Talk:Bernie Ward/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ward should be listed as "was a radio talk show host on KGO" not "is a radio talk show host on KGO" because he is not currently on the air and will not return until the completion of his criminal trial, which is expected to last more than a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickywiki (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While it seems pretty certain that he will be terminated because of the child pornography indictment, he is still on the WGO website and has not been terminated, so he still "is" a radio host until further notice. Bluefield (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

Regarding the statement, His aggressive "arguments", rudeness, and uncivil behavior is disquieting for a radio show that is supposed to be focused on God and religious issues. Even on the Sabbath, Ward is known to talk down to callers, and berate those that don't agree with him. Since 2000, talk of "God" is often and repetitively replaced by monologues slamming President Bush.

Seems POV to me, anyone else have some thoughts? --Cubic Hour 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listened to Mr. Ward, off and on, for over 15 years. While he has a heart of gold, and does some very good charity work, he is known to "throw red meat" during his weeknight program (10 PM - 1 AM). This pattern, whether natural or a choice (to gather ratings), has transfered to his Sunday Morning God Talk program. I have heard many a caller call up and ask perfectly reasonable questions, and after a little give and take, if they don't reply with what Ward considers an appropriate answer, yes, he can become downright mean. Yes, I have heard him talk over, talk down, interrupt, and embarrass callers - over and over again.

Example: When Mel Gibson produced and directed "The Passion" (of the Christ), people called up to discuss the merits of the movie. Ward was more interested in telling them that "he made the wrong movie", and he was saying it at almost a screaming level. He wouldn't let callers finish their responses. (I don't have any other concrete examples at hand.)

In contrast, the fill-in host when Ward was on vacation, was polite, warm, and inviting. He discussed scripture, and did not talk down or ridicule callers. It is night and day. This host (I forget his name) would quote the bible, the Koran, and would discuss the issues raised by callers. Yes, I also often hear him discuss politics on Sunday morning, not religion, so that also rings true. It appears that several external articles were linked that cite his uncivil comments towards the Jewish faith - direct examples of his 'uncivil' behavior. He has made 'uncivil' comments towards them on at least two occasions (cited). (I think Ward said that the Jewish religion was 'inferior' to the Christian religion, but I don't have his 'reasoning' at hand.)

Therefore, I think that labeling his God Talk show "rude", and "uncivil", are both fair, and some might say generous. Windex66 08:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windex66 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Here is a concrete example, which is linked in the Articles section, of how Ward can be uncivil. In the 2001 article where Ward apologized to Jews, the writer wrote:

"During his program on Wednesday, Sept. 12 -- the day after the terror attacks -- Ward compared the tactics of religious fundamentalists to those used by Nazis. Fundamentalists, he said, included "the ultra-Orthodox" in Israel."

This is but one of numerous examples of how Mr. Ward is 'uncivil'. Windex66 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windex66 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

That's simply an opinion with example offered for comparison. However, Bernie does get rude with some callers in his evening show. His rudeness is average or slightly less than average for talk radio. --2z2z 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to refer to you to the Rush Limbaugh page as a better example of how to deal with an obvious biggot. As it stands, I'm going to go ahead and delete the parts that are blatently libelous later in the day, barring changes. Wikipeida needs to be very careful how it deals with living people. Perhaps you can add back in references to media who feel otherwise, saying something to the effect of "There is controvery ... and some feel... that his behavior is uncivil..." Instead of just "he's uncivil." Also, I'm personally uncomfortable with the "Even on the Sabbath" remark. It implies that everyone should abide by the rules of one particular religious group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubic Hour (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 May 2007

Per your input, offending items removed or toned down. Additional sources and quotes cited, per your suggestions. (I googled more background info that I was familar with.) [I'd like to refer to you to the Rush Limbaugh page as a better example of how to deal with an obvious biggot.] Also, I am not a Rush fan... but why would a bigot have one of his best friends be black? and also marry him? (Clarence Thomas.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.166.145.2 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 May 2007

"Anti-Jewish" statements

If you can't give me an adequate explanation of how these statements are anti-Jewish or suggest a proper re-categoriazation then I'm deleting them.

Ward compared the tactics of religious fundamentalists to those used by Nazis. Fundamentalists, he said, included "the ultra-Orthodox" in Israel. *[12]---I believe he's attacking all religious fundamentalists, including the ultra-orthodox but not singling out Jews.

He also believes that Muslim Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists are the same. *[13] --what does this have to do with Jews?

On CNN with Wolf Blizter (September 30, 2002), discussing the possible military action against Iraq, he asked Ward: "Does the American public actually believe that Saddam Hussein would let the U.S. know the details of its weapons program. People should start waiting for hard evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq or of an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda. They're not going to get any." ---typing the above question in full is a waste of space.

Ward replied: "If they do not get any, then there is no reason to do any of this. This is a war of choice, just as Vietnam was; this is a war of choice.... He [Hussein] has not shown any threat to anyone; he was kept right in his own little box. ... This is exactly the point: The point is that one, we do not know what he has, two, whatever he has presents no direct threat to the United States whatsoever. You know what it presents a threat, though: Israel?" *[14]

--I don't even think this can even be construed as anti-Israeli it's a statement of opinion related to fact. nobody denies that Iraq was a threat to Israel, Israel admits this, but whether it was a threat to the U.S. is debatable. either way you can't conflate criticism of Israel with anti-jewish bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moah (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2007

UPDATE

Because I received no response challenging the relevance of the aforementioned statements regarding what were labeled "Anti-Jewish Statements" I edited them out. If the author wishes to recategorize the statements from a title less inflammatory and completely inaccurate as "Anti-Jewish Statements" then bring it up. I also added a more accurate title to the only statement that could be perceived as offending to Judaism and re-titled it Controversial Statements Regarding Judaism. Upon reading the "Anti-Catholic Statements" section which is inaccurate as well I edited just the title accurately to reflect that the statement is targeted specifically at a Bishop, not Catholics as a whole.

Added back 'Controversial Comments' section, as well as founding TeamPussy

I have toned down Ward's comments regarding the Jewish faith, and added them under the subtitle "Controversial Comments" or such. (Apparently, one person toned it down, and then another deleted these references.)

Saying that Judaism was "inferior to Christianity" was felt to be anti-Semetic in many Jewish quarters, but I didn't use the term anti-Semetic - the reader can draw their own conclusions.

Comparing Muslim Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists is also very controversial. (CF aren't killing thousands of people, they just wear ugly clothes.)

I have seen some smaller editorial comments where editors felt that quoting Ward didn't accurately portray a 'complex person' or position. Indeed, these comments do reflect his off-the-cuff, abrasive style.

I do agree with many of your previous comments toning down some sections. However, it also seems as if someone is really trying to sanitize his biography, taking away most controversial comments or references. Since I need to cite sources, I can't add some of his more controversial comments, as they haven't been covered in the liberal Bay Area (he's on the Left). Cheerio.

---

(fyi, these days the SF bay area isn't liberal. it's about centrist, based on long term historical average.)

Bush claims to represent TVC Christians, and as commander in chief of the USA's armed forces, one could claim he's killed thousands. Meanwhile, Islamic Fundamentalists claim they are defending their religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations.

abuse toward callers is part of the talk radio/entertainment shock-jockism. 'sh(l)ock talk' has been the winning formula popularized since the late 80's. eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr, 'the savage weiner' (a bernieism for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)), Laura Schlesinger, Howard Stern, Don Imus,,,, .

A"controversial comments" section is appropriate (albeit perpetually messy) for these type of entertainers. 'controversy' is the core of their commercial appeal. 2z2z 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

OK, this article has been quite trashed for a while. Not just the bias, but the incorrect use of WikiMarkup is pretty sad. While I'm trying to edit the article to improve the existing content, I did remove some text from the "GodTalk" section that was pretty biased in it's current form, and unsourced. We have to be very careful with articles on living persons, and I'll not be reserved on deleting obviously troublesome non-compliant text. (People, please sign your comments) Cheers! --NightMonkey 07:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

---

wikisyntax is a bit mysterious (and tiresome to perfect) unless you're a regular edit/contributor. I'm sure wikiware coders are always working to improve this  :-)

here's a cleanup candidate: Scripps Howard Award for Excellence in Journalism i think should be actual name of scripps.foundation award i couldn't find history of a previous name for the award. but an about.com page may be the most popular "source" for the award's mis-naming?2z2z 00:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ok http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/03/10/NEWS15723.dtl , linked from the ever popular http://home.att.net/~qwoodard/KGOHistory.htm, seems to correctly match bernie to the award name "National Journalism Awards". 2z2z 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

easier to ask .. get permission (introductory paragraphs)

wikipedia page claims Grace Hopper is likely originator, and that wording is probably the version of wording that bernie uses. ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#_note-4 2z2z 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

An attribution to Rear Admiral Hopper, and an explanatory context pertaining to survival in a bureaucracy -- both of which have been clarified on-air by the talk-show host himself -- were added to this section in July, but someone has since taken it upon him- or herself to delete these disambiguating items. Can anyone offer me a reason for removing this information that does NOT indicate an intent to suggest falsely that this "enigmatic" signature line betrays an amoral or immoral mind-set on Mr. Ward's part? -- The facts are available, just call +1-415-808-0810 during Bernie's program and he'll confirm them for you himself.

In the very same introductory section, someone who frequents this page also seems intent on keeping the out-of-date self-description "unabashedly liberal" prominent, by deleting the truthful updated statement that since 2006, Mr. Ward has retired from his discussions the terms "Liberal"/"Left" and "Conservative"/"Right", having opted instead to describe himself and various others as "Progressives" and somewhat pejoratively, his traditional opponents as "Regressives". These are by now the well-established vocabulary used on his program. I'm not a mind reader or a psychoanalyst, and I have some mixed feelings about Mr. Ward myself, but in all honesty it appears to me that someone is obsessed with some personal old hobby-horse of their own here, and is willing to keep the article in an obsolete state in order to satisfy their obsession. -->May I ask that the next time this introductory section is updated, it be left alone, unless there is a compelling reason to hide these facts? DThrax 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after waiting 9+ days for feedback about the immediately preceding comments, I have restored the essentials of my former changes. I wish to reiterate here, and for my part, I cannot do so strongly enough, that I mean nobody any offense in making these updates; and that while these statements (pertaining as they do to a radio program) are hard to support from written/printed sources, they do accurately reflect frequent clear statements made by Mr. Ward on his radio program. DThrax 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

two linked pages moved or gone

'catholic league catalyst' pages (wikiped out-links 14/15 and 16) are currently 404's or something like that2z2z 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the Internet Archive to pull up the now-gone web-pages for referencing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit and unsourced material

I tried to do a little work but this artilce looks like its in pretty bad shape as far as unsourced material goes. Can any additions be added with sources going forward?Anyways, thanks, --Tom 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of for the most part. I'm going to continue to monitor and edit this page as I have time to do so. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to a primary source (an actual copy of the federal indictment http://abclocal.go.com/three/kgo/bernie_ward_indictment.pdf but you removed it, citing advertising amd undue weight reasons. I disagree with your reasoning, but would like to hear other opinions before reinserting the link. We need to be careful here of course, but I would think primary sources should be available for those who wish to view them.Seaphoto^Talk 04:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I never stated that the URL was "advertising." In my edit summary, I cited that it was essentially duplication of existing sources, but after further review, it would also violate verifiability -- since the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources, per WP:RS. Having the link could also add undue weight and potentially influence the reader's decision -- especially since it is all but used as a source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but disagree. The document is public record, easily verified, and was indeed published by a third party. I don't understand how it's inclusion would give "undue weight" - he has been indicted, and that is simply a fact. As far as influencing a readers decision on the matter, how is that relevant? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law, and there is a substantial portion of the article devoted to Bernie Ward's good works. To be fair, I will wait to see other editor's opinions on the matter before restoring the link.Seaphoto^Talk 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, that's not really a third-party source. It's just a local news station storing a copy of the indictment on their servers, which is different than if they had actually written an article based upon that. But I'll wait until we can get more feedback on this -- I'm interested in other's viewpoints. I'll also finish cleaning up the rest of the article tomorrow as well -- removing links and converting them into sources, and the like. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

why are you camping this article and revert-warring, seicer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP vios. necessitate immediate removal, per policy. From BLP, "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." There is no question that there is a dedicated group of POV-pushers who are attempting to derail the page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

that's fine. the police report is all over the place and is being served from many locations. shame on you for maintianing active support for this animal. 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk)

Good for you. This is an encyclopedia. Not a blog. Not a personal web-site. Not for your personal agenda or endavours. It's quite sad that you can't present your work in a balanced and neutral viewpoint, and resort instead of not assuming good faith in other editors by labeling them as pedophile-supporters. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

you clearly accept that he is a pedophile, and you are camping and editwarring to prevent the article from clearly reflecting that he is a pedophile. if the shoe fits...15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk)

Sorry, BLP vios. take precedence. If you wholly disagree, that's fine. But to label others as pedophile supporters is nothing short of personal attacks and will be treated as such. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i never did call you a pedophile-supporter. that's a conclusion you jumped to entirely on your own. i'm certain you support ward for other reasons and are merely inapropriately maintaining his reputation here. i suppose misrepresenting me and vandalizing my talk page is WP:NPA in a way simply stating facts about an individual is not in any way conceivable a BLP violation.15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk)

A police report is not proof of guilt, and there should be no rush to condemn the man before his day in court. I will say I am leaning toward including a link to the report - I've read it, and it seems an authentic statement of rather damning facts, but they have not been proven true. Linking will let people read, and judge for themselves, as the report is out there, and through the efforts of a national talk show host, being widely distributed. As for the article itself, I would strongly urge editors to leave the controversey section "as is" until such time as Bernie Ward has been convicted of a charge. At that point, it would be appropriate to include relevant details. Please remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum.Seaphoto^Talk 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. A police report is wholly one-sided, and we need a newspaper article to verify the claims in the police report, and to hear a counterbalance from Bernie Ward (or attorney). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Signs of a coming Edit War? (I'm ready to appeal to Administrative Authorities on this question -- Are you?)

I would like to ask whoever is responsible WHY they removed remarks I added at the top of this article stating that its purpose was to cover Ward's career, not to document a current event which can better be followed in the current press, at the SFGate link that was offered. I would also like to ask WHY the established American principle of the Presumption of Innocence should NOT be cited as a further indication that this article should not be instantly transformed, by people who ostensibly harbor personal hatred for Mr. Ward, into a one-dimensional "Bernie's a Pervert" Showcase? -- I am confident that whoever is doing this (Show Yourself!) will NOT be able to claim NPOV! Administrative Authorities: Your Input Is Strongly Requested Here. I recommend this article be temporarily frozen. DThrax (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:WQA#User:DionysiusThrax, I noted there was obvious WP:BLP violations with the article, specifically regarding the child pornography inditements. In the future, all statements need to be fully sourced, and this is not negotiable. Per Jimmy Wales, this type of information should be aggressively removed unless it can be adequately cited with reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DThrax, there is a person known as SeaPhoto that keeps deleting a reference to Bernie Ward's external home page, claiming that this is "POV". This is nonsense. Counterexample:There is nobody preventing the Michael Savage article from having a link to Savage's home page. Also, the article stated that "Bernie Ward *was* a talk show host..." as if the man was dead. He is distinctly alive. Please stop seaPhoto's attempt at censorship. I also appeal to the Adminstrative Authorities. Savebernie (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of POV is when you edit Wikipedia to push a particular point of view, Savebernie. Please review my edit history on this article before throwing around accusations. I removed a link to a site that purports to "Support Bernie Ward"; that is not the same as removing a link to an official homepage. If Mr. Ward has an offical website, then a link to it would be appropriate for the article. Reviewing the site in question, I see nothing that indicates Mr. Ward has an official connection to it, although to be fair, it appears to post letters from him. Point me to to something that indicates he considers it his official site, and that will be that.

The danger of claiming that a site is "official" when not sanctioned as such by the person in question should be obvious, but particularly so when there are legal issues at stake.

As for the "was/is" a talk show host, that was not my edit. Since you bring it up, the sentance could be more clearly written - certainly he is still alive but is not, at this time a talk show host. I don't feel stongly about it though, so will leave that decision to others. I would like to hear from Seicer and other established editors regarding the link to the page too, so will leave that alone for a day or two until we can reach consensus regarding that issue.Seaphoto^Talk 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Savebernie", your attempts at adding materials to Bernie Ward are nothing more than POV-pushes, which is painfully obvious given your username reflects the edits of your single purpose account. You are also adding in spam links to not his "home page," but to your web-site which is pretty much all about how Bernie Ward is not guilty. Which is also POV-pushing. Please cease those types of edits. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"seicer", please do not judge the merit of the changes based on what my username happens to be. This is indeed the very first time I have edited Wikipedia, mainly because I didn't care about it enough in other cases. Anyway, let us see whether the "support" page perhaps will morph into an official home page, will you then agree? I have to state that current page is not neutral, with mucho material about indictments, purported views etc. If one cannot even link to a man's homepage (by any other name) where he (among other things) defends himself, how is he going to get a fair trial in cyberspace? If the Michael Savage (the polar opposite of Bernie Ward) article can have a link to Savages' homepage, then it must also be allowed for Bernie Ward, or I have lost all faith in Wikipedia. I don't mind seeing a "controversy" section either, which is something I have seen in many other articles. Why not here? The GA indeed questions the neutrality of the current article, and I agree with that assessment. By the way, the link was not to MY website, I did not set it up. Savebernie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in regards to section headings, not text. Once again, how is spamming a web-site that is not endorsed or managed by Bernie Ward declare it to be of some official value? You alluded to the fact that it was not even his web-site; if it was, that would be marginally acceptable per WP:EL, but as it stands, it's just one POV-link. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, the link I posted IS the official Bernie Ward web site. Just take a look again. It now also has real domain address: www.supportbernieward.com. Is that good enough now? Savebernie (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It claims to be the Official Support Bernie Ward website. As such, it would be in conflict with WP:EL Links to be avoided #12. However, I see some effort is being made by the page to make it more "official". Just ask Mr. Ward to make a statement on the page, if it is indeed his own, that it is his official website (not that he or his family simply "endorses it") and I will have no objection to posting it under WP:EL What should be listed # 1. The fact it has a domain addres is irrelevant - to use your example, if I owned the domain name "suppportmichaelsavage.com", that would not make it his official site. Please step back, and consider for a moment if people were allowed to put up links from Wikipedia to official sites that were not indeed such, and what damage that could result from that,particularly for a controversial subject. Seaphoto^Talk 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it's not an official Bernie Ward web-site; it's a web-site from supporters of Bernie Ward, as the title claims, "THE OFFICIAL SUPPORT BERNIE WARD WEBSITE: Updates, Political Commentary and News from Bernie Ward." However, at the bottom is, "Friends of Bernie's." I also see nothing more than a blog web-site, which is specifically excluded per WP:EL. It would also be nice if the WHOIS information for the site wasn't private, so that the authenticity of the web-site could be verified. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's improve upon this...

I've done my part in improving the article, wikifying as much as I can, converting links into sources and applying proper attribution, and cleaning and condensing the text for better flow and to remove POV pushers. I think the next step is to ensure that this stays the same and hopefully it will improve so that it can quality for good article status. Best wishes! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good edits. I added a source for the his suspension (found here). I think this fact is important enough to be included in the introduction of the article. Seaphoto^Talk 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit, I am pretty sure I had a reference in there pointing to the transcript at one time or another, regarding the Hustler bit on CNN. As for the latter, I believe the source prior covers that (I'll check on that tomorrow), or alludes to it. If not, then it can be safely removed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the sections, they are indeed more NPOV. I checked the reference listed before removing that section, but it referred to the Larry Flynt article on WP, not to anything relevant to this one. Unless it can be documented, that is a pretty inflamatory statement. Without a tie-in to statements made on the show itself, the CNN reference is not relevant to this article.

As far at the statement of support, it is relative - there are several hundred signatures on an online petition of support, but Ward had an audience of hundreds of thousands at night - KGO is a powerhouse on the West Coast after dark. At what point can - or should - we judge support be "substantial"? Advertiser support might be easier to judge,or perhaps a short list of those who have issued a statement of support? This is a thin NPOV line, but it might be relevant in this case, as it would be notable if an advertiser is willing to do this under these circumstances. Seaphoto^Talk 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I suppose that it is a relative phrase, and after looking at it, it really does pretty much amount to a POV-push. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent cut/pastes

1. You were cut-and-pasting press releases and violating copyright from this web-site.
2. You were referencing blogs, which are not acceptable reliable sources per policy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I would however recommend that the lead be expanded a bit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   His biography section was too short, his childhood is overlooked, his parents are not mentioned in greater details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Is 'Child pornography indictment' and 'Views on Judaism and Catholicism' really neutral?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I am sure that pictures should be used at least twice, I can not pass this article unless some pictures for illustrative purposes are present.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article.

Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I should have went ahead and requested a peer review instead of a GA-request, but this should give a few pointers. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of two items, by adding a FU image of Bernie Ward to the infobox, and by renaming two section headers per WP:NPOV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting Prurient Details about the case

I would suggest holding off posting the lurid details into the article until there is a resolution to the case. As far as the link to the most recent KGO article, I don't feel as strong about deleting it, but would like to hear others opinions before its inclusion.Seaphoto^Talk 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No reason to hold off posting if new material is avaialable. IMO. Hempbilly (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this include removing counter arguments? It has since been restored. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the information from the indictment, his counter argument seems like a staming pile of BS. Hempbilly (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide. Per WP:V, you can't use the indictment as a sole source; it must be verified with third-party sources. To not provide a counter-balance, as far fetched as it may be, is in violation of WP:BLP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You Ward-healers have really made the offense seem quite mild, considering the sourced details that you've deleted. May he live up to your devotion. Badams5115 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that there is no urgency to putting unproven details into the article, that would be my posistion no matter who the subject was. There is no good reason not to wait until the criminal matter is resolved. If it goes against Mr. Ward, then article will reflect those proven facts at that point. The fact that we are being railed against by both Bernie Ward supporters and detractors gives me some confidence we are doing a decent job on the article.Seaphoto^Talk 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have a point, if it was not for the fact that this kind of editing is not barred or even frowned upon on oither subjects. Hempbilly (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And we are not dealing with other subjects, but with living, human beings, as you are well aware of. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats that old saying about geese and sauce and ganders ...... I forget? IT would seem to me that if the material is cited to a reliable source and has some notability, then its not off limits? Or are there some rules for "some" articles and other rules for "other" articles? But more onto the proposed additions. Hempbilly (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From the top of this page:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

This applies to all biography pages, not just Bernie Ward. For example, Jared Fogel, hardly a political figure, is constantly having his article and talk page edited by those who wish to push their POV about his private life. A police report is a series of allegations, not yet proven. The link is there in the article for those who wish to read and evaluate it for themselves, but until those facts are proven in court, they should not be in the article or talk page. Jimbo Wales has been very clear on this policy, and has personally intervened in the past when this has not been followed. Whatever your personal feelings toward Bernie Ward, please help us keep the article neutral until the facts of the case have been decided.Seaphoto^Talk 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Hempbilly plans on continuing his BLP-vio. rage with different accounts, per this comment. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Guilty plea

For what it's worth he plans to plead guilty.[1] I suggest we wait until he actually does, and see exactly what he pleads to as part of the plea bargain. At that point we can report it. A guilty plea is an admission so we can say he actually did it, or at least admitted to it, and then the prosecution defense theories, evidence, trial dates, etc., become rather unimportant (though the way he was caught, involving the Internet chat partner, is relevant enough to keep IMO). Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't exactly plead guilty as expected but all side announced a plea deal / admission. Under the circumstances maybe we should change the euphemistic headline "legal troubles" to something more to the point, e.g. "child pornography charges". I'm proposing it instead of doing it because I don't want to start any disagreements.Wikidemo (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. For example, the Gary Glitter article - which has been vetted by multiple edit wars - doesn't use a euphemism when discussing his child pornography and other convictions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points - with the conviction on one count of the charges, I went ahead and changed the heading from Legal Trouble to Child Pornography Conviction. Seaphoto^Talk 03:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[personal attack removed - Wikidemo (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)]

First, please don't engage in personal attacks against editors, it is never productive. In my case, you might want to read my comments on this page before making assumptions about my POV, as I have removed attacks against Mr. Ward along with POV pushes from his supporters, all in an attempt to keep the article fairly neutral. Of course, if you feel that the article can be improved, you are more than welcome to edit it yourself, as long as you cite references.Seaphoto^Talk 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I added one important point from the SF Chronicle article on the plea hearing: that Ward specifically admitted to transmitting child porn images "up to 150 times". That's in Bob Egelko's full article this morning (May 9) in the Chronicle. Makes it clear that this was not some one-time thing or "research", as Ward's defenders keep insisting. -BDLiddicoa (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed - feel free to add in a civil, constructive tone] Regarding the attacks I removed, a guilty plea is an admission of guilt and is functionally equivalent to a conviction. When a public figure admits to child pornography charges, and after that criminal conviction is widely covered by the press, the criminal is in no place to sue anybody for defamation relating to those charges. There's no WP:BLP violation there, although we do want to keep the article factual, encyclopedic, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just edited the newly added description of the sexual misconduct allegations from when he taught high school. For reasons of BLP, etc., I'm not sure that we should be reprinting claims like this. Even if he's convicted of crime X, that doesn't necessarily make it okay to describe unproven allegations of crimes Y and Z. But I didn't want to be too aggressive with my editing so I left it in. I did think that the detailed description and informal language (offered a joint, punched in stomach, grabbed breasts of underage girl) was unnecessarily graphic. If you want the full account you can always read the news article. Also, I removed the introductory statement about ABC7 news "was able to confirm", etc. If it's confirmed and not disputed, we can just print it as a verifiable fact. Wikidemo (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I think you made the right call. There should be some reference to the claims of the earlier assaults; it definitely has bearing on this case, but the original edit was a little bit too "this is proven fact" for my taste. Good job. 63.249.96.155 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Documents

FYI, The Smoking Gun has some of the police reports:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0215081ward1.html

Proxy User (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken link in References section

The References section link to "FROM CNN: Transcript, December 10, 2004 - 12:00 ET" is broken. -- noosphere 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

statement about indictment claims Ward "joined an online forum dedicated to exchanging child pornography where he both received and sent photos" is not factual. reference link #13; indictment has none of this verbiage and needs to be better sourced or immediaately removed.67.180.133.77 (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I corrected that statement, which is indeed not in the indictment, as substituted the actual charges, along with a link to the source. Also corrected the date on the indictment as per the same source. Thanks for pointing that out!--Seaphoto^Talk 04:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the article lead needs better balance, please attend to this

The article lead mentions sexual misconduct complaints from 1978 and absolutely no favorable attributes of the subject encompassing the same or similar time frame. Although the recent criminal proceedings against Mr. Ward do indeed merit inclusion in the lead (as they are directly related to his departure from KGO), the 1978 claims have no independent merit in the lead apart from illustrating certain aspects of Mr. Ward's personal background.

This background information is no more central to this article than the numerous accolades Mr. Ward has garnered from his fund-raising and related accomplishments. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that the 1978 complaints be either moved further down to the relevant subsection of the article, or the article lead provide more balance by including a wider range of points related to Mr. Ward's personal background.

Please address this deficiency, as it does not reflect well on the neutrality and credibility of this article. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though more from a sense of the proper structure and flow of the article than balance. I removed the sentance in the lead concerning the 1978 complaints. They are adequately covered in the Child Pornography Conviction section of the article. Seaphoto^Talk 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" so if you can dig up some reliably sourced material, have at it! This material, in far more expansive, lurid detail, was added before he agreed to plead guilty to the more recent charges. As an unproven decades-old allegation it probably wouldn't even be admissible in court for the purpose used here, so it would have been a blatant WP:BLP issue. But now that he's plead guilty it seems nominally relevant. It may still raise BLP objections - just because you're guilty of crime #1 does not necessarily mean we reprint murky un-prosecuted allegations of crime #2. One counterargument might be that using the "do no harm" standard, this old incident hardly makes him look any worse than the new one. Wikidemo (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several justifications (some of which you hint at yourself) for excluding the 1978 claims from the lead, the most basic of which is the issue of stylistic continuity. User:Seaphoto addressed this appropriately and I concur 100% with both Sea's rationale and resolution of the matter. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase, "liberal american," right up top, makes the article seem as though it will be unbalanced. After reading more of the page, I don't think it's particularly unbalanced, but that phrase gives a bad impression, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.206.33 (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. It was redundant so I removed it - the lead already says once or twice that he's liberal and that his status changed from being a radio talk host to a former host, and I think we can deduce that he's American from the fact that he was born and worked in San Francisco, California. Wikidemo (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Decades-old complaints included in this article

Someone re-added content to the article lead, despite the fact that its original removal is supported by multiple rationales from more than one WP contributor, and also supported by a good-faith reading of WP policy.

In explaining this action, the contributor said:

if we deleted all summary items covered in the details there's no need for a summary.

Respectfully, this begs the question of why this particular "summary item" merits inclusion in this article at all let alone prominent placement in the lead.

Indeed, it appears no one has given a single definitive rationale to support why this needs to be in the article, other than: "it was in here before, in much greater detail". That is not an explanation. Similarly, it is not sufficient to justify tabloid-style exhumation of decades-old complaints based on a plea-bargain stemming from completely unrelated charges and completely separate parties.

The support for including these older complaints seems to ignore that they:

• 1) would be barred from criminal or civil proceedings under statutes of limitations;
• 2) would be generally inadmissible in any trial or hearing;
• 3) are not relevant to the subject's departure from his position and ancillary activities as a radio talk show host (which is what makes him notable for inclusion in WP to begin with); and
• 4) appear to lack any indication of coverage by criminal or civil proceedings, arbitration, job dismissal or employee disciplinary action, religious sanction, censure, or any kind of formal hearing whatsoever.

Where is the foundation to support that these complaints are actually factual? If factual, where is the foundation to support that they are actually relevant in an encyclopedia article? If relevant, where is the *balance* required by WP:NPOV and basic ordinary editorial competence? Where is the reference citing Mr. Ward's (or attorney's) response to these stale claims?

Apparently, there is none of the above.

The compounding fact that this content was re-added apparently without any direct substantiation based on WP policy seems especially ill-considered. Really, it's very dubious to permit inclusion of this content at all. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the decades-old complaints, but someone also removed the child porn conviction from the lead paragraph. The child porn conviction is certainly recent, factual, and notable. Roger (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the decades old complaint does not belong in the lead, but the child porn CONVICTION must be in the intro.--InaMaka (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

An FYI, I've posed the question regarding child porn convictions in the lead on the ANI noticeboard here. I'm not sure what all the concerns are but this is probably a more general issue. Wikidemo (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no it does not need to be in the introduction. It presents undue weight and is nothing more than bias that is introduced early into the text. There is space below that is more appropriate for the text, and I indicated it as such with the edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked several other prominent people who were also convicted felons, and the WP introductory paragraph always mentioned the criminal conviction. It would be odd to leave it out for Bernie Ward. It is the only explanation for him not being on the air today. Roger (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. I think what seems odd about the lead is that the two events are not connected so the child porn thing seems tacked on. How about connecting them with something like "He was taken off the air in 2008 after xxxxxxxx." His sentencing is in a couple months so we can change it then to "He was taken off the air and sentenced to xxxx after xxxx." Wikidemo (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been changed consistent with Wikidemo's suggestion. This seems like a reasonable approach that also connects why it's relevant for inclusion in the article in the first place. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Add a clear description of Mr. Ward's political leanings

Since it is inconsistent with the Wikipedia entries of other talk show hosts, I added "liberal" to the description of Mr. Ward as I could not find it anywhere in the article. “Lion of the Left” is not sufficient when comparing this entry to those of other political commentators and talk show hosts.

I am not familiar with how to edit the reference list, and I know that POV additions are hammered frequently, so here is a link to my source: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10326294?source=most_viewed

If someone in the know would add that to the reference section, that would be great. Thanks. Looftie 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is consistently liberal on a very wide range of issues, and neutral sources describe him that way. Roger (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Utterly subjective and irrelevant. Some would even consider that a personal attack. I has no place in the article. Substantiate your claim. "X is a liberal" is not the same as "Y claims X is a liberal". By who's standards. Vagr4nt (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper articles about Ward have usually called him a liberal. Ward is happy to call himself a liberal. WP articles on other talk show hosts frequently label them as conservative or liberal. Ward is a liberal by any standards. His politics rarely get described any other way. Are you just trying to be argumentitive, or do you have some reason to believe that "liberal" is not accurate? Roger (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective or not there is such a thing as a liberal and a conservative, and a talk show host's being one or the other is a rather crucial career distinction to make. Ward is universally described as liberal. Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First,it might be subjective, unless the person in question described himself as "unabashedly liberal" for the majority of his career. See http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3980105&page=1 Second, how is calling someone a liberal or conservative, if it reflects their political views, an attack? When did Liberal (or Conservative for that matter) become something to be ashamed of? Seaphoto^Talk 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good find Seaphoto. I've integrated the quote from Bernie into the lead paragraph. I don't think anyone can argue with including his self descriptive terminology. --Crichton91 (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He can call himself whatever he wants. Doesn't make it so. "Liberal" to you could be something else to me. It's an irrelevant and subjective label and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Vagr4nt (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other major political broadcasters (Rush Limbaugh, and Shawn Hannity are two examples), they are listed in the introductory paragraphs as "conservative". The article for Bill O'Reilly, uses a self descriptive term, "traditionalist". So clearly such labels are in common use in articles about radio talk show hosts. Is your concern the term liberal itself? I suppose we can use the term "progressive" instead, as that seems to be the more politically correct term to use as the antithesis to "conservative", although the subject of the article used liberal for the majority of his career. Let's see if we can come to a consensus rather than reverting back and forth.Seaphoto^Talk 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to fathom why we're having this talk. He was clearly a liberal talk show host. The genre is important. It's probably okay to infer that by referring to him as the "lion of the left" but there is no reasonable doubt as to his liberal politics. Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Say "Currently"

It's incorrect to say "Bernie is currently serving a sentence...", because "currently" has no meaning in an encyclopedia entry.

Assume the reader could be reading the article 10 years later. "Currently" would be incorrect 10 years later.

You can say "as of such and such a date", and give the specific date.

An encyclopedia entry is not a dated news-report or a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.68.7 (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a living document, and articles are updated all the time. "Currently" is accurate, but if you feel you can improve the article, Be Bold and edit it. Seaphoto^Talk 07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

71.198.209.193 (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)== Current blog ==

I attempted to add a link on the bottom of the page in the external links section http://lionoftheleft.blogspot.com/ his current blog from prison. A bot removed it, any reason for having the bot auto remove this link? 71.198.209.193 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, blogspot (and blogs in general) are not allowed under WP:ELNO. That is why the bot reverted it. However, there is an exception when it is the official blog of the subject and they don't have an official website. On the face of it, this blog meets the criteria; the only problem I see is after going through several pages (and the "about me" secton,is that nowhere does it say it is written by Bernie Ward. Yes, I'm pretty sure it is, based on the content and comments, but pretty sure is not a Reliable Source. What is needed is a published account from a major media source or other verifiable source(and not a another blog or a comment on the internet saying that Bernie Ward's blog is here) saying that this is indeed written by Bernie Ward. In that case it would be acceptable to include it. I hope that helps a bit. Seaphoto^Talk 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Only reason I heard about this blog, is Pat Thurston, a fill-in host on KGO Radio (810am) mentioned it on the air that this was his blogsite. Beyond that, google searches don't seem to get any published results from reliable sources, besides this one: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/24/18603812.php 71.198.209.193 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernie ward has been called "The Lion on the Left" for many years. If you google "Bernie Ward, Lion of the Left" you get many sources saying just that.i.e. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315763,00.html. BTW, Pat Thurston has her own regular show on weekends and sometimes fills in during the week. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So can we add the link to his current blog to the wiki? 71.198.209.193 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would. Seaphoto? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why he doesn't identify himself in the blog (perhaps legal reasons, but that is just speculation), but I haven't been able to find anywhere in the blog that identifies it as being written by Bernie Ward. If there was, it would be an easy decision, but as is, I would not add it. Seaphoto^Talk 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Only thing I've found is http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/24/18603812.php?show_comments=1 which based on other articles seems reasonably credible.

The problem is that the source is an unsigned blog, which is not considered to be a reliable source. Like many other things on Wikipedia, we may know something is true, but unless we can verify it with a reliable source, we should not include it. Seaphoto^Talk 06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed deletion

After giving it some thought, the subject on this page may not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia. please see Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT for reasons why I propose deletion. Caffeine USA (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the PROD tag, as Ward was well known even before the child pornography conviction, appearing as a commentator on CNN among others. Once removed, the PROD tag cannot be restored, but you can bring the article up through the Wikipedia articles for deletion process, where you can solicit the opinions of other editors and we can come to a consensus. Seaphoto^Talk 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be a weak case, I think. The article was alive and well, if poorly cited, before the allegations of child porn came out. It's very likely that the article would have survived an AfD, even minus that notoriety. Now that there are so many new sources describing the criminal matter it's hard to tease that out. Before his conviction there were some serious BLP concerns over repeating unproven allegations, charges, and day-by-day accounts of the trial. At this point it's fair to say he's been convicted, although as a WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS matter it might be best to shorten that section and focus more on the event and its aftermath than the mechanics of the case. The case itself was of some biographical interest because of the unusual nature of the claims made, and prosecution / defense / public relations strategy, but I don't think things like what date a judge ruled this or that or somebody gave a press statement are biographically relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the feedback. My thought is that an ex-radio broadcaster loses notability really fast. Several examples kicking around including Duane Garrett, who passed in 1995, who was perhaps more notable since he was involved in the Fienstien campain. Yet, Duane Garrett doesn't have an article here. Being convicted for child porn doesn't make one notable either. This is why I brought it up. My guess is that over time, notability will indeed fade. Caffeine USA (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bernie Ward was very high profile, with national exposure; of course that lead to even more coverage during the time leading up to the trial and convcition. As for Duane Garrett, if verifiable sources can be found I think a good case could be made for an article on him. He was a well known political operator with his own talk show, which I remember enjoying when I lived in the Bay Area. His death was very sad. Seaphoto^Talk 07:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)