Talk:Richard Machowicz

Religion?

Right now, the first thing the page describes Mack as is "Jewish". Even if true, (is it?) is that really relevant, much less worthy of first mention? D.B., August 3, 2008. ---

lolwut?

"He is qualified expert in all weapons" - Shouldn't this kind of juvenile BS be in an Uncyclopedia article?? I didn't know there was a singular standardised global scale of expertise for ALL weapons... Removing this sentence unless anyone has any objections... 124.150.32.218 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should not be removed because it's just quoting what is said on the DSC site. They're probably trying to say that he shot Expert in both Rifle and Pistol so has the E device on his ribbons.

Text from website

I have made the text from the website, which someone before me edited for capitalization and put on this webpage, and made it into a quote. As of yet, the article would become an even smaller stub without it. Please do not remove it before first talking about it and giving your reason why on the discussion page. Kevin 02:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that text; the reason is clear-cut and needs no discussion: WP:COPYVIO. In the process, I also removed unencyclopedic content such as the "Mack Shrine". Frankly, I think this article should be merged with the TV show that the subject hosts, as I don't think he satisfies notability outside the show. Brianlucas 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cars

From the opening paragraph: Mack drives a large variety of vehicles, often with off-road capability, to get to his show's destinations. Is that relevent? Does it mean anything? Does it add anything? Gerard Schwarz drives a shiny Buick, I've seen him behind the wheel myself several times. I wouldn't add it to the article (well, it would be "original research" anyway... But my friend saw it, too.) - Proxy User (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bin Laden Operation

Unless a source is provided, this smacks of an advertising 'dogpile' and should not be taken seriously. Machowicz has been out of service since '95. This paragraph should be deleted. 67.187.136.140 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article needs work

That, or be deleted entirely. Really, this page is an insult to Wikipedia standards. If we can't clean up this page then it needs to just be merged with his show... He isn't even notable enough by Wikipedia's standards in the first place.
Some things that stand out as desperately needing change here:

NDCQ® is an acronym for Mack's mantra Not Dead Can’t Quit! NDCQ.com is website community of committed individuals who wish to make the very most out of the incredible gift that is their lives. The site provides the community with tools, information and products that support them in accomplishing their life's mission. To learn more check out NDCQ.com

Can't we do something other than just copy and paste something from his website? Here's another one:

Mack is also the founder and creator of the Bukido® Training System. Bukido® is much more than a martial art; it is the physical manifestation of a performance philosophy which uses unarmed combat as a metaphor for exploring the dynamics of doubt, hesitation, second guessing, stress, pain, fatigue and fear. Bukido® teaches clients how to maximize their ability to focus in any environment.

We also need to get rid of ridiculous lines such as this:

Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the dynamic duo that created the hit film Crank.

Furthermore, it's almost as if the person (people) who put this article together don't know how to put in references... Instead there are direct links pasted all over the article. It looks sloppy, and it's not following Wikipedia's format. 71.191.90.51 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

As previously pointed out, this article is extremely poorly written. The biggest part is copied from the official website. There are no proper references. I believe this article is beyond rescue and should therefore be deleted, or reduced to a stub. I believe for both cases, AfD is the proper response. If not, I apologise. Rudiculous (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your nomination for deletion because it was not completed (it's a 3-step process). Please see the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. —SW— ^spout 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was a misunderstanding on my part; I will correct it. Rudiculous (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re: Radio shows and quotations

Notations on radio show comments made by Machowicz have been added to this page, and a WP:SPA has come along demanding page locking and insisting the content be removed as well as insisting that because KSEV does not provide podcasts, the shows cannot be referenced. It seems to me this is a double standard since if the station DID provide podcasts, it would be easy to reference them; not dissimilar to referencing an out of print book, the material of the show itself is still valid to be referenced.

I am starting the discussion here. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply citing a show name and date might otherwise be okay for something non-controversial, but for such extremely and potentially libelous statements in a BLP, Wikipedia requires more... specially as the provided show name and date[1] or the host name and key words DO NOT provide ANY reliable sources reporting on this.[2][3]] [4] Contoversial or potentially damaging information in a BLP must be attributable to a source readers can verify. If it cannot be, it IS TO BE REMOVED. See the lede at WP:BLP. This is POLICY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

in addition, if any specific comments from the show are worthy of being covered in the article, the comments will be reported in third party sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

re the out of print book - it would be possible to find a copy of the out of print book to verify. it is not possible to go back in time and hear a radio broadcast to verify what was said. some physical copy of the show would need to be identified somewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael and the Pen have covered everything I had to say. Extraordinary claims, especially about living persons, require extraordinary documentation. Why don't we all concentrate on making the existing article better, and on requiring some better sourcing for this BLP? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS. MANY PEOPLE HAVE HEARD WHAT MACK SAID LISTENING TO HIM ON THE RADIO, JUST AS MANY PEOPLE HEARD THE THINGS THAT GOT HIS PREDECESSOR FIRED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE KSEV BOSS'S POLITICAL CAREER. BEING TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO PROVIDE RECORDS OF THE SHOW DOWNLOADABLE SHOULD NOT PROTECT THIS RACIST BIGOT FROM HIS SPEECH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentMack (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouting doesnt make your crusade any more likely to succeed. However, if you find reliable sources that discuss the content of the show you may be able to make a case for adding appropriate content.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If these things were actually said, why are there no newspaper reports about it? Why is it not being covered by rival TV and radio stations? Personally, I'd love to have some documentation of right-wing talk radio hosts actually saying out loud the things their audiences believe; but that makes it all the more important that we insist on verifiable reports from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. When Michael Richards made his ill-conceived faux paus in front of a much smaller audience than that puprorted to have been listening to Machowicz's show, the Richards incident made headlines. As Orangemike observes... why did none of Machowicz's media competition pick up on and speak about the asserted Machowicz statement? An editor saying "many people have heard what Mack said" does not equate to it being spoken about and discussed in reliable sources. Any such extraordinary assertion requires verifiability. This is why we have policy dealing with libelous statements in a BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection

I have semiprotected the article for one week due to ongoing BLP violations. To the editors who wish to add this info: please listen to your fellow editors above who have given you excellent, policy based advice. If you find some reliable sources for this info and can agree on a text to add on the talkpage, let me know, and I will remove the protection earlier. Thanks all. --Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Polish?

The name sounds Polish. Is he of polish decent? can somebody find out something about it. --188.104.118.119 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Machowicz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080130174353/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/tv/future-weapons/mack-machowicz/mack-machowicz.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons/mack-machowicz/mack-machowicz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Death"

So Inquisitr has become the first to relay Mack's alleged January 2 death, as taken from his friend's Facebook post. Therein lies the problem: the article is just rehash of social media posts about Mack's health, without substantive news coverage. Please do not consider either the original Facebook post nor Inquistr as "news coverage" and use it as a source to support adding Mack's "death" here. — Wyliepedia 08:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, a majority of the worlds deaths are broken first via Facebook nowadays, or via Twitter. What else are we supposed to wait for? It's as valid as any death announcement. As you said it's his friend confirming the passing. If we're waiting for say the New York Times to run it, they're likely gonna break it as "the passing was confirmed by his friend via Facebook". So why hold off here? Makes no sense to wait for official confirmation when we have official confirmation. Rusted AutoParts 13:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur. The Inquisitr is the only source I could find to be able to verify the claim. If we consider that this report is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, than we shall wait for additional RSs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RIP "Mack". Quis separabit? 03:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)