Talk:Michael Graham (radio personality)/Archive 2

I don't understand why someone is including long passages of text from the H.L. Mencken article in THIS article -- that's why you ~hyperlink~ the name of Mencken in the first place, for redirection to the separate article. There seems to be a slant inferred with the selectiveness of the passages from an entirely separate article. Is this an encyclopedia or kindergarten? I'm embarrassed to send anyone to Wikipedia as a "reference" anymore, it's not reliable.

Graham's take on Racial issues on Martin Luther King Day 2006

If you don't understand why the Mencken references are topical and relevant to forming a "balanced" opinion on what type of person Michael Graham really is, then I invite you to look at his webpage entry today, Martin Luther King Day (Jan 16, 06) at www.michaelgraham.com.

I point you to an excerpt where Graham is discussing a proposal from Mayor Menino of Boston to reach out to minority youth, provide topical antigun and antiviolence public service advertisements and the establishment of a new 'Hip Hop Roundtable", which would convene a monthly meeting of local hip hop artists and activists who want to use their cultural sway to discourage violence. Graham writes on his website:

"...'Sright, homeboy. My man Menin-yo is keepin' it righteous on the streets, dog. He's gonna get the bling-bling in the ching-ching to make the phones ring-ring when the Man is doin' his thing-thing, yo dog homes in my crib, biiatch. So all my hip-hop homedogs get hooked up now with the Chairman of the Hip-Hop Roundtable (one step below the Godfather of Soul), Mayor Tom "The Man" Menino."

Wow! Sounds to me like Graham is channelling Mencken as we speak. Now do you understand what Michael Graqham REALLY stands for?

(This text quoted from his webpage may or may not be active on his page when you check, as Graham is famous for sticking his foot in his mouth on his webpage, only to later delete the entire entry, apparently when someone points out how "controversial" his words can be.....in addition, links to many of his more vitriolic "Usual Suspects" article postings have been recently removed from his webpage, including his article with reference to Wikipedia, though they can be found on other web sources still.....Also, it appears that someone is currently busy "cleaning house" on many of the referenced links noted in the Graham wikipedia page...an odd number of the more controversial links have been de-activated in the past week)

68.50.149.220 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, if you've ever seen Menino or heard the man speak, you gotta admit that the idea of him as the head of a 'hip hop roundtable' is pretty goofy. Not that I'm defending Michael Graham. I never thought I'd wish Jay Severin was back 'til I heard Boston's second most obnoxious pundit. (After Greg Hill.) 204.69.40.7 13:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mencken link is more than enough, especially considering where and why it's included at all. This article cannot and should not become a hatchet job on the guy, regardless of how you feel about him. I don't especially care one way or another about him, I can't even say I enjoy his radio show, but the piling on is not good for this article and all the work that's been done to make this a fair, NPOV article shouldn't be tossed by the way side because of what you think he "really stands for" by selectively quoting and misrepresenting sections on his webpage. --badlydrawnjeff 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, please explain to me how the above text has been selectively quoted, or somehow taken out of context.....can you tell me what context, if any, would be proper for the opinions he displays in it? I am giving readers of this discussion page an opportunity to form their own opinions based on Graham's exact words....how is that pileing on? 68.50.149.220 12:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The context, of course, is relevant to what's in the article. The article is about Graham, not Mencken, and it's generous to even mention controversy surrounding the name of his child, let alone double the size of a section to get shots in at Mencken. Leave the article about Graham, and try to make it a balanced article. --badlydrawnjeff 16:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I believe that you might be misunderstanding the intent of the Mencken comparison...the "controversy" is not over the name of Graham's child...the fact that he named his son after Mencken is only provided as an aside to his "Life's Hero" and "Huge Fan" accolades of Mencken. Graham obviously has a strong attraction to the writings of Mencken, which are obviously viewed to be "controversial" in their current context because they presented antiquated racial and misogynistic views well into the first half of the 20th century. Graham goes so far into this Mencken fascination that he selects Mencken quotes to open each chapter of his book "Redneck Nation". Like Mencken, Graham appears to often opine outrageous positions as a sport, pushing the argument to the ridiculous for the shock value alone, with intentional "total assurance and a delightfully hateful style", as quoted from the Mencken article...the above text link to Graham's webpage was provided only as proof of the relevance of the comparison - not to "pile on". By the way.... refusal to recognize all aspects of a person's life's record because some of them may focus on controversial stances does not achieve “balance”....what it does achieve could be better described as censorship. 151.200.189.62 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then if you want to craft a controversial segment on his quoting of Mencken, do so in the controversy section. If it's not original research and sourced, then you'll have no complaints on my end about it. I worry about the balance of this article based on the hatchet job it was before it was NPOVed, and you (I wish you'd log in) were one of the primary editors of the article in that state, and you appear to be intent on making the article as negative about Graham as possible. You'd have to understand my reservations. --badlydrawnjeff 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Jeff...explain to me...just how would you put a "positive" spin on someone who has been fired from three jobs in seven years, labels 1/5 of the world's population as "terrorists" in his mind simply because of their choice of faith, and when his employer gives him the chance to clarify his remark that "Islam is a terrorist organization", refuses the opportunity and instead pronounces that he believes he has a constitutional protection to retain his job?....oh, and on top of all that, the man calls H.L. Mencken his "life's hero"? I do not "make" a negative portrait of Graham...so much of what Graham has to say is negative all by itself...all I do is report his words and actions and let them speak for themselves. If it is perceived as negative by you, that is your opinion...so be it. 151.200.189.62 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm not saying make a positive OR negative article. I'm saying thatneutrality is a policy here, and piling on is not a recipe for a good article. I can't make that any clearer. --badlydrawnjeff 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He is not a gay pilot! (Reposting)

Here is his response to this article for your viewing pleasure. He specifically says that he has never flown in a single-engine plane, that he has never been to Provincetown, Massachusetts, and that he is not gay (I have heard him refer to his wife - aka The Warden - numerous times on his show, when he was on WMAL). If I see any more "gay pilot" edits to this article, I will revert them as vandalism. --Idont Havaname 04:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have reposted this after somebody else deleted this from the talk page. Please do not remove messages from talk pages, and please do not restore remarks in the article containing outright lies. --Idont Havaname 01:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain where, exactly, anyone here has referred to Graham being a "GAY PILOT"? It seems a quite a jump to infer from the use of term "partner" or a geographical location that the "partner" cannot be of the opposite sex. As far as I can tell, it seems only you and Graham think it somehow means he is gay. SECOND, exactly WHERE did anyone say Graham was a PILOT? Nowhere I can see. I have read the sentence several times, and while I do see a line that states that he commutes by plane, nowhere do I see any inference that Gram FLEW the plane....I took a 747 to Mexico last fall....I guess in the feeble arguement that Graham has made of this statement, that makes ME a pilot too! WOW! Where do I go to get my wings and the snappy jacket with the stripes on the sleeves? Again, it seems that the ONLY people who deduced "pilot" from the statement seem to be the author and Graham. True to form, once again, Graham takes a minor detail and and attempts to spin it into the nonsensical, attempting to put meaning where there is none.....much like the excuses you Grammites keep to attempting to post here to distort the truth for personal advantage. Again, if you can't face the real truth about Michael Graham here, quit deleting it, and just stop coming around here. I will not stop setting the record straight with the VERIFIABLE facts.

Bt the way.....Why have the links to the WaPo and WaTimes articles been deleted and replaced with a link to Michael Graham's comments? It seems that somebody is scared that the WaPo and WaTimes articles point out a few too many problems with the excuses being floated here....Please restore the proper citation links.

First, be civil. There is no need to shout.

The "gay pilot" reference was from the title of his column. Did you read it? Your "verifiable" informations is apparently coming from sources that he disagrees with. If he himself is not a good source of information about him, nobody is!

I did not delete the Washington Post and Washington Times links. I don't know who did, but you're right about needing to cite those. They do help provide a neutral point of view by including several sides of the issue.

--Idont Havaname 06:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)== Sarcasm in the Charleston City Paper column ==

An anon recently posted in the article that Graham was actually planning to write "Michael Graham and Bestiality in 21st Century America". Graham's column merely stated, "But what good would it do for them to remove the posting, anyway? Because Wikipedia has virtually no controls, another posting -- "Michael Graham and Bestiality In 21st Century America" -- could be up five minutes later." This doesn't mean he's going to write a column praising deviant practices! Those who have heard Michael Graham's show know that he can get sarcastic as well as any other talk show host can. I've removed that reference to bestiality, and it should not show up again. --Idont Havaname 06:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So do you guys want this deleted, or not?

I've seen people putting an AfD template on this, removing it, putting it back on, removing it, etc. If you want the article to be deleted, then you need to follow the procedure given at WP:AfD. He's a notable talk show host, though, so I doubt the article would be deleted. --Idont Havaname 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, let the record on Graham speak for itself, warts and all

I agree with idont havaname. While some posters began placing nonsense links and information here, I support the work that idont havaname has done to to verify and edit revisions made to this page. To assist, I have added considerable verifiable links in the recent days to the paragraphs on the article which source the information I have added in the past, specifically regarding the INS shirt incident.

I can appreciate that Mr. Graham may not be happy about his inability to control the message, but I don't believe his happiness is a consequence or goal in the effort. The effort is to provide a FACTUAL reference, not a forum for people to provide excuses and explanations for information that others may interpret as troubling.

I feel the current state of the article reflects a truthful representation of the facts, without bias for or against Mr. Graham. It is simply a factual representation of events.

One question. In response to the complaints about an anon poster placing a line about graham living with his "partner", which Graham twisted into an accusation on homosexuality in his citypaper column, I researched and found a web-published article where Graham openly referred to his family, and even had quotes by his wife. I placed it into the article to provide proper perspective. Earlier today, this was removed from the article with a comment that "personal family" details do not belong here...is this a wikipedia guideline, or was it just the opinion of the person posting?

If it is not against wikipedia rules, I would appreciate ot if the statement and attached link would be restored.

Thanks. 68.50.149.220 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it's against Wikipedia rules to say that he is married to The Warden with children; he does freely give that information on his show. Celebrity gossip regarding who's dating who and so forth always creeps into articles on celebrities, so I doubt it would be objectionable to say, "Graham is married to Jennifer Graham, also known as "The Warden"; they have four children." Your version of it was also fine. As a comparison, look at the other articles in Category:Talk show hosts. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has a whole section on Rush's private life. --Idont Havaname 23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, now that I've looked at your version of it further, it appears to be a straight copy-and-paste from http://www.uswriter.com/newsgraham.htm. That is a copyright violation, so we should not introduce that to the article again. You should find a way to word it differently, and make sure to include the link to the article. --Idont Havaname 23:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Update about listing it for deletion - I've gone ahead and listed it as a formality, just to finish off the other anon's nomination. I doubt this article will be deleted, so don't worry about that. But please leave the {{subst:afd}} template through its AfD discussion until the discussion has closed (usually after 5 days - maybe longer if there is a backlog of AfDs that have not been closed yet). Assuming this article is kept, the person who closes the AfD discussion will put a template on the talk page saying that it has been reviewed on AfD and that consensus was to keep it. --Idont Havaname 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

" ________________________________________________________ As these two items were not inserted by me, I cannot comment on their source or veracity. As for the others, please leave them alone unless you can show them to be false. If you can't face the truth about Michael Graham, then I strongly suggest you stay away from his wikipedia page. Every item I post is sourceable."

I only challenge something that is a highly suspect or at the very least a misleading claim, which is what should be done if you want an academically rigorous encylopedia. The guy talks about his wife all the time and this article spoke of his "partner". That dispute is legit. I have attempted to delete no other information from the article. "The Truth" should be the truth buddy, so if you want to go ahead and expose have a ball but I'd think that you would also want to ensure that there is no disputable information whatsoever because if there isthe rest of your exhausting investigative work is going to be a lot harder to believe.

Point well taken, but seeing that the specific information you challenged was reviewed and corrected within a day of you voicing concerns, can you tell us what other parts currently posted you consider to be "highly misleading" or "suspect"? Seems like the system is working fine to me. 151.200.189.62 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting into an editing war...I added the comment about Graham inciting the audience with outrageous comments, but is also true that he then demands an intelligent response from callers who try to refute him, otherwise he will dismiss the caller. I also think it is relevent to point out that Islam and illegal immigration are Graham's favorite topics, and that he has a history with CAIR while at WMAL. I included a link to CAIRs press release on Graham's comments Blcartwright 05:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

blcartwright, I understand your intent, but the majority of the comments you write appear to be speculation that is not based on presentable facts, but based on your beliefs, and fairly self-serving to Graham. The only sourcing you provided was related to accolades graham received on his campagning, and these were stated by Graham himself, in an article about himself, and are recollections of statements supposedly made by a third party, and are not corroberated.

I see you also added the "my lovely wife" to the reference about Graham calling his partner "the warden". A google search shows that this is not the "only" way graham uses the term "the warden", as you state in your revision, and I have restored the section, adding your comment to reflect that fact. Your statements on Graham's "favorite targets" also appears to be opinion, and contains no supporting links or corroberation. Without supporting facts, speculation does not belong here.

In the future, please do not remove or modify sections of the article that others have written -- and that are also sourced correctly -- simply because you do not like them or disagree with them. If you disagree, then please state facts to support your opinions so that we can have a debate on the merit. Please do not just delete the work of others. There are people here who have put the hard work into researching these elements, provided substantiation, and have written the statements based on the comments found in their research, not opinions. Please show proper respect for their time and effort. 68.50.149.220 16:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Among those who had contacted WMAL to complain about Graham's comments was the organization" seems unsubstantiated - yes, there may have been people other than those contacted by CAIR who then complained to WMAL, but so far I have found no attribution to anyone other than CAIR (by WMAL, WashPost, WashTimes, etc). There may have been others - but how do we know? 141.158.208.254 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington. " - By Paul Farhi Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Page C01

As a reasonable human being, I deduce the statement "The comments drew complaints" followed by "and" and then continuing "prompted an organized letter writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington. " to suggest that MORE people than CAIR complained to the station before the letter writing campaign was launched by CAIR.

You can also find a statement on this released by the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington at http://www.ifcmw.org/WMALsPrincipledStand.htm. I like the way they put it: "We at the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington urge all residents of the metropolitan area to join with us in renouncing intolerant acts and words and in recommitting ourselves to mutual respect and understanding.”" I can add this link to the article page also if you would like.

We also know it was not limited solely to CAIR, because I am one of the others who contacted WMAL each of the four days to complain, and I know of others who also called. For the record, I am not a Muslim, I am not a member of CAIR, I have no association with the organization, and I do not work for WMAL or ABC radio, and I am not a member of the IFCMW. When I contacted WMAL, they stated that they had already received numerous complaints.

It is my personal belief that the whole intent to solely blame CAIR has been predominately manufactured by Graham, and I am unwilling to allow that to stand unchallenged. CAIR may have launched an organized campaign, but regardless of Michael's statements, they were not the "only" people who complained about his actions. It is no stretch of common sense for a reasonable person to deduce that complaints are not limited to people representing CAIR alone, no matter how many times Graham attempts to relate that message. 68.50.149.220 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Major Cleanup

I did a major cleanup of this article. While he's extremely controversial, we need to expand his bio and like information to better give an accurate, encyclopedic biography of him. I ended up paring down the controverisies considerably to make them more direct as a result of this, but it still needs some work. Hopefully people are up to helping out. --badlydrawnjeff 16:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Since anonymous folks want to continue to make the controversy section larger and larger, thus creating what gives the appearance of an attack page, I've added a NPOV template. Please discuss how to fix the section so it's reasonable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff has expressed issues with three points contained in this bio; The first is the inclusion of the fact that Graham repeated the statement that Islam is a terrorist organization twenty-three times during the July 25th show. Badlydrawnjeff has also objected to using “frequently” as a descriptive referring to Graham’s usage of this phrase. This point was reported in a number of major market newspapers including the Washington Post, and a number of Washington area television and radio news outlets in contemporary reporting. It was specifically cited by WMAL in their media release on the reasons for Graham’s suspension. Knowing this fact helps to present an understanding that this was not a singular or even occasional occurrence in his broadcast, but an excessively repeated pattern. The second point that Badlydrawnjeff takes exception to is the inclusion of the Rightalk “hiatus” under Graham’s employment history. Graham, shortly after his firing, accepted and advertised that he would be going to rightalk, where he would be “free from censorship”. His tenure there lasted less than two months, and his departure from that position was abrupt and occurred with no explanation other than he was placed “on hiatus”. He did not leave rightalk to immediately take a position elsewhere. It is included in the article because it is far out of the ordinary for anyone in talk radio to accept a position and to only remain at a job for less than two months. The third point that Badlydrawnjeff shows exception to involves the Casa De Maryland incident. In this case, Montgomery County Police were concerned enough by Graham’s behavior at the scene of the incident that they considered filing a complaint of “Unprofessional Conduct” with his employer. It is clearly displayed in contemporary reports, including those given by Graham, that Graham went to the incident under the guise of being a reporter, with the stated intent of presenting a protest. Graham, while presenting himself as a reporter, was attired in a manner that was intended to incite a reaction. When asked about this, Graham’s Station General Manager, Chris Berry, even stated that “Michael Graham is an ENTERTAINER, not a REPORTER. (emphasis added).” The official police report specifically cited that his BEHAVIOR on the scene of the altercation was one of the reasons that they believed he presented a potential of danger to himself and others. Even if Graham WAS a reporter, this would be significant for a reporter to have been detained and questioned by police for his behavior, and for police to publicly state that they considered a complaint of “unprofessional conduct”. With the fact that Graham was NOT a reporter, but presented himself as one in an effort to make a protest at a rally in mind, this is even more topical, and necessary for a reader of this bio to gain a proper understanding of Graham’s style and tactics.

Lastly, counter to the statement presented by badlydrawnjeff, this page has not grown in size, but has been significantly edited for content in the last ten days. None of these three entries constitutes an "attack", but rather, are germane and sourced content presented to give a factual basis for others to form opinion. The intent of NPOV is not to ignore facts regarding a topic because they do not report the subject in a positive light, it is to make sure that the wording utilized in reporting those facts is not presented in a biased manner. I feel that this has been achieved in a prudent and brief manner without the omission of any relevant facts. 151.200.189.62 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

At least get my protests correct. I have no problem with the Righttalk stuff, some other anonymous person removed that. The first time I rewrote the article, you slowly and methodically expanded the sections. No one's saying the sourcing is bad, but it doesn't make for a balanced article. So I trimmed it down again to make concise sections, which still isn't done but still doesn't reflect a balanced article. You still add more things. How will we make it a balanced section? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We can start by recognizing what we agree on, and apparently that means that there are only two issues for discussion. Thanks for the clarification. Next, I think we need to recognize that this is currently not an issue of the length of the article. I made lengthy content edits, as did you on Feb 10, to get this article down to a proper size. I expressed above why I believe the two items in contention are relevant to a balanced understanding and should stay. Could you please tell me what about them leads you to believe that the inclusion of them disrupts the balance? Is it the items themselves, or the wording? As to the "23 times", what about it disrupts the balance. As to the "unprofessional conduct", if we are stating that Graham supporters claimed a first amendment violation, and then state that police considered filing an UC complaint, but in the end, neither took action, I believe that provides proper balance. What about it leads you to believe otherwise? 151.200.189.62 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the length is an issue, specifically of the entire criticism section, which is larger than the rest of the article combined. Certainly, the criticisms can be noted in a balanced way that do not overwhelm the article, am I right? So when you start adding superflouous information that doesn't add a thing to the context other than extra text, it's not helping the balance in the least. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, the article is actually shorter now than when we began. I ask you again, what are your issues based on...you should know from my comments above why I feel these two items warrant inclusion. Please explain to me why you think they do not.

The article is only shorter now due to my numerous rewrites. The sections are still too large and filled with superflouous information that may not be necessary and make the article more about the various controversies than about him. That's a POV problem. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, go back and look...the article is NOT shorter only due to your rewrites....I made significant edits on the 10th also. These two controversies are definately noteworthy, complex, and require complete explanation. As I pointed out before, his actions on the Islam controversy generated not only local media coverage, but were discussed on the national talk media stage for not 1 day, not days, but weeks. His actions and behavior in the casa de maryland incident prompted articles and reaction in both major market Washington D. C. newspapers (Washington Post and Washington Times, including an editorial), as well as several of the D. C. area television news outlets, and warrented a media response press release from a major D. C. metropolitan area Police department. I understand that you believe these form a POV problem, but I do not believe that is true....I have given my reasons why these are relevant...I ask you again, what are your specific reasons for repeatedly deleting these two specific references? 68.50.149.220 09:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

They're noteworthy, sure. Complex? Not really. Require massive amounts of information to get the point across? Certainly not. The information can be presented in a more concise way that doesn't overwhelm the article, I'm sure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, face it....we are talking about a total of eleven words in the case of the Islam cotroversy, and a total of eighteen words on the casa de maryland incident.....don't you think you are niggling a little on something this small? I ask you one more time...on what do you base your contention that these two sentences form superflouous and needless information? I have explained above why they are germane to the narrative...you have yet to tell me why you believe they are not.151.200.189.62 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, we're not. We're talking about the balance of the entire section, not 29 words. They aren't germane to the narrative, they add nothing but more superflouous text to an already superflouos setion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, they are obviously germane for all the reasons that I mentioned above...I've politely asked you three times now to elaborate what specific issues you have with the two sentences, and so far you have refused...If you cannot explain what it is you feel makes these two sentences disrupt the balance, we are just spinning our wheels, and you are wasting my time. 151.200.189.62 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already elaborated, you've ignored them. The two sentences aren't the issue. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Glad to see we can finally agree on something.....Would it make you happy if I find 29 alternate words to delete? 68.48.79.237 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Controversies" content has been edited by 48 words. 68.48.79.237 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the wiki NPOV page: "where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Please explain exactly what content on the page you believe to have been unfairly presented or asserted. 68.48.79.237 23:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By no means am I looking to remove any sections. I'm saying that certain sections have become much longer than they need to be to get the point across, and my attempts to fix that have been slowly hacked away at. I don't know what the sarcasm is necessary for. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The sarcasm is out of frustration, jeff...when you are asked what statements you have issues with, all you keep repeating is "its too long." That contributes nothing to the discussion. Also, don't you think the term "massive amounts of information" is a little sarcastic? Maybe you and I just need to start over. Other than these two statements, what do you believe can be cut to achieve what you are looking for? 68.48.79.237 03:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

The Wikimedia Foundation has had another letter of complaint about this article. And so I'm afraid the controversies section has to go. We may have to look at some other sections as well, but for now I've just removed the most problematic. This should not be replaced. The section can be worked on carefully and any verified information put back into the article. But this should be done with maximum care and very, very careful wording. If necessary, this article may be taken right back to a simple stub. Agreement must be reached on this page before anything from this section is replaced.

An example of the problems in this article: "While Graham has admitted to falsely invoking the First Amendment following his termination.." - using "admitted to falsely" is biased. The wording is inflammatory and leads the reader to a conclusion - "admitted" assumes that there is something to be guilty about. One doesn't admit to liking puppies, but might admit to theft. And the linked article clearly states that he said he was using this rhetorically, and not literally - so the word "falsely" is also dubious. This is just one example of the sort of thing that could get us into real trouble.

I'm sorry to be heavy handed here, but this is not a minor issue. Please be quick to remove anything from this article that you think problematic, and slow to add anything new. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While there were many, many problems regarding it, is there a chance we could see either the letter or the substantive claims regarding what's there to get an idea as to what's being challenged? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the letter has to remain confidential (see the Foundations privacy policy), but I can say that it wasn't specific about the exact text in this case. I think it fair to say that the overall negative tone, and the concentration on a rather one-sided view of various "controversies" have caused this upset. -- sannse (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Well, hopefully this can lead to a better section/article, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While specific wording on some sections may be in disagreement, these controversies are a part of Graham's career, and I would hope that Wikipedia does not shy from including them because they constitute an obvious embarrassmsnt to Graham. Mr. Graham's opinions often breed controversy, and the tactics that he takes in promoting his opinions are inherently controversial. Much of what is contained in the article was researehed, verified and reported by reliable media outlets like the Washington Post. I feel that total removal of the section, on the basis of a letter of complaint, goes far beyond prudence. Please at least consider a mention of the Islam incident, since this was catapulted onto the national stage, and Graham was fired as a direct result. 68.48.79.237 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't want to be over cautious, but we do have to take these things seriously and ensure that our articles are carefully written. And I can assure you that we don't do this in every case, only when it seems to be the best course of action. On "the Islam incident" - it can go in if is it very carefully sourced, with sources that show it is an important enough incident to be included, and if it is written in a neutral way without using loaded language. I suggest that you put your wording on this page for comment before adding it to the article. -- sannse (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

SUGGESTED EDIT (commented out by sannse)

Please comment on this version and consider inclusion in the article. 68.48.79.237 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No comments? 151.200.189.62 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I only saw this now. I'm still not sure this will pass muster, as I don't really see anything changed from what was there before (and don't be shocked if the admin removes the portion above), and it still doesn't address other issues brought up before the removal. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still see this as disproportionate. A large section like this on "controversies" simply gives the impression of an attack. I see nothing to indicate that these were significant enough to warrant a whole section to themselves, and they give an unfortunate slant to the article. I'm sorry to be discouraging here, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this text -- sannse (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, however, I ask you to reconsider. Michael Graham's only link to prominence is due to the fact that, in the course of a short period of employment of just seven years, he has been fired on two occasions for expressing opinions that are clearly outside of the mainstream. Graham has never achieved anything close to national fame or attention other than through controversy surrounding his opinions, and the resulting terminations. If you need proof of this, I ask you to perform a google search on his name. An overwhelming majority of the hits linked to national media sources outside of local market or Graham's "usual suspect"" articles are tied to these three controversies. Graham is employed as a local talk show host on a radio station that is not even ranked in the top ten of the Boston market. Throughout his career, he has never achieved any form of a national audience or following. If these sections are not included, I do not see how he even warrants a wikipedia profile at all. I ask you to read the linked documents, especially the washington post articles, before you render a decision on the balance. 68.48.79.237 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To support comments above, Graham doesn't even rank among the nations top 100 radio talk show hosts, according to industry standard Talkers Magazine 2006 heavy hundered listing link to heavy hundered listing 151.200.189.62 16:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Graham on TV

Graham on O'Reilly [1], Graham on "Hardball" [2], Bill Maher [3] [4]. These and more are all listed not only at his own website bio [5], but at the 96.9 website [6]. I'll be re-adding them shortly unless one of the anons deicdes to do some good-faith editing for once. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. And, might I point out that your "Graham on O'Reilly" link takes us to a page which is titled "Radio Talk Show Host Fired For Speaking Poorly Of Muslims"...The "Graham on Hardball" link is one of two. The one you refer to is a topic line where Graham was asked to respond to a controversial statement he made about how he would like to bludgeon Senator Clinton with a tire iron, and the second of which is from 8/24/05 [7], and is titled "Debating the firing of radio host Graham"...by the way, to quote Chris Matthews from the single link did post, "Counting on Michael Graham, he’s in the controversy" (emphasis added)...Let me also add his "Fox & Friends" appearance [8], where the descriptive text reads, and I quote, "Then, Michael Graham was fired from his job as a radio talk show host in Washington after he linked Islam with terrorism on-air. He joins us to square off with Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islam Relations, whose group prompted the radio station to take action." - As I said, all related to the controversies that have been removed from the section. The one that may warrant remaining is "Real Time", however, Graham has not been asked to appear as a panelist on the show in three seasons. Oh, one more thing....in re-posting these elements you stated "If his appearances were a problem, they would have been removed with the rest of it". To quote Sannse from the posted comment made above on 2/18 "We may have to look at some other sections as well, but for now I've just removed the most problematic."

Lastly, your comments are getting pretty snide and personal, Jeff. Do you really think stating "unless one of the anons deicdes to do some good-faith editing for once" or "hooray for anon edit warring." are respectful and justified? Let's leave the attitudes out of this, okay? THey only result in more disagreement.

For these reasons, I strongly believe that the statement is not worthy of inclusion in the bio.151.200.189.62 19:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to Sansse to decide whether he thinks his media appearances, which Graham himself touts, are worth removing. As for the rest, I'm done being frustrated with anonymous editors who don't seem to want to contribute to this article. I think I'm entirely justified given the recent history. By all means, though, register yourself and start showing you're looking to make this article worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me, that this sort of addition to the main body of the article might be just the way needed to include some of the information I removed, but in a way that doesn't slant and distort the article. This is going to take care, and a real dedication to the principle of NPOV, but it is possible. Remember, NPOV says that both sides of the story should be added - but sourced, accurate, in neutral language and in proportion. If you can achieve that, then there will be no problem with the article. -- sannse (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sannse....I'll give re-editing it a go and post the result back here tomorrow. 68.48.79.237 00:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

SUGGESTED EDIT

"Islam is a Terrorist Organization"

In July of 2005, Graham chose the topic "Islam Is a Terrorist Organization" as the basis for a multi-day discussion on his WMAL talk radio show. Graham repeated this phrase frequently over a multi-day discussion, and expanded on the theme stating, "Islam is at war with America," and "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam." [9]. WMAL reported that these comments generated over 100 complaints, many evidently the product of a call to action originated by The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) [10]. The complaints prompted WMAL to suspend Graham. [11] Fans of Graham countered, sending WMAL phone calls and e-mails demanding that Graham be returned to his position on-air. In late August, 2005, WMAL advised Graham he would be allowed back on-air if he agreed to apologize for his remarks and comply with other conditions outlined by station management. Graham refused, and was terminated. [12]. Following the termination, Graham issued a statement which he titled: "CAIR WINS, FREE SPEECH LOSES The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, D.C.” [13]. In the statement, Graham asserted that his firing was due to pressure exerted on WMAL, their parent company ABC Radio and WMAL advertisers by CAIR. In response, WMAL General Manager Chris Berry stated “Some of Michael’s statements about Islam went over the line – and this isn’t the first time that he has been reprimanded for insensitive language and comments." Berry continued, "For the record we make our decisions independent of external pressures or third parties and we will not permit an employee to willfully violate our policies or disregard management direction."[14]. In the days following Graham's termination, the situation was the topic of discussion on several national television programs including O'Reilly Factor on FOX [15], Fox & Friends on FOX [16], and Hardball with Chris Matthews [17] on MSNBC.

Graham continues to stand by the original July 25th remarks, which he expanded in the August 28 edition of Jewish World Review. [18]

April 1999 Columbine shooting remark and subsequent termination from WBT Radio

In 1999, Graham was terminated from WBT Radio in Charlotte, N.C, for making a joke just hours after the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado. During an on-air segment, Graham stated, "They (the gunmen) were targeting minorities and athletes - which, the athletes part, (is) one minor benefit to this otherwise horrible story". Though Graham apologized for his remarks, he was dismissed, with WBT program director Randall Bloomquist stating: "There was a pattern of nonsensical remarks by Michael that were the result of his mouth working faster than his brain." [19]

Let me know what you think 151.200.189.62 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what I think here is that you are not really understanding Neutral Point of View or what Wikipedia is about. Once again, this reads like an attack. It feels as though you have gathered all the negative connotations possible to list as a big block of "this guy is BAD". I don't wish to be rude, but if this does not read as an attack to you, then I think you may be too close to this subject to edit this article. I suggest taking a break and letting Jeff work on this for a while. I'm sorry to be harsh, but Wikipedia isn't the place for this. -- sannse (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)