to do that personally, so instead I've been making sure that any additions to the article match policy. de Bivort 04:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Give us all a break. The notion that Malloy's quotes on the mass-murder of Americans on 9/11 are not worthy of comment is absolutely asinine. You are not fooling anyone, so please, quit acting as if you didn't remove them because they make Malloy look bad. Using your undue weight criterion, no quotes from Malloy concerning his political views should be included, because they evidently don't stand out enough. It is obvious such a position is total garbage and is taken in this case for the express purpose of whitewashing Malloy's obnoxious views. Claiming that an assertion from Malloy that the president of the United States is complicitious in the terror attacks on 9/11 is not noteworthy is garbage, plain and simple. Almost as much garbage as the assertion that secondary sources are superior to primary ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources , reliable citations

The article was an uncited BLP nightmare, I have trimmed it back, if anyone is interested in the topic, please only add content that is cited to wikipedia reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

controversy section / seal team six

Malloy is a liberal shock jock - this is his bread and butter. To call out this particular quote about seal team six going after seal team six, with a controversy section, is discouraged by WP:NOCRIT (which indicates that criticism sections should be integrated into the rest of the article) and WP:BLP (which says we should be really careful about libel, though that seems not to be too much of a concern in this particular case), and WP:UNDUE (he says things like this all the time). What would make sense is an reliable source that talks about his general pattern of inflammatory speech. de Bivort 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that Malloy's brand is to be controversial, I think that he has said several things that have received additional attention and thus warrant mention. The call for the SEAL team to assassinate George Bush is one; he and his wife's mocking of Bobby Jindal is another. Trilemma (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about working up a section on his "style" which avoids calling out particular incidents (I mean really, none of the commentary on these episodes has gone beyond "my goodness, look what he said now!" as far as I have seen, and also WP:UNDUE) but summarizes at a high level the aggressive nature of his show? de Bivort 00:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling for the assassination of a president is not a "bread and butter" type remark. It is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in Mediaite, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Fox News, and CNN (think of how many other stories about Malloy has had that high of a profile coverage). To compare, the Rush Limbaugh BLP has six subsections about controversial remarks. It may not deserve its own section, but it definitely deserves mention as a subsection. If there are other remarks of his that received reliable source coverage, they can be added as well. Drrll (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you don't listen to Malloy if you think that comment was particularly unusual. What was unusual is that it made it onto the drudge report and garnered all this attention. What's going on at other articles is immaterial - the policies listed above are clear in how they apply to this particular case. Why don't you follow my above suggestion and work up a paragraph on his style generally, thereby avoiding the problem of WP:UNDUE which is happening now. You can use the very references you mention, which I'll note aren't part of the current edit. de Bivort 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I reworked the text somewhat. However if only one minor source criticized the comment then it might not be notable enough to mention in this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job Will - it relates the same content, but much more neutrally. I am comfortable with it now, especially if Drr11 can provide one of those reliable sources. On a side note, how do we decide if this should live here or at The Mike Malloy Show? de Bivort 20:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems logical to have it in the show article since the comment was made on the show.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this as it violates a number of WP:BLP provisions. For starters, it's not notable (or at least notability has not been established). Did it receive "significant in multiple reliable sources?" No. I haven't even seen a single reliable source that mentions it. And since there is no reliable secondary sourcing, we can't even WP:VERIFY that the quotes are true, in context, etc. (It wouldn't exactly be shocking for a partisan blog to doctor quotes, which is why we don't rely on them). Further, even if a WP:RS can be found which mentions this, it seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Partisan sources attack each other all the time, we don't rush to add it their biographies on a daily basis. It would be undue weight to include some critical editorial that ran for half a news-cycle in the biography of a living person, absent any circumstances which actually affect their life. Reading through the comments above, I see a an explanation for why certain editors personally find this interesting and important, but I see no justification under Wikipedia policy for why this belongs in a WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, you now have a pattern of assuming bad faith in other editors and unilaterally pushing your edits. I suggest you change your style or you may be banned from editing articles. Trilemma (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure Loonymonkey was just being bold, rather than assuming bad faith. Moreover, I find his points compelling. A single blog post, is not a RS in a BLP context. Drrll has said, without substantiation that there are RSs on this, in places like the washingtonpost, etc. If this is the case, it might very well find a home in this article, or the one on his show. Until then I'm going to remove/revert it. de Bivort 17:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think AGF means, but I haven't suggested anything of the sort in my comments. As for this "pattern," I would direct you to WP:AOBF. Back to the point at hand, BLP violations get removed immediately, that's policy, and it's up to you, as the editor seeking to restore the material, to justify the inclusion. Simply re-adding the material (while attacking other editors and ignoring the concerns raised on talk) is disruptive. Why don't you start by providing some reliable sources for this, and then we can discuss the notability issue. But without an RS, there's nothing to discuss. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that the subject is a radio personality whose job is to make inflammatory remarks.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Compare Malloy's page to Rush Limbaugh's, which details several controversial remarks he has made. Then to G Gordon Liddy's. There is a pretty clear pattern of documenting particularly controversial things that a radio personality has said. Malloy's call for the execution of an ex president, and his racist mockery of a sitting governor, certainly qualify. Trilemma (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never edited those articles, but I imagine that anything that gets added would have to be both reliably sourced and notable. I don't think an editor would get very far trying to insert criticism of Limbaugh because they personally considered it important, even though it only appeared on some blog. The issue isn't whether reliably-sourced, notable controversies should be included in a biography, it's the fact that this material does not qualify. As stated previously, we can discuss the notability issue if reliable sources exist, but in the absence of any reliable sources, there isn't really anything to discuss. It would be a violation of policy to include it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources were already referenced by I will list some here.[7][8][9][10]Trilemma (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been previously mentioned, opinion pieces and blog posts are not reliable source for BLPs. And "realclearpolitics" isn't a reliable source for anything. A small quantity of opinion pieces that appeared in the same half news-cycle doesn't substitute for reliable sources. This is just another case of a day's worth of blog chatter not really warranting inclusion in a biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several non-opinion sources that mention this: The LA Times, The Washington Times, Fox News, and CNN. This is in addition to the noteworthy opinion piece in The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the material to the radio show article, since that's what it concerns.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of any other item about Malloy that has garnered this much news coverage and coverage in opinion pieces? There really should be only one standard for BLPs of radio talk show hosts. If we're going to take this material out of the Malloy BLP, then we need to take the controversial statements out of the Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy BLPs. Any objection? Drrll (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to what? To including this opinion in the biography? Yes, there are lots of objections, stated above. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Objection to actually following the same standard by removing the controversial statements out of the Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy BLPs (or conversely, to adding the Malloy material back if we are to keep the controversial statements in the other BLPs.) Drrll (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said earlier, I don't follow those articles and I don't really know (or care) which statements you're talking about. You should probably take it up on those talk pages if there are problems with sourcing, notability, etc. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you guys still arguing? There seems to be plenty of reliable sources talking about this comment, and the section now resides at the article about his radio show. de Bivort 23:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this item has received more reliable source coverage than anything else about Malloy, it deserves placement in this article instead. Drrll (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this should be included. Additionally, this shows the astonishingly blatent double-standard within the main stream media. Liberal "bomb" throwers are routinely ignored by the media by and large for their incindary statements, and accordingly those statements are rarely included within their biographys here. On the other hand conservatives are routinely attacked for controversy even when they don't say anything. For example, Sarah Palin was accused of causing the shooting of Gabby Giffords and increasing the level of incindary discourse. Since then there has been increased sensitivity to talk which could lead to violent attacks of our public servants....unless the person making the incindary statement happens to be liberal. Prima face examples of left media bias have never been so apparent, and by extension it is clear that WP simply reflects that left bias. I find it most ironic that one of the reasons for not including it is that he always makes incidary statements....I guess the media just expect the left to make these kinds of statements, therefore they are not big deal, unlike the right, in which case when a nobody makes a twitter statement it becomes a huge controversy with its own section. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@Arzel There's no need to make this about ideology. The process has worked here. A controversial statement was added to a BLP, then removed pending RSs. They were provided and the was text restored (albeit in a more neutral form and on the article about the radio show). If you think that the corresponding sections on the conservative articles are not following policy - go deal with them there. de Bivort 03:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@Drr11. I'm not sure what rules should be invoked to decide where this should go. I assume we can both agree that it should appear here or there, but not in both articles. Since the Colbert I King article, which to me seems the most reliable, topical and more than just a passing comment, is about this controversy specifically, rather than about Malloy's general behavior, it seems like it should go in the other article. Also, its insertion there seems to have passed without any objection, so maybe it has found its rightful home. de Bivort 03:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The one point I would disagree with is your statement that reliable sources have been provided for this. They haven't. Again, opinion pieces and blogs are not reliable sources, especially in BLPs. And realclearpolitics is never a reliable source. Nonetheless, this seems to be a circular argument at this point, so it's best to let the dead horse be. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find anything here that would disqualify the colbert I king piece. Could you explain your thinking? de Bivort 06:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It's an opinion piece (as evidenced by the word "opinion" in the URL and the giant graphic at the top of the page stating that it's opinion). Editorials and opinion pieces are reliable sources only for statements as to the opinions of their authors but not statements of fact. See WP:NEWSORG for further explanation of this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So - would it not then be appropriate to phrase the addition as "Colbert I King of the Washington Post criticized the comment Malloy made with respect to the assassination ... " ? Or is the issue in your mind that we need a reliable source to cite the fact of his even having said it at all, in which case the WashPo editorial can't be used to cite a fact. That would seem pretty silly to me since whether or not he said it is pretty indisputable. Because if the latter isn't a problem (whether or not he said it), then the editorial seems like the opinion of a recognized expert and we can cite it as such. de Bivort 09:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we have no information about the quote itself or the context. There's a single quote that got tossed around between a few of these critics that day (almost certainly none of whom actually heard the program and just got the quote from each other). As we've seen too often (practically on a weekly basis now, it seems) it's far too easy to pull a quote out of context to tweak its meaning and then run with it. As for the "recognized expert" part, what is he a recognized expert at exactly? Giving opinions? Well, yeah, that's his job, but then it's the job of every commentator which would render that phrase meaningless. The phrase is used to distinguish people who have (or lack) expertise in an area of knowledge that they are commenting on. It doesn't refer to whether someone is an "expert" at the act of commenting itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned several times above, there are non-opinion reliable sources that mention this. This straight news report discusses it, as does this straight news article from the blog editor of the LA Times (WP:IRS gives equal weight to blogs of reliable sources), as does this straight news article. In addition, media reporter Howard Kurtz mentioned it on his CNN media analysis show Reliable Sources. Drrll (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not still not getting the difference between commentary/opinion and hard news. If it says "Political Commentary" at the top of the page as in the L.A. Times piece, then it's, well....political commentary. As for Fox and the Times, they are often, but not always, reliable sources. One of the problems is that they do have a specific partisan slant, so they fill a lot of time and ink just batting around whatever was on Drudgereport that day. But unless it's a real story, big enough story to get picked up by the larger media, it's rarely very notable. Getting mentioned in some offhand piece from the day's partisan blog chatter doesn't come close to making this notable to a biography (and yes, I would say the same thing about their counterparts at MSNBC repeating stories from Huffingtonpost). The fact that there are brief mentions all within the same news cycle and then it is not mentioned again indicates that this doesn't have any kind of lasting notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the LA Times article actually says "POLITICAL COMMENTARY FROM ANDREW MALCOLM" at the top, but that particular article is actually written by Tony Pierce, blog editor of the LAT. Note also the tone of the article is not very opinion-like. As for the Fox News source, the segment comes from the the straight news show Special Report with Bret Baier, reported in a news segment by the very neutral Baier. The Washington Times does have more of a point of view, yes, but that doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source (otherwise the much more respected New Yorker and NYT would be disqualified) and it comes in the context of reporting, not opinion. Fox News, the LA Times, The Washington Post, and CNN certainly qualify as major media. And it wasn't all mentioned in the same news cycle--the Washington Times & LAT articles were on May 4; the Fox News segment was on May 5; the Washington Post column was on May 7; and the CNN segment was on May 8. As to there being only brief mentions, why would they be lengthy when the subject is the relatively unknown Mike Malloy? On the other hand, I haven't found anything else about Mike Malloy approaching this level of coverage in reliable sources. BTW, thanks for the correction in The Mike Malloy Show. I used the verbatim words from the source, but didn't get it grammatically correct. Drrll (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Malloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614060452/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2003/05/13/malloy/index_np.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2003/05/13/malloy/index_np.html
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080918122644/http://www.bushflash.com/14.html to http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spouse

Mike’s website says he and Kathy are still married; why does it say they divorced in 2020? Jhojnack (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)