Talk:Mike Barnicle

Untitled

i am removing the howie carr discussion, this is not a widely documented or relevant aspect of barnicle's career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by scranton (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

I disagree, a fued between two famous Boston pundits seems notable to me. Gamaliel 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I second Gamaliels opinion. Furthermore, even if it is not particularly important it still belongs here, we do seek to amass all knowledge and all :) -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 05:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I know Barnicle's number, I got to school with his daugther. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saint-Paddy (talk • contribs) .

Why It is important to record for posterity that the globe reported that someone gAve out the subject of the story's phone number. seems very insignificant to me, especiallay for a stub of one's life that it would merit its own paragargh.21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On April 13, 2006, Barnicle stated that he was born in Worcester during an interview on 96.9 fm talk with General Bernard Trainor, a Holy Cross College graduate.

I am removing the Howie Carr discussion hopefully once and for all. I agree with Scranton. It's ridiculous and not relevant to Barnicle's career.

Shouldn't the part about being forced to resign over questionable journalistic practices be mentioned in the first paragraph, along with "award winning?" [PLEASE SIGN ENTRIES]

I fully agree with the above post. This article reeks of edits by or on behalf of its subject! I am at a loss for words as to how this article has passed muster as being "neutral". While I realize Wikipedia's policies towards living people emphasizes discretion above all else, I feel safe in assuming that said discretion is being balanced against the idea of reporting truth as best as possible using existing, cite-able sources. This appears to be more than a little whitewashed in favor of the subject, especially when compared to the wikis of his peers in the world of famous plagiarizing journalists. Below it is argued that the difference between Jayson Blair and Barnicle is that Blair is famous only for his plagiarizing, whereas Mike Barnicle was already famous when he plagiarized. I would ask those making this argument to reread his wiki and ask yourself "Prior to the 1998 plagiarizing controversy, what in this wiki would rate him as important enough to even have a wiki made for him in the first place?" It seems to me that the various awards and accomplishments of his career are ludicrously well documented throughout the article (although none before '98, but I digress), but his missteps are barely mentioned and even when they are, each has a qualifier attached that would leave an uninformed reader completely at a loss to explain what exactly happened. This, along with the repeatedly flowery language and tone of the article are clear violations of Wiki policies and so obviously so that it makes me wonder how many of the editors interested in this article have a dog in this fight outside of this discussion? I will be sure to come back and revisit this post to break down each of those violations so they can be addressed and discussed here, but briefly I wanted to point out some of the balance that's missing from this wiki: there is not a single mention of either Billy or Whitey Bulger on this page despite the fact that the controversy surrounding their relationship to Barnicle has dogged him for more than two decades now and they're a well-documented subject of his articles; also, the section on his "Boston Globe Controversy" should more aptly be called "Plagiarism and fabrication scandal" if we're being even-handed about this, right? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#Plagiarism_and_fabrication_scandal). A controversy implies "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate" while there was literally no debate except between Barnicle and his bosses over whether he would resign or they'd be forced to fire him. A controversy also implies that there were two reasonable sides of an issue whereas in this case, Barnicle was clearly caught lifting lines from a book he swore he had never read when first confronted by his editors about it, then later found in a publicly available clip promoting that very book. A clear cut case of plagiarizing, the author lying to try to escape punishment, then the author eventually caught and sent away in disgrace; this is very common in cases like this and is well described in other famous plagiarizing wikis yet curiously absent from this page. After reading the section on his plagiarizing (which, by the way, is never uttered even once in this article), one would wonder if it had ever been proven that he stole other people's work, it's littered with lines like "Mrs. Patricia Shairs later contacted the Globe to indicate that the story Barnicle wrote was about her family, although she said some of the facts were incorrect." Go check the source cited and you'll clearly see this was not the case at all, it was simply a local puff piece about a woman who had a somewhat similar story that was patently different from the one he told and clearly not the basis for his reporting. It has been well-documented that he stole work and yet if I were to just read his wiki, I wouldn't know that he'd ever even been in real trouble over anything at all, but I would have a good grasp of every single TV appearance he's ever made apparently (thanks for the thoroughness on that one Mike :-) ~EnglishStickler — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishStickler (talk • contribs) 02:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bravo, English Stickler. A few years ago, I took great pains to research and post in detail the original sources for the Barnicle plagiarism and fabrication, including his libel case from the early 70s and going forward. The editors wiki-splained that this was somehow out of bounds and must be suppressed. So instead we have everything neatly papered over and, according to Wiki, Barnicle "resigned" from the Globe over a "controversy" that was little more than a few stray lines from Carlin. No one listened to me then and I doubt they'll listen to you now, and I'm not going to re-do my effort, just to see it vanish again.

Citations

Quotation from radio show

[Another user left this on my talk page; I've added quotation coding and moved it to the talk page of this article on Mike Barnicle, where it seems more appropriate. It is a subject for general discussion relating to this article. --NYScholar 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)]

Hi I am wondering about the sourcing, citation issue relating to Mike Barnicle. He said it on his radio show. Is that considered a citation? Should every sentence on his page have asourcing citation comment? "The battle lines are drawn" type statements? I think his radio shows are saved as podcasts but I dont know for how long.

On April 13, 2006, Barnicle stated that he was born in Worcester during an interview on 96.9 fm talk with General Bernard Trainor, a Holy Cross College graduate.

Scranton!~ [no date left]

You need to provide what Wikipedia considers a "reliable citation"--WP:Reliable sources. The general web page for the talk show is Mike Barnicle on WTKK, as far as I can tell. But this "fact" is not a fact unless it is documented as such; you need to provide information about the day and time of the show as well as a quotation from Barnicle showing him saying it that other people can check for accuracy to verify it; or a newspaper article quoting the statement from the show (for example, as an alternative, if there is no transcript or podcast that one can link to so people can hear him say it).

There should, however, be reliable sources with verifiable biographical information about where he was born that would be far better to cite than this statement on his radio broadcast in an interview w/ Trainor that there is no transcript to substantiate. (Don't cite sources that simply repeat what they find in Wikipedia versions or online sources simply copying Wikipedia's content from this article!) Since his bio posted on the webpage for the radio show itself doesn't state his place of birth, perhaps one can find other (non-Wikipedia-based) reliable bios posted elsewhere to give as sources of his place of birth being in Worcester (it's in the first line of the article as though it's fact; check sources for verification if it's in doubt). Look up Worcester as well (He's not listed in the section "Famous citizens" there) and search various non-Wikipedia-based reliable sources for where he was born if in doubt. The reference to the discussion w/ Trainor seems unnecessary if better information that is actually verifiable (WP:Verifiability) is accessible and can be cited and/or linked (following format used in the article; or replaced with better format; see below).

All those external links placed throughout the article would be better given as full citations (incl. authors, titles, places of publication, page refs. &/or links) in notes keyed to a list of References. Whoever provided them can make the revisions. By way of example, I've converted some of the most misleading ones to notes format. I don't have time to do more editing. The full reply here explains the cleanup tag added. Most is cleaned up, but more work still needed in spots. --NYScholar 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I still wonder about such a high standard that radio or television broadcasts without full transcripts cannot be used as sourcesScranton 00:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting from 1998 Globe article: "For Barnicle had the sine qua non, the inimitable voice of the city. Born in Worcester, he grew up in Fitchburg, and went to school at Boston University when it was still a loose confederation of Methodist schools. Having lived in Washington and New York, he returned to Boston to make a living."02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)~

Unsourced quotation removed

Memorable quotation

Barnicle stated "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but so far, all terrorists have been Moslems" on his radio show Thursday August 10, 2006.

I removed this unsourced section entirely. There is a feature for compiling quotations listed as "sourced" in boxes in Wikipedia articles. This one quotation, which is perhaps more aptly labeled "controversial" instead of "memorable," seems presented in a non-neutral (approving) way, and yet there is really no source given to substantiate and to verify that Barnicle said it or what the context is or what the reaction(s) to it may have been or be. --NYScholar 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Frequently seen on "Morning Joe" ?

Does this warrant a mention along with the today show and MSNBC reference  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This page appears to be the target of vandalism/whitewashing, possibly by a public relations person for Barnicle, trying to damp down Barnicle's history of scandals. Please help keep this history intact Hurling dervish (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Hurling Dervish

Re 'history of scandals', the content could use an overview by objective editors for the possibility of WP:BLP violations; this [1] hardly qualifies as neutral. I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Also, it's advisable not to presume that an editor is affiliated with the subject unless the connection is pretty clear. 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs an Early Life Section

Needs a little more than where he was born. Where did he grow up? Who were his parents? Any formative experiences?

98.245.148.9 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues in the lead

I don't think this sentence belongs in the lead and I have a problem with the wording: After a long career at the Boston Globe that ended with his dismissal for lying and plagiarizing,

• The Boston Globe says: "asked for his resignation", "Barnicle submitted his resignation", "possible fabrications" [2]
• The NY Times says: "Mike Barnicle, who resigned as a columnist for The Boston Globe in 1998 after failing to credit the comedian George Carlin as the source for a series of jokes in one column and being unable to verify the identities of two cancer patients in another"[3]

Neither source uses the terms "lying" or "plagiarizing".

• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed--I saw the same and removed the sentence. It's a portent of further tone problems in the article, which I've brought up at the BLP noticeboard. 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

This article is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. Please feel free to participate by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I completely disagree with your assertion that there are "tone" problems associated with explicating the many, many misdeeds Mike Barnicle committed as a journalist which your edits serve to whitewash. As far as sourcing, check the NY Times article by Felicity Barringer, which says "resigned from The Boston Globe last summer amid charges of plagiarism and slipshod reporting". http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/16/nyregion/daily-news-to-feature-ex-boston-columnist.html?ref=mikebarnicle&gwh=6D1F31DAA0975406E6AC9778E847F802. In Boston, aside from his praiseworthy columns, he is best known for three things - his libel suit, his years of making stories up and his plagiarism of Mike Royko, which Royko himself said he resented. You say my writing lacks a neutral tone, but the fact is, he has made up stories and plagiarized and been caught at it. For Jayson Blair, the first line of his biography reads " He resigned from the newspaper in May 2003 in the wake of the discovery of plagiarism and fabrication in his stories." Why does Barnicle get special treatment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurling dervish (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And just as obviously, the above evidences the issue of neutrality, and why discussion was necessary. In Boston...he is best known for three things, is original research, unless you can find a source for that. Even then, it's still parochial. "Resigned from The Boston Globe last summer amid charges of plagiarism and slipshod reporting" is, legally, technically, and literally not the same as "years of making stories up." To belabor the obvious, Blair was not nearly as well known nor honored as a journalist, and his scandal put him on the map. As it stands, a section is devoted to the controversies. Content can always be fleshed out and well sourced, if it's not unduly weighted. A lot of what you added previously, including links to court documents, was unacceptable, the sort of stuff that raises serious WP:BLP flags, and strongly suggests anything but neutrality. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnicle is not getting special treatment. He is getting fair and neutral representation via the policy of WP:BLP which says:

• "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
• WP:BLPSTYLE says: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding wording, we have several sources that describes Barnicle's departure from the Boston Globe newspaper. We should look at all of the sources and decide together on what is an appropriate, neutral, summary of those sources including the NYT source which describes it as "resigned from The Boston Globe last summer amid charges of plagiarism and slipshod reporting".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that sources indicate this was an issue prior to the two instances in question, "Boston Globe controversy" could begin with 'Following charges of plagiarism and sloppy reporting, in 1998 Barnicle resigned from the Boston Globe amid a controversy over two columns, written three years apart.' 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts: Barnicle's response at the top of this transcript re: the charges [4]; this section at the Doris Kearns Goodwin article may be helpful (no mention of this in article's lede) [5]; and finally, since Mr. Barnicle has recognizable political positions, he is more likely to draw fire from those who disagree, often strenuously, so that must be taken into account when assessing sources. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at the sources when I have time and comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure--I don't see a problem, and certainly no 'whitewash', with the current text. I'm adding the above comments for further context, with the assumption that over time more editors will view and discuss this. The Goodwin piece appears to handle controversy involving a prominent writer with measure and neutrality. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourced, But Unsubstantiated and Unlikely, Claim

"Barnicle has interviewed all the candidates in the current run for the White House"

Last time I checked the FEC web site there were nearly 2,000 such candidates, so I have to doubt this claim. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Barnicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004215901/http://www.colby.edu/news_events/commencement/history/speakers.cfm to http://www.colby.edu/news_events/commencement/history/speakers.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)