Talk:Michael Ware

Untitled

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)

can't quite tell, the link & page looks questionable. is it a blog site? PrBeacon (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks that this guy is amazing...?!

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)

Hear hear. I have no idea, but I noticed it today as well.--Dali-Llama 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's been fixed, because his photo in the article is slightly askew! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.204.247 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He was a rugby player. He was sent to France to cover this year's World Cup and I saw him interview an Australian player who he introduced as a former team-mate. So, I imagine his nose is the result of quite a few good hits at the bottom of one or two rugby rucks. GringoInChile (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)200.90.251.97 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Something should be said about his nose. Obviously it's far from being the most important thing about him. However, his badly-broken nose is a distict feature. --71.178.77.170 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What a joke

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).

POV

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)

Rewritten Controversy Section

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)

I would add that subsequent edits to the section made by User:74.71.88.63, however, were not in conformance with policy. The sources cited don't support his edits and I was planning on reverting them. Lawyer2b 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for reverting

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)

First, I appreciate your making the effort to discuss the edits. I'd like to respond to each of your paragraphs with mine below:

With regards to the heckling reported by the Drudge Report: Unfortunately, even though you watched the press conference and didn't see it, it doesn't meant it didn't happen. However, more on point is that wikipedia precludes citing/using ones own experiences as a basis for making edits. I am not comfortable simply taking out the mention entirely, but I'd certainly be willing to put in a clarifier stating something like "According to the Drudge Report (April 1, 2007)..."

For a reporter to even have an entry, I think it means at least some of their work inherently is notable and should be included. To that end, if you would like to add information about his work or opinions that conforms to wikipedia policy, please feel free to add it.

If you have some reliably sourced information that addresses the context of his remarks on the Bill Maher show, please include it as well.

It sounds like you aren't disagreeing that the information I added is reliably sourced, only that perhaps there is more information that should be included. I apologize if I removed citations you added. I will try to only add back my information if it is removed, rather than revert. Lawyer2b 22:14, 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:

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[3]

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)

I concur with this solution. —Ocatecir ^Talk 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many news sources you could cite. - auburnpilot talk 04:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I was late, and there's no longer reason for discusion until someone better at formatting than I am rewrites the section. Although none of those sources look more reliable to me than DR.

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)

I hardly think page protection is a warranted action in this situation. Page protection is to protect pages from users acting in bad faith. Users here are trying to reach consensus on how to document Ware's controversial actions reliably. —Ocatecir ^Talk 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to cite the Washington Post story on the DR's story. Teaforthetillerman 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add it if you think its important. Arbustoo 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar enough with citation code and not free to learn it atm. Thanks for your consideration, though. Teaforthetillerman 04:31, 3 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)

I think its best not to slap a political label on either one. -Hal Raglan 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

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)