This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael Ware article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23040.htm Someone please mention this link on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.94.53 ( talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I am completely baffled by this guy. Ware is a shrewd and obviously intelligent reporter. Everytime I see him on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, I'm always treated to his great insights. He has a way of summing things up objectively, yet with a personal edge that I like.
Very cool. Thanks to anyone and everyone who has contributed to this Wikipedia article. I enjoyed reading it a lot.
SammyJames 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)SammyJames
No, you're not the only one. I just saw him on Anderson360, lined up with a bunch of head-in-the-clouds Washington 'experts', and Michael's voice was coming through loud and clear as the one worth listening to.
But, oops - this probably isn't the right place for eulogies. 218.103.129.97 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's strange, I see him on CNN now and I can't remember his nose being so crooked before. Did something happen to it? or did I just see a bad (good?) angle of it before? 70.113.127.196 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This entry does have some interesting things to say, but the last section makes conclusions rather than just state the facts and shows bias. The 'Sniper Video Controversy' section needs editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.244.15 ( talk) 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
This whole article needs to be rewritten extensively. The whole thing is like a big wet kiss to Ware. — Steven Andrew Miller ( talk) 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, Especially the opening paragraphs. Ware is not "known for his stark assessments of conditions on the ground and his repudiation of the overly-optimistic assessments sometimes made by politicians" by me. Its clearly POV and incorrect imo. He is no where near as critical as other mainstream journalists such as Robert Fisk ect. For example if you would ask him how many Iraqi's have died he would say 1-200,000 as opposed to higher 500,000+ estimates. I'm Not saying which figure is right but his assessments are not known for being highly critical compared to his peers. He's more of a moderate/centrist mainstream journalist IMO nothing more, nothing less -Guy from STLouis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.185.56 ( talk) 09:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the new controversy section, as I left it here [1] is well supported and complies with wikipedia policies. User:CLDelmar, please point out specifics if you disagree (i.e. what part violates policy, how, and what policy is violated). Thanks. :-) Lawyer2b 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The information regarding Ware's heckling of John McCain is incorrect. It was posted on The Drudge Report with no attribution. I watched the press conference live on TV and streamed on the internet, it did not happen.
It is true that as part of his work as a reporter, he has been sent videos from the insurgents. After receiving the tape of the Blackwater killing, he refused tapes while working for Time. When CNN was sent the sniper video tape, he did provide voiceover for the broadcast after it was heavily edited. (All of this information is available on the CNN website.) I can add information on the controversy with citations to CNN, if you think it is important; additionally, I can add info about his comments in support of McCain's Iraq proposal and his stated dislike of the Democrats' withdrawal timeline. But I thought this was supposed to be an entry about who he is, not about all of his work.
Also, the information regarding comments made on Bill Maher's show are taken out of context. It was a joke made during a talk show, not a reporter giving a news report. I would have added it with the proper context, except that it was such a trivial event.
And every time you revert my edit, you remove the citations that I was asked to add. If you feel that I need to add additions to his work -- pro and con -- I would like to add to the page on which I have already provided citation for the original information.
CLDelmar 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am unclear on what can be used as citation material. I avoided left- or right-leaning blogs, etc. I used some media sources such as Time and CNN which are often accused of media bias, but they are, at least, credible. And they are this employers, so that's where his work is kept.
My aim for this page was facts. Perhaps opinion is more called for here. But I'll post some more controversy stories if that's what "sells."
But I still am not clear on why attributing something to the Drudge Report -- where it is unattributed -- makes it legit. According to the Wiki rules on bios, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article." That third standard has definitely not been met. Also, "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." In addition, the story is damaging to someone's professional career, which is in the realm of libelous.
Final quote:
So how does this unsubstantiated story pass the smell test?
CLDelmar 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The story should be added, and explicitly attributed to The Drudge Report, leaving people to make their own judgment about its validity. Obviously, different people give the DR different amounts of credit, but it's pretty clear the major media uses it as a source; if the NYT can cite it, and we can cite the NYT, we can cite the DR.
I'd add that major print media (AP, Reuters, etc.) stories often rely on the information of only one journalist. MD is a journalist who's important, even if you disgree with his perspective (a lot like Michael Ware, who obviously has a perspective, but is an important journalist). Cite him, and make it clear there's no other source available for the information. The allegation alone, in the most important breaking news source in the world, is worth a mention.
Teaforthetillerman 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Teaforthetillerman 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful circular logic, as all the blogs are using Drudge as their sole source.
CLDelmar
05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to cite the Washington Post story on the DR's story. Teaforthetillerman 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Corrected some of the wording for NPOV, accuracy, and grammar; someone needs to find better sources than left/right wing blogs, if possible, please. Teaforthetillerman 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two fundamental differences I see in citing the DR and RS. RS is a self-termed "liberal alternative to the DR." DR is (1) cited in mainstream media without political attribution, and (2) not self-described as taking a political position, although I agree that MD's personal leanings are right-wing. Teaforthetillerman 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Article needs some intro info & updates on Ware's current/recent reports in the Mexico drug war. PrBeacon ( talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael Ware article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23040.htm Someone please mention this link on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.94.53 ( talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I am completely baffled by this guy. Ware is a shrewd and obviously intelligent reporter. Everytime I see him on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, I'm always treated to his great insights. He has a way of summing things up objectively, yet with a personal edge that I like.
Very cool. Thanks to anyone and everyone who has contributed to this Wikipedia article. I enjoyed reading it a lot.
SammyJames 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)SammyJames
No, you're not the only one. I just saw him on Anderson360, lined up with a bunch of head-in-the-clouds Washington 'experts', and Michael's voice was coming through loud and clear as the one worth listening to.
But, oops - this probably isn't the right place for eulogies. 218.103.129.97 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's strange, I see him on CNN now and I can't remember his nose being so crooked before. Did something happen to it? or did I just see a bad (good?) angle of it before? 70.113.127.196 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This entry does have some interesting things to say, but the last section makes conclusions rather than just state the facts and shows bias. The 'Sniper Video Controversy' section needs editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.244.15 ( talk) 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
This whole article needs to be rewritten extensively. The whole thing is like a big wet kiss to Ware. — Steven Andrew Miller ( talk) 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, Especially the opening paragraphs. Ware is not "known for his stark assessments of conditions on the ground and his repudiation of the overly-optimistic assessments sometimes made by politicians" by me. Its clearly POV and incorrect imo. He is no where near as critical as other mainstream journalists such as Robert Fisk ect. For example if you would ask him how many Iraqi's have died he would say 1-200,000 as opposed to higher 500,000+ estimates. I'm Not saying which figure is right but his assessments are not known for being highly critical compared to his peers. He's more of a moderate/centrist mainstream journalist IMO nothing more, nothing less -Guy from STLouis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.185.56 ( talk) 09:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the new controversy section, as I left it here [1] is well supported and complies with wikipedia policies. User:CLDelmar, please point out specifics if you disagree (i.e. what part violates policy, how, and what policy is violated). Thanks. :-) Lawyer2b 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The information regarding Ware's heckling of John McCain is incorrect. It was posted on The Drudge Report with no attribution. I watched the press conference live on TV and streamed on the internet, it did not happen.
It is true that as part of his work as a reporter, he has been sent videos from the insurgents. After receiving the tape of the Blackwater killing, he refused tapes while working for Time. When CNN was sent the sniper video tape, he did provide voiceover for the broadcast after it was heavily edited. (All of this information is available on the CNN website.) I can add information on the controversy with citations to CNN, if you think it is important; additionally, I can add info about his comments in support of McCain's Iraq proposal and his stated dislike of the Democrats' withdrawal timeline. But I thought this was supposed to be an entry about who he is, not about all of his work.
Also, the information regarding comments made on Bill Maher's show are taken out of context. It was a joke made during a talk show, not a reporter giving a news report. I would have added it with the proper context, except that it was such a trivial event.
And every time you revert my edit, you remove the citations that I was asked to add. If you feel that I need to add additions to his work -- pro and con -- I would like to add to the page on which I have already provided citation for the original information.
CLDelmar 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am unclear on what can be used as citation material. I avoided left- or right-leaning blogs, etc. I used some media sources such as Time and CNN which are often accused of media bias, but they are, at least, credible. And they are this employers, so that's where his work is kept.
My aim for this page was facts. Perhaps opinion is more called for here. But I'll post some more controversy stories if that's what "sells."
But I still am not clear on why attributing something to the Drudge Report -- where it is unattributed -- makes it legit. According to the Wiki rules on bios, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article." That third standard has definitely not been met. Also, "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." In addition, the story is damaging to someone's professional career, which is in the realm of libelous.
Final quote:
So how does this unsubstantiated story pass the smell test?
CLDelmar 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The story should be added, and explicitly attributed to The Drudge Report, leaving people to make their own judgment about its validity. Obviously, different people give the DR different amounts of credit, but it's pretty clear the major media uses it as a source; if the NYT can cite it, and we can cite the NYT, we can cite the DR.
I'd add that major print media (AP, Reuters, etc.) stories often rely on the information of only one journalist. MD is a journalist who's important, even if you disgree with his perspective (a lot like Michael Ware, who obviously has a perspective, but is an important journalist). Cite him, and make it clear there's no other source available for the information. The allegation alone, in the most important breaking news source in the world, is worth a mention.
Teaforthetillerman 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Teaforthetillerman 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful circular logic, as all the blogs are using Drudge as their sole source.
CLDelmar
05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to cite the Washington Post story on the DR's story. Teaforthetillerman 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Corrected some of the wording for NPOV, accuracy, and grammar; someone needs to find better sources than left/right wing blogs, if possible, please. Teaforthetillerman 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two fundamental differences I see in citing the DR and RS. RS is a self-termed "liberal alternative to the DR." DR is (1) cited in mainstream media without political attribution, and (2) not self-described as taking a political position, although I agree that MD's personal leanings are right-wing. Teaforthetillerman 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Article needs some intro info & updates on Ware's current/recent reports in the Mexico drug war. PrBeacon ( talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)