Talk:Michael Medved

Pasted from article:

Michael Medved has a daily talk radio show on 770 AM KTTH based out of Seattle, Washington that is syndicated in various U.S. radio markets. http://www.ktth.com/ Michael Medved recently authored a non-fiction book called Right Turns about his gradual conversion from a political liberal to a conservative. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400051878/qid=1108833454/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-2736321-4503945--

This needs to be integrated into the text in accordance with approved style. Ellsworth 18:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Medved recently published a self-bigraphical work called Right Turns (2005) explaining his gradual conversion from being a liberal-Democrat to conservative-Republican." I've changed self-bigraphical to autobiographical because a) it was spelt wrong and b) autobiographical is standard. Assuming, of course, that that is what the writer meant to say. -Jen Moakler 23:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photo flipped

The photograph of Medved is flipped left to right. Wedding ring is on his right hand?

I suspect that it is not flipped, as it is a Jewish tradition to wear wedding rings on the right hand. (See Wedding ring.) dbtfz^talk 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but a cropped version of the same photo appears on his web site, and it's the other way around. Unless he posed twice, each time on a different elbow. Lexo 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neocon

Medved is a neoconservative, not a conservative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HowardJ87 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Michael and Bigfoot

Interestingly enough, he believes in Bigfoot. I'm not kidding. He has had a serious discussion of this topic on his program. There is a reference to this belief on this page http://www.ktcr.com/djs/michaelmedved.shtml

It's incredible that a man who believes in bigfoot be allowed to reach so many people through radio. That gives us an idea of how irrealistic his perception of the world is. If you add up the fact that he's a seriously stubborn person, he's admitted it in the past himself, results in a highly manipulating behavior. Like doing what he has referred to in the past "to argue into submission."

So your position is that people who believe in Bigfoot should somehow be prevented by legal or extra-legal means to talk on the radio? Interesting. From your entire statement here I guess you would tend to want to prevent anyone who disagrees with you and who can ably defend his position from having a voice, am I right? You're in good company, as this is a position held by many famous men such as Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Was that the point this person was trying to make? "People who believe in Bigfoot should be barred by any means necessary from public speaking --by anti-bigfoot vigilantes if necessary!" Or... do you think maybe the person was simply expressing incredulity that, legal issues aside, a bigfoot believer would be regarded by his employers as the top qualified candidate to pontificate on our nations airwaves? While you're pondering that, ponder this: what do you think of this newly proposed wiki rule: "Without infringing on their civil liberties, any kneejerk reactionaries who post flaming fascism accusations base on partisan politics should be openly mocked"?

The word "allow" from Wiktionary: "to grant, give, admit, accord, afford, or yield; to let one have; as, to allow a servant his liberty; to allow a free passage; to allow one day for rest". Who else to grant or give than some outside agent or agents? I will admit that allow could suggest that he is being allowed by virtue of his listeners to be on the air, or by the owners of the radio network (who make good money through this particular big-foot believer, and so have strong motivation for allowing him to spout on), but it's a ham-handed way to put it. The phrases "there ought to be a law" and "it should not be allowed" is very frequently uttered by those who want to enforce their preferences by governmental action, and the word "allow", in context, strongly suggests that. Sorry if it bugged you.

Vietnam

Vietnam No Show - What a suprise!

Dean, Mar10,2006

What's your point? He was a democrat back then and he disapproved of the war. Are you trying to use this as rhetoric against conservatives?

[Unregistered, 3/15/05)

A couple of comments. First, this page is not a forum for political debate; it is for discussing how the article can be improved. Second, messages on this and all talk pages should be signed by typing ~~~~. dbtfz^talk 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting -- the man didn't fight in Vietnam but has been very pro Iraq-war. Sounds like a chickenhawk? Justforasecond 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Worth mentioning in his bio his lack of any civil or military service.--68.6.210.169 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He might be a draft dodger, but that should not be put in the article. First off, where is the proof that he took a job at a middle school to avoid the draft? Second, unless his anti-war views were something he was noted for, then why do you need to mention Vietnam? Should we mention under every persons profile that did not serve in Vietnam that fact? Just because he is pro-Iraq War does not mean have to mention he did not serve in Vietnam. If he was a noted anti-war protester that is different. Till somekind of non-biased source can be tagged to the POV statement abouit his draft-dodging, I am taking it out.--67.142.130.45 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any pro-Iraq war opinion leader (journalist, politician, celebrity) that escaped service in Vietnam should have this noted on his page. Justforasecond 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As an Iraq and 'Stan Veteran I think he should of served in Vietnam. However I don't think it is relevant. Even if I person is against the Iraqi War and they dodged the draft in Vietnam I think that is wrong. If you are able-bodied if your country is at war (declared or un-declared) you serve. How many pages would we have to edit?

If there is a source where Micheal says he avoided the draft by working at a middle school, than that can be added. Otherwise it is just a assumption.--216.52.73.254 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Any pro-Iraq war opinion leader (journalist, politician, celebrity) that escaped service in Vietnam should have this noted on his page. Why? Because in the broad scheme of things people aren't allowed to change their opinions over time? Or must forever be silent about it? Bat-puckey. As it turns out, Medved admits to the whole thing in Right Turns. In pages 112-116 he describes how while attending Yale Law School he got a job as an English and science teacher at the New Haven Hebrew Day School expressly because they could get him a IIA occupational draft deferment. They also never paid him, so it wasn't for the money. He could have claimed he was teaching because of his concern for youth and education, but he chose the honest course and admitted to an act that he clearly now considers shameful. Mike 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious "Criticism" Section

I know the Wikipedian method of injecting bias into articles is to cite "critics" of who or what is being described in the article. That way a user can contribute his POV and still distance himself from it when somebody cries foul: "Hey, I'M not the one who said it." In some forms, though, this criticism can potentially draw attention to material matters, even though that is usually not the user's real purpose. Let's take a look at what exists on this page now.

>>>Under the "Movie Reviews" section: "Other critics...[view] him as a shallow philistine." No source here to tell which critics, save for the user, think he is a "shallow philistine."

>>>A couple sentences down a "particularly egregious howler" is described, which is indisputably POV language.

>>>After that there is no source for which critics disagree with his ranking of the 50 worst movies.

>>>And the clincher is the thoroughly irrelevant, thoroughly out of context ad hominem barb attributed to James Wolcott in the same section. This quote tells us nothing in particular about what problems critics have with Medved, it's just a juvenile personal attack on Medved's general intelligence.

Like I said, the politically-motivated "criticism" sections can accidentally be of some constructive use, but what is put forth here are vapid cheap shots. And is there really even any reason to include criticism of somebody who is already a critic?

Section not all that dubious

Is the above commentator suggesting that critics are not criticised? Medved's opinions are extremely controversial and his accuracy has been publicly questioned. I've read more criticism of Medved than books or articles by him. The language should perhaps be toned down - 'error' being a reasonable substitute for 'particularly egregious howler' - but I see no reason to omit any mention of the fact that he's supposed to have made factual errors, or that a great many professionals in his field disagree with his assessments of the state of Hollywood, the 50 worst (or best) films, etc. Lexo 14:57 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" Section All That Dubious

Am I suggesting that critics are not criticized? Of course not, we can see here that this one is. My problem is with the vacuous nature of the criticism. As it was the criticism consisted of puerile ad hominem attacks rather than serious, substantive criticism of his work. And I don't mean too much personal offense when I say that people like you are what is wrong with Wikipedia, and why its controversial articles will always be an editing competition between partisan hacks rather than genuine encyclopaedia articles. Always looking for some way to tar the opposition with third-party speculation and by airing their dirty laundry under the shamefully transparent guise of full disclosure or comprehensive objectivity. Note how you put the ball in my court, making it about "omitting" information rather than what it really is--taking your enemies down a notch with comically unrelated talking points and party lines. Finally, and most importantly, you reject the notion that the section in question is dubious, then go on to admit at least one of the shameless indiscretions I mentioned. It appears we do not really have much of a disagreement in that respect.

Open letter to Medved on a blog

This is a letter he was emailed a while ago, to which he never answered.

http://jcbm.la.googlepages.com/home

This is after declaring some sort of tolerance to the illegal immigrants, with the repeatitive "we can't deport them all" "we can't even deport the ones with criminal records", "Let them straighten up and become part of our society..." "... pay fines...", etc. His support is obviously ambiguous.

Make this phrase neutral, if possible

"He is against gay rights and thinks homelessness should be made illegal." This was added by an anonymous user. Is there a source for where he says that "homelessness should be made illegal"? What's he intend to do, arrest them all? Execute them? Also, I don't know exactly what position he takes on homosexuality (judging from the childish nature of his rhetoric, it's probably not a mature one) but it is slightly POV to say that his position is merely "against gay rights." If nothing else, I doubt he would phrase it that way. --Mr. Billion 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Most people who are against gay rights don't like admitting that that is their position. They claim to be in favor of "family values" which makes no sense whatsoever as, different families have different values and hundreds of thousands of families have at their center, a gay couple. Wikipedia would become ridiculous if the only descriptions we could give of anyone is what they would say about themselves. Somehow I doubt the same people that apply that principle to Michael Medved would do the same for Michael Moore. 24.215.145.136 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Friendship in intro

I removed Mr. Medved's friendship mention in the article. Is that frienship notable? Also, should Medved ethnicity be mention as well in the intro. And his wife and children.Is he more famous for being Jewish or his support for the war?? Can we stick to a one line intro about WHAT makes him notable and then add his family, friends, ethnicity, polictics below in the article?? Thoughts? Thanks! --Tom 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ps, I just removed some unsourced material. I am noticing that this is another bio that has ZERO references??? Any Medved fans or foes out there that can provide some footnotes?? I'll try as well, thanks! --Tom 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources??

Can sources be cited per WP:CITE when adding material to this article. Am I asking to much?? Thanks...--Tom 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues?

Why is an article on a self proclaimed "conservative" commentator so sorely lacking in any material regarding his positions on controversial political issues? Regardless of your POV, if a large part of a famous person's activities are political in nature how can an article descrbing them be of any use whatsoever without any information on their advocacy?

It seems to me that this article has been carefully cleansed of anything that may make Medved look bad and that apparently that eliminated most of his views on, well, everything.24.215.145.136 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The sentence "He is an Orthodox Jew (although Medved claims to be an "observant Jew")" is clearly POV. Shortened this to "Medved describes himself as an observant Jew." If the Orthodox part can be sourced it should be added following that statement as in 'Medved describes himself an "observant Jew." Time magazine noted he is an Orthodox Jew."

Pro– and anti–Judeo-Christian films

The heading "Pro– and anti–Judeo-Christian films" is very unclear, especially since the next three paragraphs seem to deal with an entirely different set of issues. This really needs to be reworded.

Matt T. 69.254.107.214 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to video of Medved speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California

I believe that this video of Medved speaking adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section. I would appreciate it if another editor would add it. Thank you.

• Michael Medved discusses the contradictions that he says plague "liberal orthodoxy", March 12, 2007 (video)

--Uschris 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs

Medved is well known for his beliefs in things for which there is not evidence including Bigfoot and God. That doesn't sound very NPOV to me. Jake Snicket 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that. I read the source quickly but didn't see big foot/God. The section is out of place and POV as you pointed out. Thanks! --Tom 13:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can say, as a sometime listener, that Medved does believe in both God and Bigfoot. To say there is no evidence for either is POV, however.Gerkinstock 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine Albright

In the page Madeleine Albright is listed as being a concervative. I'm almost sure she is a liberal. -AB