Talk:Neal Boortz

It says: "Boortz was born in Bryn Mawr, Atlanta" -- While he is in Atlanta now, he was BORN in Bryn Mawr, PA.

Criticism of Felines?

On The Neal Boortz Show, he has criticized politicians, muslim extremism, the homeless, "government schools", liberals, smokers, the obese, cats, and welfare recipients, but considers himself an "equal opportunity" offender.

Is this a stealthy instance of vandalism? Does the word "cats" have a figurative meaning I'm unaware of? Does this guy seriously hate cats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.155.88 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I had to chuckle at your comment. It would seem that this is stealthy vandalism, however Boortz does have a dislike of cats. He is a dog lover and feels that cats are useless. I wouldn't say he hates them, but he does dislike them and has expressed this through the years. --Maniwar (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the clarification. The main thing I get from this article is that Boortz is one of the most painfully un-hip people currently alive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.149.91 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality?

This is a quote from the page:

"He abandons his libertarian principles when he finds it convenient for the government to police his personal dislikes -- like smoking. He supports the legal sale of drugs AND the ban on smoking. Then the government is just fine."

There seems to be a little editorializing on the part of one of site's visitors. I am taking out the last sentence, and I think we may need to strike the whole passage, as it appears biased. Just my thoughts.

I'm not sure the statement is even factually correct. While he's certainly against smoking, I've never heard or seen anything that would lead me to believe he wants the government to ban smoking. There's a similar claim made in the current version of this article that I'm removing now. -- SwissCelt 13:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

When Dekalb and Fulton counties underwant legislation to ban smoking from restaurants, he said something to the effect of, "If a business owner spends $100,000 for a system that keeps the air free of smoke, why can't he allow smoking in his restaurant." Basically, smokers can impede on his right to breathe fresh air, but that doesn't mean the city should bar owners from allowing smoking if they take steps to make the air breathable. So no, the statement isn't factually correct. But at times, it does seem that he wants it both ways. However, I believe that if currently banned substances became unbanned, he would harrass them as well. Otheus 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Boortz opposes anti-smoking legislation and is in favor of legalizing most all drugs. Not sure where the above information comes from. -kres — Preceding unsigned comment added by

NPOV

I don't know if I'm doing this correctly, but one thing that is inaccurate on the page is it says he started his radio career in Atlanta, when he actually started it in College Station, TX, during his time at Texas A&M University, where he worked at WTAW 1620 AM.

I didn't remove the Anonymouses edit because it contained good info, but it is dogmatic and POV in the extreme. It should be fixed, but I lack the requisite knowledge to do a good job of it. --maru 01:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Maybe you're referring to text that is no longer there, but these are all FACTS. He was born ___. He believes ___. Some people hate him because ___. Those are provable facts and, therefore cannot be non-neutral regardless of his beliefs or why people hate him. --205.243.112.50

Yeah, I was referring to now-removed text. The article is better now, but the subject of daily vandalism- I know this because I am one of the ones who watches and reverts. Just check the history. --maru 19:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach by Anonymous(205.243.112.50). "Some people..." is not really a "fact". Also, it is weasely and is used in Propaganda. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. --AI 13:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting back to the reliable versions of this page, Al. Christ, why do you people have to do this crap every time Boortz mentions Wiki on his show for 10 seconds? --Jhortman 13:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...also he is not an multi engine rated pilot nor is he a flight instructor of any type. This information is available on the FAA pilot database.

Hye, Jhort- what's with the "disputed"? Is that there just because of the constant vandalism, or is there something else? --maru 17:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously difficult to have a completely NPOV with someone like Boortz, but there were many irrelevant and unverifiable statements in the article whose sole purpose seemed to be to influence the reader's opinion about Boortz. I tried to make it much more factual, NPOV and remove the irrelevant comments. GeorgiaTex 01:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

GeorgiaTex, your change is obviously POV and warrant that they be reverted. The relevance of John Marshall Law School not being accredited holds no value in an encyclopedia enviroment. When you add comments like "self-described" as we've discussed in my Talk page, it shows that you are trying to influence the article and make it POV. I agree that Boortz makes it difficult to be NPOV, but many of your comments slant and ring full of POV. Stating that Boortz is loose on facts is POV. Unless you can cite reputable sources outside of Sugg, that rings full of POV. If you can contribut to the article without chaning the tone, please do so, however, keep it NPOV. Maniwar 02:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess this article has gotten more NPOV, so I take back my earlier comments.GeorgiaTex 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

Which?

• He began his radio career in Atlanta in 1969 at WRNG-AM (Ring Radio). Boortz also practiced law from 1977 to 1992.
• He began his radio career in College Station in the 1960s at WTAW-AM. Boortz also practiced law from 1977 to 1992.

These are two different, contradictory versions. The episode isn't mentioned in the bio on his linked website. Does anyone want to track this down and reference it? -Willmcw 20:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Also, it just says that he graduated with a law degree from Atlanta. Which school in Atlanta? --joeyo 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Homeless?

I am an avid listener to his show and have NEVER heard him criticize homeless people. I have heard him say the government should not get involved in this issue but that is far different from actually criticizing them. If he has please give a reference citation for this information.

Ryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't make sense

The politics portion says that on the radio and website Boortz says to not believe anything without checking it out for yourself...that's not really "paradoxical" to the following statement, and saying "however, paradoxically" sounds really wrong. -User:Progoth

I agree and have reomved the "however, paradoxically" phrase. -Willmcw 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing for flow

My edits were to improve flow. I pray I did nothing to arouse controversy.

Disclosure: I'm a fan, but I'm not trying to insert POV here.

• On Boort'z invitation and talk at the Libertarian convention... it seems irrelevant where it was.
• On the "major uproar" caused by his supporting the war in Iraq, this isn't so much POV as it is "original research". It's also really ambiguous.
• I separated Radio and Politics. I think this makes sense given the paragraph ordering, but it is hard to separate his politics from his show.
• I wonder if my injection "Boortz can frequently be heard" is along the lines of Original Research. It's intended to balance out the following sentences which indicate that maybe he hates only southerners. Please advise.

I don't think it's OR. This information can be verified on his daily blog; additionally, publications such as Creative Loafing have taken him to task for these stances. -- SwissCelt 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Am I applying the word unilateral correctly here?

Controversial Statements

Boortz makes A LOT of controversial statements. It is, in essence, his job to get the listener's riled up, or at least entertained. Should we have an article on "Boortzisms" or "Controversial statements by a radio talk show host" we can expand on this item ad infinitum. But for now, I propose:

• The lengthy quote concerning Ms. King is quite superflous. Moreover, it seems the edit was intended to be inflammatory due to Ms. King's recent passing. Should every public figure with an opinion on Ms. King get to have their $0.02 on Wikipedia? I don't think so.
• The O'Reilly quote irrelevant. The fact that he got under O'Reilly's skin is perhaps noteworthy, but you'd have to document some relevance and context for that ("Reuters reports it was the first time O'Reilly used the B* word concerning a guest.") Perhaps this quote would be better under O'Reilly's entry, but I don't see why it would make a difference. Should we note that Boortz calls Dr. Laura "cruella", or Limbaugh "the godfather"?

If someone wants to start an entire section or page of notable and controversial Boortz quotes and statements, by all means, create a compendium and insert the new article.

I don't understand the media matters links. They seem very POV and out of context. The "Controversial Statements" needs a major changeover. Not saying that he doesn't make them, he makes them everyday, which offends people of all types, muslims, poor, christians, smokers, liberals, republicans ect... An entry needs to be made seperatly to list all these, and should include links to his own website and an alternate source, maybe mediamatters.org I know he says many things, but it looks as if media matters tends to paint those things a certain way, either by taking them out of context, or omitting his entire point(s). --65.83.137.137 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of context?

paint a certain way?

All they do is record his program in full context for the world to see. --Asbl 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

With Media Matters while they only record statements which on its own is not pov the way that web site uses them is. --Soliscjw 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. How can it be POV, if all they do is record Boortz's words in full context. --Asbl 23:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Out of context, painted a certain way. They may record his program, but you sure don't have access to the 3-4 hours that it runs. In many cases he'll touch up on the same statement multiple times, or have callers who disagree with his point of view challenge him. Anyway, the point is, while Boortz makes many controversial statements, day in, day out, is it needed to site them all? Or just cite the ones that MediaMatters, which is a biased organization, picks up on? What? You mean there are things MediaMatters isn't concerned with? Look Boortz offends many people, or makes many statements that upset those people. These include: muslims, christians, jews, african-american, hyphen-american, hispanic, conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, smokers, libertarians... Anyway, I hope you get the point. In other words, its POV. In this case its MediaMatters POV, maybe you can find some christian website that lists all the statements that they don't agree with. I don't know really, I just know that to list all these controversial statements, that is controversial to one group, or in some cases multiple groups, fully lacks a larger chunk of the controversial statements that he makes. And because mediamatters concerns itself with a particular party, they are hardly non-biased, and barely can be considered objective or a lack of POV. Asbl I hope you can understand that.--65.83.137.137 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.83.137.137 (talk • contribs) .

I agree, Boortz makes a lot of controversial statements, so not all of them need to be listed in Wikipedia, only the most controversial ones. The Cynthia McKinney statements received a lot of attention and demands for an apology (which he did issue), so that one certainly belongs in the article.

I dont understand your arguments against Media Matters that "mediamatters concerns itself a particular party". Media Matters is a tax-exempt non-profit organization, which means, by definition, that they are non-partisan.

--Asbl 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, media matters is a non-partisan group. Go to www.mediamatters.org click on the "about us" button. As you can see it states "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time...."

Media matters a left leaning organization, similar to how Media Research Center ( http://www.mrc.org )is a right leaning organization. Neither are "non-partisan" groups.

And on the Cynthia McKinney comment. Boortz apologized on air to her. With her on the radio show. While this "controversial statement" might seem important or needed. It hardly is needed in wikipedia, which should be like an encyclopedia, where it notes the more important items, or facts. Boortz's personal comments/attacks on how her hair made her look is hardly a big ordeal, especially after he's apologized to her, and she accepted his apology. More importantly, a few weeks from now it will hardly be relevent. As the issue will blow over completly and be forgotten. Can you see this same comment in wikipedia 5 years from now? No, because its hardly anything important.--65.83.137.137 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with you regarding McKinney (for the record, I am not a fan of McKinney)

1. The article is neutral, and mentions that Boortz did apologize (did he issue the apology to her while she was on his show? if so, that should be added to the article).
2. I think the controversy should be on Boortz's Wikipedia article, as the incident reflects on his character and the characteristics of his show. Boortz should know better than to make such a personal attack over the public airwaves. Disagreeing with McKinney on the issues is legitimate -- criticizing her actions vis a vis the Capitol Police is also legitimate -- calling her a "hoe" is out of line.

Regarding Media Matters, I will give you that they have an agenda, but they are still non-partisan. I think it is definitely within the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy to quote them, as they take quotes in full context and either refute them, or simply just publicize them. If you, or anybody else, can show that what Media Matters post is wrong/biased/incomplete put the evidence in the article to refute them. There is no reason to exclude Media Matters. --Asbl 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to McKinney, I am saying that it may seem like big news now. But once the story isn't as big, its importance will disappear. 65.83.137.137 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am taking out the minimum wage statement under 'controversial statments' becuase it isn't really that controversial and nothing has really been reported about it.

With this continued use of Media Matters, it is very important to note that their recordings are still out of context and only record a small fraction of what is on the air. For instance, the statement in the "Controversial Statements" section: "On July 19, 2006 Boortz called the Islamic prophet Muhammad "just a phony rag-picker" and said it was "praiseworthy to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins.".[6]"

Whereas a more accurate quote would be "And I also believe that this Muhammad guy is just a phony rag-picker that created (interupted by caller)" Then Media Matters cuts to a new clip. (You are not able to hear the rest of that particular conversation with that caller) Further more, this particular statement starts with "I believe..." and was between a caller in which Neal was discussing ______ about. (we obviously do not know specifics because they aren't included in the brief out of context quotes/clips from Media Matters) In the "praiseworth to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins," Whereas the actual quote is "As long as we have stories like that -- and they're easy to find in the media virtually every day -- as long as we have stories like that about the religion of Islam, then it is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins." As you can see, both of these quotes are drastically different then what is used in the "Controversial Statements" section. Boortz is citing a certain (unknown) article to point out why he's saying that "then its perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy..." You don't know what article that he's talking about, which helps point out that the quotes are out of context. Further, please refrain from using Media Matters SUMMARY SECTION as a source for quotes for use in Wikipedia. IF you are going to use Media Matters as a source, at least make sure to use the quote, and not the snipet. 65.83.137.137 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed: "On July 19, 2006 Boortz called the Islamic prophet Muhammad "just a phony rag-picker" and said it was "praiseworthy to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins." Predicting Media Matters would flag his Cindy Sheehan attacks, Boortz also declared Islam a religion of "violent, bloodthirsty cretins" and called Prophet Muhammad a "phony rag-picker for reasons stated above. If it is decided to be added back in, please use the full quote, or ackknowledge that Boortz is discussing a particular article about the subject.65.83.137.137 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets not get into an edit war here. I am re-removing his "praise-worthy" statement, as he is citing a specific article. If it is put back in, you must include that in, and perhaps doing so you'd realize that it isn't controversial. I've made my case for removing it. Please make your case on why its needed. 65.83.137.137 15:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the statement is out of context or misrepresentative of his views. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, the actual quote is "As long as we have stories like that -- and they're easy to find in the media virtually every day -- as long as we have stories like that about the religion of Islam, then it is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins." Boortz is citing a certain (unknown) article to point out why he's saying that "then its perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy..." You don't know what article that he's talking about, which helps point out that the quotes are out of context and incomplete." I have looked for the particular article, but have not been able to locate it. Further more, as to his views to Islam, he does not have a problem with Islam, only has a problem with the lack of an outcry towards the extremists who have hijacked Islamic religion(on par with many muslims most recent reactions towards the Pope). 65.83.137.137 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

That's a good argument. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a statement qualifies as a "controversial statement" until it can be shown that that statement has created a notable controversy. For instance, if a columnist for the New York Times comes out and criticizes that one of Neil's statements, then you have a controversy worthy of being added to wikipedia. One can't just wave his magic wand and declare a statement to be controversial and just add it to wikipedia. In my opinion, that qualifies as original research. I keep finding these so-called "controversial" statements with citations that are no more than links to Neil Boortz's website. I'm hesitant to think the media matters links are really acceptable since they too only report what people say and therefore just because its published on the Media Matters website does not automatically qualify it as being a controversial statement. I'm gonna leave the Media Matters but I feell the ADD/ADHD passage and the passage on "urban outdoorsman" should remain out of wikipedia unless someone can find a notable source showing that these statements created some sort of controversy. If one were to add every statement which might cause or might have caused a controversy than one would end up posting a transcript of Neil's show. That, at least in my understanding, is not the purpose of wikipedia.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neal_Boortz&diff=97466095&oldid=97295570

removed

Those two statements were used as prime examples of the thesis of the section which claims that that Neil Boortz has "dealt with many controversial statements," yet nobody has shown these statements created any sort of controversy whatsoever.

AlmostFree 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on you. These statements have sparked journalists to write about Boortz, as well as Media Matters dot org to target him. He has stated on air, that many have called the stations he is on and asked for him to be removed. I am reverting your deletion. You can always help improve the article and add sources rather than deleting. --Maniwar (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

POV scrubbing...

HOly crap... this article is (perhaps unintentionally) santed. Addittionally, some of the poor flow makes it seem as if there's more points being made with like juxtapositioning of contradicting statements and such... I'm a-gonna make some sizeable changes in general, so watch the edit history and correct me as needed! Karwynn 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Radio Earnings

Rest assured that whoever wrote the part about Boortz earning "$8-900 per show" needs to take Neal's own advice and not believe everything you hear on his show. Trust me when I tell you that the host of a nationally syndicated radio show with over 5 million weekly listners makes considerably more than that. --Bigbadkeeper

Keep in mind much of his income comes undoubtedly from promotions and endorsements and such. THat figure (which I did not come up with, "'m just saying) may be accurate when referring to straight up radio performance income alone. Karwynn (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

didnt know where to add this, but haveing mediamatters.org as a credible source is a bit of a stretch, as they are way to over critical of non-liberals...just my 10 cents

Article seems fairly POV still. Specifically "Neal donated his share of the proceeds from this book to charity in order to encourage sales.[5] The book is one of his most frequent topics of discussion and is a common free gift to callers." The "source" states "So ... I can feel entirely comfortable urging you to go to the Internet or to your local book seller to buy a copy knowing that I'm not using the airtime to line my own pockets, but rather to bring about a change in our tax laws that would benefit every American, except, perhaps, for the K Street tax lobbyists inside the Beltway."

I can see how one would look at that as a way to "encourage sales." Though he had repeatedly stated on air that he felt that if he made money on this book it would hurt the cause. Previously, before he made the decision to donate his proceeds, he had gotten criticisms for making a profit on this book... After talking with his wife, she convinced him that he should in fact donate the proceeds to charity. I feel that part should be rewritten to "Neal donates his share of the proceeds to charity because he strongly believes in the Fair Tax movement and believes his profiting from the sales would hurt the cause." (also changed donated to donates, as he the book is still selling copies) I do not believe they currently are giving away copies of the book to callers. This may change in the upcoming week due to the fundraising activities of WSB 750 for Aflac Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Service of Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. 65.83.137.137 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam

I'm concerned about the following statement in the article: "He has created much controversy with his general attitude toward Muslims and their faith." While Boortz frequently takes Islam to task, he has made it clear multiple times on his radio show that he dislikes radical Islam and Muslim extremists, not all Muslims.Elwood64151 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. I'll make a small change now and someone can edit further if they wish. I'll just change it to "general attitude toward radical Islam" for now. Morphh 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the phrase "violent attude about Islam" to "attude about Islam" putting the word violent is a point of view --Soliscjw 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced. There are already some specific examples in the article, so I removed the statement, trusting to the idea that specific examples followed by an unsourced, sweeping generalization is not for good reading. Karwynn (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Check this: [[ http://www.cair.com/audio/Neal_Boortz/neal.htm Neal Boortz Threatens to 'Eradicate' Muslims]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.93.63 (talk • contribs)

It cuts off so you can't hear what is said after and you don't know what was said before the call (to put it into context). He was speaking about Muslims not taking any significant action against extremists and radicals that use the religion to justify blowing up children. He was probably refering to eradicating the extremists if peaceful Muslims fail to take outraged action against this segment of their religion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Error under "Author" and additions

I'm not sure where to rewrite these changes and where the additions should go, so I write them here.

The article discusses "The Commencement Speech" as if it were a separate book. It is not, it is a chapter titled "The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech" starting on page 29 of his FIRST book "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" (there is no table of contents and chapters are unnumbered), published 1998.

In the immediately preceding chapter "The College Years: Bludgeoning Young Minds," Boortz introduces introduces The Commencement Speech and writes of giving this speech on the air on June 6, 1996, and that transcripts were requested. These were presumably distributed, perhaps leading to the idea that the speech was published as a book. Boortz further writes that a recording of the on-air speech appeared on a "Best of Boortz '96" CD released in December 1996.

Additions (these are just two I don't see in the article, surely many more can be added):

Boortz has radio newsreporter Jamie Dupree on his show for the first segment (10 to 15 minutes) of the last hour (Noon to 1PM Eastern time) of his show, and is on daily except when either is on vacation. During the segment Dupree reports Congressional and Presidential news from Washington DC, and Boorts offers commentary.

Boortz has very occasionally mentioned that many years ago he took what was then called the Silva Mind Control course, now called Silva Method, and that he is a proponent of it.

benb 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Boortz new book "Somebody's Got To Say It" is out I got it today at Borders.

error in where he was raised

"Boortz was born in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, but, since his was a military family, he was raised elsewhere, in many locations throughout the country (most notably, in the small community of Thrall, Texas)." "Elsewhere" is not nessassery in the sentence sinse you have "in many locations throughout the country".

Neolibertarian

I see some people want to see him described as a "neolibertarian." I'm okay with a sentence or small paragraph on it. It doesn't need to be in his bio though. He is a libertarian, first and foremost. Just because there is a new movement with some libertarians, it does not acurately put him in that category. 65.83.137.137 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved to one sentence under the politics section. It just more accurately describes his libertarian views. Neolibertarians support incrementalism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of freedom. This more accurately describes Boortz in regard to the classifications of Libertarianism. Most libertarians oppose and are suspicious of government intervention in the affairs of other countries, especially violent intervention. The original and longest-running point of contention in the Libertarian Party is incrementalism. Hence, fractions of the libertarian party have been created that further describe the political philosophy of a person. I don't think it is anything POV or degrading to further classify his ideology. What is the description of a libertarian but the beliefs that person holds? He is a libertarian but more specifically, he is a neolibertarian. This is just a name that further describes the beliefs that person holds. I'm not sure how you would state that it does not accurately put him in that category. Morphh ^(talk) 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm thinking about rewording it a bit, but overall its better there then in the first paragraph. As to why I stated it didn't "accurately" describe him, well, that was simply where it was located. As a libertarian, he commonly mentions his disagreements with the libertarian party. Being that there is no "neolibertarian" political party, it would be incorrect to state he is a "neolibertarian talkshow host." It fits much nice under "politics" because there is more room to expand upon the term. 65.83.137.137 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A Class Aricle...

I'd like to see this article become an A-class article. What do we need to do to get it there? I've added some missing elements in his bio and reworked it a little bit. If something needs clean up or needs to be added, lets do it, but let's get this to an "A". Any suggestions or comments? --Maniwar (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It should first be submitted to GA as this is the next step after "B" class. Take care of all the citation needed tags. Refs should follow the punctuation without any spaces. Correct the ref that is a HTTP link and not in normal format. Give it a good read through and copyedit. Morphh ^(talk) 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I took my crack at it... The lead still needs expanding a bit (should summarize article - so add some politics and such) and others should read through it and give it any additional copyedits... Morphh ^(talk) 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, and you have done a great job. I've been taking stabs at it myself here and there and I do believe it's a much better article. --Maniwar (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I changed the lic. on the images to what I thought fit best for promotional images/items. See if you think anything else would apply - fairuse. We need to add a source for the bobblehead pic. Morphh ^(talk) 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the one pic of Neal signing the book for the moment Radar-2 Neal-Boortz.jpg. Looks like it was taken by Getty Images at a book signing and probably copyrighted by them. May be considered "Fair Use" if the image provider allows it as such. Since it seems this paper gets many of its photos from them, they may be under a contract to use the image and not part of "fair use". Take a look and see what you think but I'm not sure this would qualify under the specified lic. I added another one though of a Boortz FairTax ralley that is under public domain. Morphh ^(talk) 18:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should either be a B or GA. It needs a lot more material for an A or FA. Maybe talk about Boortz's personal life or a more detailed analysis of his political ideaology. I support this Good Article nomination.--Wikiphilia 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

POV in contraversial statements

The sentence " For example, Boortz sides with a small minority who believe that ADD and ADHD are "medical frauds" and a scam that teachers, parents, and drug companies use.[11][12]" seems POV to me in being that it starts with Boortz sides with a small minority. Please show where it is a small minority that believes this when congressmen and even the Attorney General Reno made public statements calling ADD ADHD "the greatest medical frauds in american history." http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/bless/addadhd.htm A google search lists 465,000 hits for add adhd fraud. Its far more than a small minority of people who believe this is a fraud. Maybe the sentence would be more correct in reading "For example, Boortz believes that ADD ADHD are "medical frauds" and a scam that teachers, parents and drug companies use." This sentence in itself shows the controversy by disagreeing with a large portion of the medical community, drug companies and the 5 to 7 million parents who have their kids on the drugs without making the claim that this constitutes the overwhelming majority. Unless someone can show me a poll or something that states the overwhelming majority believe ADD ADHD are legitimate, this is a POV statement IMHO. Hope im not out of line. Thanks Jmsseal 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good to me. I've made the change. Morphh ^(talk) 03:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I made the change, it showed that it took, but now that I go back I'm not in the history and I did not get an error. Too weird! --Maniwar (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and suggestion for making the article better. --Maniwar (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

newsmax.com

Re [1]: If independent editors endorse this factoid, that's more or less fine with me. (Frankly, I have no idea why or why not it's relevant to the article.) Note however that it presumably was added as pure self-promotion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#newsmax.com links. Femto 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was curious as to why you put this here, but now I see that you may have a beef with Newsmax. It is relevant because Boortz is very influential and carries weight in many sectors. For example, he singlehandedly influenced support for the Fair Tax votes during the 2004 elections. He is also the most popular Libertarian figure out there. Pointing these facts out add to the biography and to the article especially when they lend support. --Maniwar (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article is currently on hold for the GA nomination. This is how the article, as of May 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes. However, there is a 1-sentence section (Forbidden topics) that should either be expanded/incorporated elsewhere. Done Also, there are minor errors (see lead section). Done

2. Factually accurate?: Uses boortz.com for a majority of the sources. Usually this can be interpreted as copyright violation and/or advertisement. Please see WP:V. Also, please mention all the available information (author, publisher, date etc) in all the references. Moreover, while the information from the websites referenced do seem to have a substantial amount of information, it is not properly indicated in the article that this information has been taken. For example, the Career section does not have a single reference so it could be assumed that the information has been totally made up. Need to be extra sensitive for biographies.

3. Broad in coverage?: Seems to be thorough.

4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to be NPOV

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: All fair use.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be reviewed. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to state your opinions on the GA nomination page. Thank you for your work so far. — Zuracech lordum 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

Failed article as issues not addressed in time. Keep up the good work and please don't give up. Zuracech lordum 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

arrrr. For some reason this was kicked off of my watchlist and I am now just seeing all of this. OK, time to put on the editing cap. Morph, good work while I was away. --Maniwar (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What say you, that we give this another push for GA? I think a lot of the changes have been met, but i do welcome any additional fixes and changes. I think we're closer to FA. Anyone up for it? What else can we do to make it better? See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/December_2006#Neal_Boortz and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Neal Boortz for anything I missed. I do have a question, what do they mean by Alphabetize categories at the end of the article. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Neal Boortz? --Maniwar (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the Categories... I'll try to give it a read through this week but yes.. lets submit for GA again. If all looks good, then onto FA. Morphh ^(talk) 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some references that need to be formated. Morphh ^(talk) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done!!! --Maniwar (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think it will be a issue for GA but for FA we have a lot of single source refs. Almost everything is a reference to Boortz, instead of 3rd party sources like WSJ, NYT, Atlanta news, etc. We should try to get more independent sources. Looks pretty good.. should be ok for GA. Morphh ^(talk) 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about other sources, and will keep my eyes open. The hard part is that Boortz says many of these things on his website, and ABC, Fox, New York Times, etc, does not publish any of it. Also, I missed that duplicate link some how...good catch. Well, let me know and I'll keep tweaking away at it to improve it. I'd like to see the personal section increase if you have anything. --Maniwar (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged quotes

While I certainly do not disagree with what is said, if these are direct quotes, then they need to be attributed and annotated accordingly. As they currently stand, they should be removed since "you will see what I mean" is not encyclopedic in any way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While we applaud your efforts, it's nice to discuss something before reverting it. However, following your lead, just in case someone is not familiar with Boortz, I went ahead and added a lead sentence to that section. Hopefully that fixes your concern. --Maniwar (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this does not address my concern. The problem resides with the lack of formality with an encyclopedia and the use of first person/second person tenses/phrases. Highlights below in the offending text and explanations in parenthesis.

OK, here's a little inside radio for you folks. ("OK" is WAY too informal for an encyclopedia, as is "you folks." Who exactly is saying this? While it may be pulled from his website, it should be properly referenced and quoted) Mipping and mupping is slang for someone on the air not speaking any legible or understandable manner.(Perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia) The term comes from the sound a broadcast tape cart that has been improperly erased.(Also good) Using a monotone voice just say "mip mup mip mup mip mup mip mup" quickly .... you'll see what I'm talking about. (too informal, improper use of eillipsis, also see 1st sentence critique)

— BQZip01 — ^talk 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not complete, please do not revert without first discussing. Morphh, can you or any other editor chime in? Apparently BQZip01 isn't understanding that these are quotes from Boortz. --Maniwar (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF? I understand clearly that it is a quote and I . I am saying that it has not been cited properly and either needs quotes or should be paraphrased. As it currently stands, it appears to be text in an encyclopedia. In addition, the informality of the quote should certainly be attenuated by cutting out the superfluous words. I already pointed this out above. If this is a quote then it should be annotated as such. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a quote, then it should be enclosed in quotes. I don't have a problem with cutting the begining and end of the statement as I don't think it looses anything but it doesn't bother me to leave it if we quote it. If it is not a direct quote from Boortz, then I agree that the first and last part should be cut. If we trim it down, then perhaps we could add ("mip mup mip mup mip mup") to the end like presented here. (Morphh ^(talk) 3:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

this is absurd, but to appease, I've added quotes to it. I don't like the paraphrase aspect of it, because it leaves out...well, Boortz! How he says it, and I've heard him say it, is rather hilarious. --Maniwar (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not absurd, it is an encyclopedia. It is also not the funnies in the Sunday paper. I find a lot of what he says amusing too, but let's imagine for a minute another article about Joe Smith, a radio talk show host...

Joe Smith has a lot of sayings. Here's what they mean:

• Actor - a player on the Las Vegas strip
• Shaker and taker - Security at a casino
• Tip top - A high roller with no apparent limit to his bankroll. This kind of player is my favorite but is the riskiest for a casino. These kinds of assholes can drop millions or profit millions in a single weekend stay. If you see one of these players, you will recognize them from their serious bling.
• Zipper - a high-end player whose winnings go up and down

Without saying that the text accompanying "Tip top" is a direct quote it appears that this is an encyclopedic explanation of something he says, is very informal, and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP

I have copied the section I believe violations BLP, as well as NPOV:

On The Neal Boortz Show, he has criticized politicians, Muslim extremism, the homeless, "government schools", liberals, smokers, the obese, cats, and welfare recipients, but considers himself an "equal opportunity" offender.

I believe this violates BLP because it could possibly accuse him of being anti-liberal, ect. Although I am fairly sure he has criticized these groups, it needs to be referenced. Also, ...the obese, cats, and welfare recipients, but considers himself an "equal opportunity" offender in my opinion violates NPOV because of weasel words. A rewrite of the lead is needed. I'll work on a draft here. ~ Wikihermit 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Which weasel words? "but considers"? Those are his own words. I agree it need not be in the lead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to interject, On The Neal Boortz Show, in other words, he has openly criticised these things on his daily show...on the air. He jests about it and states that "I am an equal offender." They are not weasel words when he has said them. I guess the considers can be changed to calls himself and I will do so after this post. I think a consensus of this article will show that the editors who are familiar with Boortz would like to see that in. Just my $0.02. --Maniwar (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd believe it, but it needs cited. Citing it will work fine. ~ Wikihermit 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters in not a reputable source. If you are so bent on adding something, check some of the articles on Boortz's own website, or some of the articles he has written. I'll give you some time to replace it, but basically, the media matters article is not going to stay. They have been called on it many times for distorting the truth with Neal and many others. (i.e. [2], [3], [4], or [5]--Maniwar (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he a Republican?

It has been well-documented that Neal Boortz claims to be a Libertarian. He says so himself. However, his actions before the 2004 Presidential election suggest that he is actually a Republican. The weekend before the 2004 Presidential election, the most important political event in the USA, he campaigned through several large cities with hardcore Republicans Sean Hannity and Oliver North speaking to large crowds encouraging them to vote for Bush.

2 days before the election, the Boortz.com home page reflected that he encouraged all of his listeners to vote for Bush .

Although I haven't found it to be documented, Boortz stated on his radio show that he voted for Bush (Republican) in the 2004 Presidential election.

These are the actions of a Republican, not a Libertarian. His stances on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act are in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party. These are not peripheral issues. They are at the heart of what the Libertarian Party stands for.

If Rush Limbaugh, a talk show host with strong Republican views, claimed to be a Republican for four years, yet the month before the 2004 Presidential election encouraged his millions of listeners to vote for John Kerry, is he Republican or Democrat? If the weekend before the election he campaigned with Democrats Al Gore and Al Franken, encouraging tens of thousands to vote for Democrat Kerry, is Limbaugh still a Republican? If on election day, he voted Democrat for Kerry, is he Republican or Democrat? He would be a Democrat pretending to be a Republican until it mattered.

Boortz is a Republican that claims to be a Libertarian until it matters (election time). Libertarians vote Libertarian. Republicans vote Republican.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanE (talk • contribs) 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that you need to follow WP:SIG and please sign your posts. Now to respond to your questions. I see that last year you tried to inject these POV and opinionated changes/charges. I would like to caution you and ask that you discuss before re-inserting them or you may risk being blocked from editing articles, which is not what I want to see. Boortz is a card carrying libertarian. He has spoken at many and been invited to speak at many more, which he has turned down, Libertarian conventions. Neal votes more on principles, which in my opinion is the best way to vote. Many people do not vote along party lines, and because Neal disagrees with his party, does not mean he is not Libertarian. Additionally, I've heard Boortz mention on air that he like a Republican candidate better than the Libertarian, but because of principle, he voted Libertarian. Your argument is weak and rather POV. If you want to insert this in the controversy section, so long as it is a controversy and you can back it up with sources where the reader isn't trying to interpret what you're saying (WP:Cite), then add it there. But you must leave your opinion our of an encyclopedic article. --Maniwar (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neal is best classified as a neolibertarian. Libertarians vote Republican all the time... not everyone wants to waste their vote, even if they have the ideals of classic liberalism. He is for incrementalism, which is a big split in the party. He chooses who he thinks can win and further the goals of his libertarian ideals. In most cases, this is republican as they are the only option for someone that can "win". I agree with Maniwar. Morphh ^(talk) 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean regarding wasted votes, although I personally disagree with that mindset. Regardless, this is about a radio personality who reaches hundreds of thousands of people. He encouraged his listeners and readers to vote Republican in the most important election. If I could find a receipt that he was paid by the Republican party to campaign, would that help define him as a Republican? --AllanE (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican is a more accurate label. He subscribes to the libertarian philosophy while typically voting for and being involved in the US Republican Party. Does this sound reasonable to you? --AllanE (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments got wiped :).

Anyway, see the No True Scotsman falacy. Basically, he's a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. Unless he revokes this membership and registers with another political party. He is a Libertarian. --Wynler | Talk 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)