Talk:Jay Severin/Archive 2

Political Beliefs Moved Over to Quoted? Political Distinction, et al

I suggest that maybe some of his political beliefs would be more suitable in the "quotes" section, because as anybody who listens to his show knows, most of the comments that he makes are very tongue-in-cheek, and he makes them to garner a reaction. No Libertarian supports holding Bombers over foreign countries threatening to drop bombs on them in case of a terrorist attack, it is an absurd, near-sarcastic "solution" to the problem of Middle Eastern countries not willing to commit to preventing Islamic terrorist organizations. If you were to ask him, "Is that your belief," he would respond that it is, but it would be a sarcastic response, more or less making fun of one's idiocy for even being compelled to ask the question.

It might also be more accurate to describe him as a 'Republitarian' or Interventionist Libertarian because it would seem as if he is in favor of many Republican interventionist policies--not the sort of strict isolationist mentality that marked Post-war(s) America.

Finally, do you think that it would be useful to paint him in contrast to other radio talk show hosts of the same political persuasion? For instance, he doesn't like to be associated with Sean Hannity, nor does he really take to being called a "great American" like Sean Hannity and his minions do. I'm not sure if that's Encyclopedia-worthy information, but like mentioning his pendantic diatribe, it is something worth noting. Mike Murray 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is an unsourced laundry list. It's not appropriate for a biography article per WP:BLP. It also violates WP:NOT. I'm considering removing it unless there are any other objections or if someone can find a way to clean it up. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Married or not

I was going to post [1] this reference that suggested that he was divorced but 24.91.58.11's reference to [2] shed some new light on it. I looked up the purchase of his home in northeastern MA in Oct 2006 and found his wife's name of some of the property. I guess that ends the mystery. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He makes a point to never mention his personal life other than alluding to some wild sex-life that he has, but I think that this is largely for his on-air-persona, as there is some evidence that he was married in 1997, but again, he choses to make this completely unknown. Mike Murray 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Myspace page?

Is this a joke? It seems like some guy impersonating him for kicks. --Xerxesnine

Timeline

I began to write up the following, but I haven't decided how/if to fit it in:

Severin was with WTKK from late 2000 until 16 September 2005, when Infinity Broadcasting (now CBS Radio) announced that Severin had signed a deal to host a new syndicated radio program beginning January 2006, after which WTKK immediately pulled Severin off the air. On 26 September 2006 it was announced that Severin would be leaving his syndication deal with CBS Radio and returning to WTKK. --xerxesnine

References

Severin's Age

Does anyone have an idea of Severin's age?

Too Much?

Jay Severin is undoubtedly a controversial figure. But then again, so is Hillary Clinton, yet on her page we find absolutely nothing regarding controversies. This article is dominated from top to bottom on catching him in "lies" and makes extensive use of speculation in its topics.

liberal comments

I'm super liberal, so you can take my comments for what they are worth, but (a) Jay doesn't actually say much - if you write down a transcript of his show, there is a lot of repetition, but not that much content, and much of what he says seems so wrong...last week, he was talking to a caller about inflation and the cpi, and, roughly the covnersation was about how dishoest it is to talk about "core" inflation, whic is the cpi-volatile items. well look here (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/05/stephen-williamson-new-monetarist-economics-core-inflation.html ) and you can see that people use core for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.51.31 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please spare me the insult of "fanboy". This isn't the place for political commentary or personal views, from my understanding. This page seems to lean heavily toward biasing readers against his show and political/social views. Is it too much?

By the way, I just signed up. The edits to "marriage" and the "Page Six" source and comments are mine. I have read that someone considers the quoted reason for his leaving to be dubious, but it is specualtion based on a blog based on a missing article in a gossip column. I can write up in my blog that Severin is really an illegal immigrant and quote and use it as a source. That's why I think that source is barely reputable. Blogs must be considered (for the most part) opinion pieces and have little place here. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick or Harry can quote and unnamed source on their blog and add it in.

The "you would think by the way he acts that he is single" line is just simply too ridiculous to even argue over. How does a married person act? I will edit that out every hour if I have to.

Peace! and thanks for the warm welcome. ;)

P.S. Source 7 also leads to nowhere. Can someone prove this is a legitimate source? zShould it be noted he was accepted and did attend classes there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafitza (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to add as much positive points about Jay Severin as you like. The reason for the perceived negative slant is not bias or conspiracy, it's simply that there haven't been many contributions to the article. Again, you are welcome to take up the mantle.

Insults are a direct sign of non-rational discussion and hence outside the purpose of Wikipedia. You have various tools at your disposal if someone insults you. Until that happens, I wouldn't worry about making a pre-emptive response.

I take your point that Severin does not technically "act" like a bachelor. A better term would be "swinger" or "open marriage" type. For example he discussed on-air about his routine that when he checks into a motel, the first thing he does is open the phone book and call an escort service. It wasn't subtle or implicit; he said he has sex with the person they send over. On two other separate occasions, he confidently discussed how he makes frequent use of prostitutes. He told a story about how he was anticipating hooking up with one or more of the three airline stewardesses who rescued his dog. Practically every day he makes these kinds of statements. You are right that that is not exclusively bachelor behavior per se, however it is surprising and significant that he is married.

I was the one who suggested tvnewser.com may be too sensational. However I found no reference to a "gossip" section, nor was the article missing. The author of tvnewser.com was recently hired by the New York Times, so the blog has some merit. The writer is a professional, in which case a blog may qualify as an acceptable source (see [3]). I do remember another newspaper article which mentioned similar things about his unusual departure from MSNBC, however I don't have a cite for it. In any case, I won't argue the point.

What did you mean by "source 7 leads to nowhere"? It's his personal bio on the radio program's website ([4]). Are you suggesting Westwood One does not own westwoodone.com? Xerxesnine 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard of the "on Air Persona" This like many other entertainers is an act. All be it a very good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.245.120 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The blogger could have been hired by Obama and commended by the pope. What does it matter? It is still a blog and has no business being used as a citation:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

65.96.186.210 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear....

ARTICLE During the 22 April 2004 broadcast of Extreme Games, as part of his response to a caller suggesting the United States should befriend its Muslim residents, Severin said, "I believe that Muslims in this country are a fifth column.... The vast majority of Muslims in this country are very obviously loyal, not to the United States, but to their religion. And I'm worried that when the time comes for them to stand up and be counted, the reason they are here is to take over our culture and eventually take over our country." Later during the same conversation, Severin asked the caller, "Do you think we should befriend them?" When the caller said yes, Severin responded in part, "I have an alternative viewpoint. It's slightly different than yours. You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them."[9]

Seems purposefully misleading. They edit the part out mostly where he clarifies his position to most muslims, rather conveniently. The source (9) for the quote clearly states Severin speaking about the "vast majority of muslims" that he believes "regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all". He then asks, "Should we befriend them?" Which is an obvious distinction between all and most.

Perhaps the entire portion of the segment should be quoted instead, instead of the clever source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafitza (talk • contribs)

The middle part from the source article, which was clipped from the Wikipedia article, is

"My suspicion is that the majority of Muslims in the United States, who regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all, see an American map one day where this is the United States of Islam, not the United States of America. I think it pays to harbor those suspicions."

Does that passage somehow exonerate Severin? Where did he say "most"? His words are "majority" and "vast majority". Are you quibbling about the "vast" which appears in the previous quote but not in the above one? The phrase "at all" means "in any way or respect" --- it is different than the "all" in "all the king's men". I can't follow your argument here. Xerxesnine 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

removed absurd bit of special pleading

I'm sure a Severin partisan will just put it back in so I'm spitting in the wind, probably -- but if you can't contain yourself, please at least have someone fix the grammar for you. The line about how it would supposedly be clear that he was only talking about illegals was obviously non-neutral, speculative and irrelevent, apart from being unsupported and illogical (so, it's only "illegal" Mexican women with moustaches? The VD crack etc was a characterization of the un-documented only?) 72.229.59.24 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My edits to the article

I think we all need to take a step back here, and realize that the boston globe is not really the best source for Jay. They have a history (as evidenced by the Incident with the Boston Glove section) of 'misquoting' and outright attacking him. I can't find a reliable source that has his full quote, but both sources indicate he was talking about 'criminaliens', which is his term for illegal mexican immigrants. I have therefore corrected the statement to be more specific as to what he was refering, and to hopefully encourage others to understand the enormous slanting in this article. I hope to improve it in the future, as time permits Dougofborg^(talk) 01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments are clearly about both Mexicans in general as well as immigrants. There was nothing to indicate that he was singling out illegal immigrants as carriers of VD, women with mustaches, or primitives ("lowest" or otherwise). There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the Globe article. I haven't seen any sources claiming that the quotes are not accurate. If you have some, please provide them. If the quotes were inaccurate, surely the station or Severin and his lawyer would have released them and ended the matter. The thing speaks for itself. There's no need to whitewash it. In any case, let's leave sourced material in there.Notmyrealname (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, as both the sources say that his comments were about 'criminaliens'. I didn't hear his statement myself, I am only going by the sources provided. If he was talking about criminaliens as the globe says, then he was refering to illegal immigrants. I am sorry, but I don't see how the comments are clearly about Mexicans in general. I don't want to get into an edit war here, and if you feel the need to reverse my edit, than feel free. I just hope that you take an objective look first. Dougofborg^(talk) 11:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This from Salon -- "

Now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico -- women with mustaches and VD -- now we have swine flu... When we are the magnet for primitives around the world -- and it's not the primitives' fault, by the way, I'm not blaming them for being primitives, I'm merely observing they are primitives -- and when you scoop up some of the world's lowest of primitives in poor Mexico and drop it down in the middle of the United States -- poor, without skills, without language, not share our culture, not share our hygiene, haven't been vaccinated... Millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you...

Now, at this particular moment in history, they are exporting to us a rather more active form of disease, which is the swine flu."

Now certainly his comments about the hospitals and schools were specifically about illegal immigrants. However, the parts about "primitives" "women with mustaches and VD" "swine flu" is that these were general comments about Mexico and all Mexicans. They have been interpreted as such in the media (where we get our sources), and there have been no official denials about this except by his anonymous supporters on message boards (not a reliable source). As you note, Severin and his lawyers were not shy about disputing what they felt to be mischarectorizations of his comments in the 2004 controversy, so there is no need for us to put a spin on his words that Severin himself has not. If he does, or another reliable source does, by all means we should include it here.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't want to start a war here. I did what I thought was right and you obviously disagree. Although I am personally unconvinced, for the sake of Wikipedia (and trying to stay nice) I will consede the point, and just ask that somebody keep an eye open for if/when the station is more specific as to which comments he was suspended over Dougofborg^(talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Section on Geogrpahical Undesireables

This is completely out of context and meaningless. Do we even know if this is the same guy? According to the opening paragraph of this wikipedia article, he went by "James Severino" then "Jay Severin," never James Severin. This entire section is just cut and pasted from the source with no mention of its importance or relation to anything.

Jay's name

Right now the first sentence reads, "Jay Severin (born James Thompson Severino[1][2][3] on January 8, 1951)..." Was he born "James Thompson Severino III"? I seem to recall him saying on air something similar to, "I am a Third, my father is also named 'Jay Severin.'" I'm not sure Jay himself is a reliable source because he has an on-air persona to maintain, which is demonstrated by some of his controversies. Also, I have never once heard him utter the name "Severino" on air.

Was he born 'James Thompson Severino III?" I see that one of the cited sources says his legal name was "James Thompson Severin 3d" in 1997 when he married his current wife, but none of the cited sources actually provide reliable information about what his actual birth name was. The marriage article says "The bridegroom, who dropped the last letter of his surname..." which indirectly implies that he was born "James Thompson Severino III" but is rather ambiguous about it. Midtempo-abg (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is ambiguous about it? Xerxesnine (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited article says he dropped the "o" in his last name before he married, but doesn't say anything about the "Third" part. I am suggesting that the lead-in sentence be changed to, "Jay Severin (born James Thompson Severino III)" rather than what it currently reads: "Jay Severin (born James Thompson Severino)," if it is indeed true and can be proven by a reliable cited source. The problem is that the sources we have now aren't reliable enough to prove the "Third" assertion, or are they? Midtempo-abg (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on controversies

I'm no fan of Jay Severin, but I get the feeling that this article puts too much of a point on his controversies. Surely, you would think that his notability extends past these controversies and more toward his overall radio work. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought is= Rename Controversies into Career. Then, organize the material based on time (early stuff to now). Then, remove text that is minor and non-notable. Then, add new material about his exploits. The Squicks (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think we should split all but the first sentence of the lead into a new section called "Career" and keep "Controversies" as it is, until that matter is resolved? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a systematic problem with professions like this. They spend thousands of hours a year talking on the radio and then everytime they say something that some group takes issue with you get 3 paragraphs into his article. But if no one is mad at them, then no one (media and editors) writes about what they're doing.---Cube lurker (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of "Career" + "Controversies". The controversies are what makes him notable to those who don't listen to him (especially the ones that have caused him to be suspended).Notmyrealname (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, he's not really a notable person except for the controversies he creates. The only notable news he generates is in response to the next shocking thing said on his radio program. A few minutes of googling will confirm this.

In fact Severin has designed this state of affairs. His show is based on a semi-fictional persona which he actively maintains. He does not disclose or discuss his personal life; he does not even publicly admit he is married.

You have claimed, "Surely, you would think that his notability extends past these controversies..." The evidence suggests this is not true. Therefore the onus is on you to justify this claim. Until you do, I move that the undue-weight tag be retracted.

Xerxesnine (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Since no response has been forthcoming in three weeks, either here or to the message left on your talk page, I am going ahead with the removal for the reasons mentioned above. Xerxesnine (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with any radio host who is not as notable as Limbaugh or Howard Stern is that if he does his job then nothing gets written about him. When he does something controversial or offensive, that's the only time he gets written about. So the only sources which can be cited are the ones relating to controversy. In order to cite what kind of a program he runs outside the controversies, or other things he does, someone would need to write online or publish something mentioning usual day-to-day things that are done on his talk show. And no one bothers with that. And Jay Severin himself does not relate his personal life on-air unless he's bragging about something. To avoid any appearance of vulnerability, the only thing personal that he really shares is the on-air persona that he has carefully constructed for himself. Midtempo-abg (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a question from my wife who listens to you every afternoon on her way home from work--- I understand you are married and lately you have mentioned several time of being a Father! Is this true???? 216.195.198.154 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Michael P