Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lanoitarus (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 15 December 2005 (→No proof). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mike Barnicle

Removed paragraph on Mike Barnacle that is only being included to include a comment by Mike Barnacle. There is no reason to include ay information on Barnacle. Carr is not mentioned once on Barnacles page! Why are you so hot under the collar to keep putting in a reference to this person. First we're told that if Howie's supposed comment about Barnacle is included then we have to include Barnacles however when Howie's comment and the reference to Barnacle is removed the argument is moot! But no you want it in anyway. Well, unless you want to have Barnacles page muddied with comments then I think this is the most amicable solution. This so-called feud is an exaggeration anyway. Dwain 10:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so "hot under the collar" to exclude it? I have no strong feelings one about this fued, but a fued between two leading Boston media personalities seems important enough to include, and you have not provided any compelling reason to exclude it. Certainly it seems more important than the number on Carr's license plate or the fact that Carr counts the number of "uh"s in Ted Kennedy's speeches. I've added the fued to Barnicle's page as well. I would have added it earlier, but as I noted in an edit summary, I only just found Barnicle's article because I've been spelling his name wrong. Gamaliel 16:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel clearly has a liberal bias and he is allowing a the quote because Carr is a clear opponent Bill Clinton. If you want Barnicle quotes, make a page for him. But in the meantime, keep that crap out of someone else's bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.52.200 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what Carr thinks of Clinton and I do not care. Please note Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Also note I added the same information to the Barnicle page. Gamaliel 01:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Fat Bastard" Edit War

I've been watching that edit war from the sidelines and was wondering about it, as a notation once said that it was used by people calling the Chumpline. If enough Chumpline callers use that specific nickname for him, shouldn't it be included among the list? Since I haven't been able to listen to the show for numerous years (I left the WXTK staff in 1998), I don't know as much about current trends on the show, and wanted to know the controversy surrounding the nickname, and why it should or shouldn't be included. -- EmiOfBrie 17:40, 1 November 2005 (CST)

I think it is because "Fat Bastard" is the nickname Carr coined/uses to describe the senior senator from Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy). I don't see anything wrong with including it in context; saying its is only used by some Chumpline callers, Carr doesn't go by the nickname, and that he primarily uses it to describe Sen. Kennedy. Assawyer 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No proof

While the referenced howie carr website DOES show that howie car denies the accusations, it doesn't show that there is "no proof this ever happened". If you can cite the total lack of proof thats great, otherwise I think we will have to leave it at him denying it. If you prefer I would also support strengthening the statement by howie carr, perhaps "he unilaterally denys this, saying there is no proof."- Lanoitarus .:. 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not need to cite proof it did not happen, you need to prove it did to include it. If you have no proof and he has denied it, please provide your source of information that he did. Otherwise any accusations can be included with a demand for proof they did not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree with User:24.147.103.146, however I think it is notable that there is nothing in the Globe article other than the contention that Carr gave out the phone number. There is no context of when or in what context Carr gave out the number. The assertion should have the appropriate information to back it up. Misplaced Pages is not the place for unfounded assertions, and I believe that if the reference to Carr giving out the phone number cannot be substantiated by facts, it should be removed. Assawyer 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no concrete evidence either way. What there is concrete evidence of is that the globe claims this happened and howie carr claims it did not. Since both the Boston Globe and Howie Carr are relatively reputible sources concerning howie carr, I think both assertions should be included. Note that our article does not anywhere actually claim this happened, just that the globe said it did. It likewise does not claim it did not happen, just that howie said it didnt. As an encyclopedia the correct thing to do in the case of unverifiable situations is present both sides of the argument, not jump to our own conclusions either way. Making any further claims (in either direction) without sources would not be prudent. -Lanoitarus .:. 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, thank you Lanoitarus. Can you imagine what it is like to have people you don't even know making claims about you and to have no say in the matter? Just because someone is well known don't think they are not people also. The last thing I have to state is that just because it was in a newspaper does not make it true. We have all seen this recently at the New York Times, The Boston Globe, and other papers. I think the quote is something like "history's first draft" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)