This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Gregory (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, I wrote the temp page, just for fun. My first try. Most info from bio at Leading Authorities. http://www.leadingauthorities.com/search/biography.htm?s=17527. There is an image here but I was not sure about copyright infringement. http://www.carlcoxphoto.com/images/David%20Gregory.jpg
I think it's remarkable that even the MRC named him best White House correspondent; I didn't know that. What a brave journalist, despite what some would say. -Amit
The Drudge transcript is clearly wrong. I've fixed it up a bit to match the audio and video clips I've seen. Should we still cite Drudge as the source? Should we even include the transcript? -- Geedubber 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Found full audio of the phone call here. will fix transcript later tonight.-- Geedubber 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is biased. needs to be wikified
Because Gregory claims to be a neutral journalist, it then becomes important to point out the many instances in which Gregory has been very clearly biased ideologically. Were Gregory the host of an opinion show such as "Countdown," his on-camera appearances would clearly fall into the category of leftist opinion. But Gregory is doing what so many journalists do, pretending to be neutral while actually having quite an obvious ideational tilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It is extremely surprising to me that this page doesn't make some acknowledgement of David Gregory's tone and approach on Meet the Press, as I feel it is a huge break from the previous host. It may be a function of how much more frequently accusations of liberal media bias come out, but there is a stark contrast in the tone he uses and the frequency in which he cuts off Democrat versus Republican guests. On the June 17, 2012 episode, the way he makes David Plouffe vigorously defend Obama's agenda and holds the President accountable for the well-being of the entire economy is clearly antagonistic. There is very little acknowledgement of Plouffe's statements on Romney's record in Massachusetts or on the Moody reports cited by David that articulates how Romney's economic plan will plunge the US further into recession. However, his later interview with John McCain flows much more like a session on collaborating about the flaws of the Obama agenda and gives him a very open and interrupted opportunity to clarify why he attacked Romney during the 2008 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.8.241 ( talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is little more than a transcript of White House complaints about Gregory. I'm going to work on expanding the serious info and removing some of the excess. Gamaliel 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure of this criticism. When I read this article I did not feel that Gregory having disputes with the White House necessarily reflected poorly upon him, he is a journalist after all. The complaints from the White House about Gregory are of the ad hominem variety and therefore, not that convincing. Also, if the conservative media watchdog gives him an award and now the Bush administration hates him, then one could argue that he is doing his job. So, in the end, I still felt able to make up my own mind on the subject. Moomot 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that some of this stuff needs to be removed. Fully half of the article is given over to some of the more "contentious" elements in Gregory's career, i.e. the confrontation with W., the argument with McClellan, and the Imus incident. This kind of thing is really more in the nature of a footnote, or maybe a link; it doesn't deserve to be half the article -- is this Wikipedia or is this Wonkette? 68.93.120.212 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)From the original author of the temp page, who is still too lazy to sign up for an actual account.
Instead of removing it, why not add more positive items to balance out the POV? I hate it when Wiki takes things out. I depend on Wiki to give me a starting point for research, and knowing more about any subject, positive, neutral, or negative, makes my job much easier. 66.8.139.9 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of this article is critical of Gregory. The opposite case can be made and should be made. See, e.g., http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070604&s=roth060607 (The New Republic TV, David Gregory's Greatest Fights by Zachary Roth) and http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070604&s=roth060407 (The New Republic, King David: How a pompous reporter saved the press corps by Zachary Roth). -- PubliusPresent 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Last night on Conan O'Brien's show, David Gregory stated his height as 6'5". They were talking about this thing he calls a "dream sack" that he sleeps in while in hotels (apparently he's afraid of the hotel sheets) and said something to the effect of, "It's particularly hard to find one when you're 6'5"". I corrected this last night, but someone has changed it back to 6'6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.157 ( talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
These do not generally fit Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, but they may be useful sources if someone wants to use them to improve the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed he is listed as Jewish in the tag line but I do not see any sources cited. Please cite a source for that or maybe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
When Tim Russert died, he said on air that according to his religion, which is Judaism, ... 130.64.70.240 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC).
The citation given for him having a Jewish upbringing has nothing of the sort in the article, it is a false attribution and should be removed.
This article mentions Judaism, which is irrelevant to his celebrity, so many times and so prominently it's absurd. Why does it require more than the religion label in the sidebar? Or why not mention he's white, with white parents, and his wife is white, and his kids are white too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.201.171 ( talk) 01:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
References
the info box set up was info box "celebrity" rather than info box "journalist" - I tried to clean that up but could not get it to display properly. could someone give that a try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the incident in December, 2006, it is not true that Tony Snow did not answer Gregory's question. Snow clearly stated the report in question was not a rejection of the President's policies. The resultant controversy erupted because Snow stated Gregory was framing the report in a partisan fashion. The video of the press conference is widely available. Snow does answer Gregory's question and any claim to the contrary is misleading.
comment is from this edit
I did a fairly major edit on this page, mostly condensing the information. I strongly believe that each little blip in his career does not need its own sub-headline. I also deleted some information that I don't really believe added anything to the content of the article Kika chuck ( talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..”
I think we all know that the edit was accurate. Since the policy only applies to unsourced comments the comment needs ot be reinstated. Removing it again would be an act of vandalism as this is obviously relevant to his "Meet the press" career:
Someone w/ the right privildeges please add the below ( or something like it):
"On a recent show, Mr Gregory broke the Districts Gun laws by possessing a 30 round magazine. He even admitted to it in his description and showed it on national TV as a prop in his discussion with Mr. LaPierre. As of this writing he has not been arrested or charged" ^26
To add for references: 26. DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf
Palmerwmd ( talk) 02:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: It <is> a little weird locking the article.. though citing the policy of no unreferenced writing about legal problems of living persons.. This very act of locking it takes away this posters ability to add the reference in the first place... pretty weird... 03:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerwmd ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the reply. : ) Would it be sufficent if i linked a vid to him holding it during the show, which we know is in DC? It is common knowledge that they are illegal in DC and the law, the primary reference that exists, is a matter of public record and can also be quoted. It is also of tremendous interest because of his position on the matter that banning them would make people safer implicitly because then they would be absent. yet he himself proved that in DC ,where its banned you can easily get it, as would any crinimal (which he now may be). The irony of this is too delicous to hold back no matter which side of the debate you are on.
Palmerwmd ( talk) 03:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source that mentions Gregory's violation of D.C. gun laws:
And here's a reliable source that says the private school that he sends his children to employs 11 armed guards. These are not secret service agents to protect Obama's kids - instead, they are regular employees that the school had long before Obama ever became President:
The reason that both of these are notable enough for inclusion is because they show that Gregory is a gun control hypocrite.
Larry Craig has an entire article devoted to his gay sex hypocrisy. Gregory at least deserves one sentence about each of these two things in his article.
Gh82xc56 ( talk) 20:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are some more reliable sources on Gregory's alleged violation of D.C. gun law. The newsbusters link also accuses him of hypocrisy for opposing armed guards in schools while simultaneously sending his own children to a private school with 11 armed guards:
Gh82xc56 ( talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention this latest bit: [1]. "An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine [...] 'Meet the Press' may have gotten 2 different answers from law enforcement." I wouldn't necessarily consider TMZ a great source, but in this case, that's even more reason to just wait for more information. Other media are picking up the TMZ report now as well. It may have been against DC gun laws, but it's certainly BLP without the proper context...e.g., did Gregory willfully violate the law as initial reports stated? Doesn't seem notable unless he's actually charged with something, in any case. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 22:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
People keep putting in "softening" language about Gregory's display of the magazine. Here, some snips of the letter where the Attorney General of Washington, DC, explains the law and violation that occurred:
Someone should probably download the entire thing and store it away here for future references. htom ( talk) 06:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why people keep inserting the word "apparent" in front of violation. Gregory claimed it was a 30 round magazine. The law claims such are a violation. The police investigated, found the magazine, it is a 30 round magazine. The Attorney General of DC states the possession was a violation; "There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter"; and "the clarity of the violation of this important law". How does this become "in apparent violation"?
I'm not removing it again, but I'm really disappointed in this example of WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED; there is nothing in the AG's language, opinion, and explanation that approaches "apparent violation".
For consistency, then, "apparently" should be struck from the paragraph I've quoted. - htom ( talk)
Regarding the explicit noting of WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED within "Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, in apparent violation of D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibiting the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition," the context is about media noting the potential code violation. I think it reads fine as-is, but could be rephrased along the lines of "Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, with media reports noting D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibits the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition" or such. UW Dawgs ( talk) 20:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I want all 500 and some employed government in Washington take a cut in pay.
Work together. Stop all pay after they leave office! Barbara — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.195.192.180 (
talk)
14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I just had an reverted. To avoid an edit war, I am taking the dispute to the talk page. Here is the core of my edit that resulted in a revert:
The edit was reverted because " WP:OR, source cited does not discuss Gregory". My edit created a wiki-link to the specific fallacy employed. Then I used my source for a direct quote describing the common use of the fallacy in journalism. I do not believe this constitutes WP:OR, but I ask for the opinion of other Wikipedians. -- JHP ( talk) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
References
Probably should be added to the page. Numerous sources debunk his mistruth on the matter and he had to apologize:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/07/meet-the-press-david-gregory-falsely-claims-all/194751
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/david-gregory-correction-apology-obamacare_n_3600462.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a story about a murder in Forest Ms. I think you might remember it because you from time to time worked with the today show I used to watch you all the time I am not a writer wouldn't know the first step but I know you write and thought you might be able to help me get my story on paper I am the guy that helped break the case when the murderer broke in and attempted to murder the ex-wife and her other 3 children and I spoiled his plan but the next day the 12 year old boy we had been looking for was found burried in the back yard the today show did coverage on this story I laid in my hospital bed and watched it after comming out of surgery please get to back to me if you could help me to put this into book form you can contact me at Reggie0913@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.162.174 ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I reworded one paragraph in the "High-capacity magazine display" section to improve the grammar and remove the wordiness and unnecessary legalese, including the quote and repeat of the criminal Code number which is already mentioned previously in the section. Another editor, UW Dawgs, reverted my changes completely, [6] linking to a 2013 talk page discussion among a couple editors. [7]
I kept exactly what was stated in the original version, but simply rewrote it to improve the presentation and add a link to Nathan's article. The "lawyerly speak" quote from the police chief's spokesperson isn't needed as there's nothing remarkable about it; it can simply be explained in our own wording. Also, alluding to the "7-2506.01(b)" legal lingo serves no purpose since it's already used in the first paragraph of the section. I also placed both sources at teh very end of the paragraph, rather than splitting them up, since they verify the entire paragraph and improves the appearance.
Old version:
On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. Police Chief
Cathy L. Lanier said her department has "completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the District’s Office of the Attorney General for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case." On January 11, 2013,
Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b),
[1] but that he would not proceed with prosecution.
[2]
New version I changed it to:
On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. police chief
Cathy L. Lanier said her department had completed its investigation into the matter and referred it to the office of the
District's attorney general to determine if Gregory would be prosecuted. D.C. attorney general
Irvin B. Nathan announced three days later that although Gregory had violated the law, no charges would be filed against him or any other NBC employees.
[1]
[2]
If any editors want to give their opinion as to which version they prefer, please comment.
Rowssusan ( talk) 00:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Gregory (journalist). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Gregory (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, I wrote the temp page, just for fun. My first try. Most info from bio at Leading Authorities. http://www.leadingauthorities.com/search/biography.htm?s=17527. There is an image here but I was not sure about copyright infringement. http://www.carlcoxphoto.com/images/David%20Gregory.jpg
I think it's remarkable that even the MRC named him best White House correspondent; I didn't know that. What a brave journalist, despite what some would say. -Amit
The Drudge transcript is clearly wrong. I've fixed it up a bit to match the audio and video clips I've seen. Should we still cite Drudge as the source? Should we even include the transcript? -- Geedubber 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Found full audio of the phone call here. will fix transcript later tonight.-- Geedubber 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is biased. needs to be wikified
Because Gregory claims to be a neutral journalist, it then becomes important to point out the many instances in which Gregory has been very clearly biased ideologically. Were Gregory the host of an opinion show such as "Countdown," his on-camera appearances would clearly fall into the category of leftist opinion. But Gregory is doing what so many journalists do, pretending to be neutral while actually having quite an obvious ideational tilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It is extremely surprising to me that this page doesn't make some acknowledgement of David Gregory's tone and approach on Meet the Press, as I feel it is a huge break from the previous host. It may be a function of how much more frequently accusations of liberal media bias come out, but there is a stark contrast in the tone he uses and the frequency in which he cuts off Democrat versus Republican guests. On the June 17, 2012 episode, the way he makes David Plouffe vigorously defend Obama's agenda and holds the President accountable for the well-being of the entire economy is clearly antagonistic. There is very little acknowledgement of Plouffe's statements on Romney's record in Massachusetts or on the Moody reports cited by David that articulates how Romney's economic plan will plunge the US further into recession. However, his later interview with John McCain flows much more like a session on collaborating about the flaws of the Obama agenda and gives him a very open and interrupted opportunity to clarify why he attacked Romney during the 2008 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.8.241 ( talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is little more than a transcript of White House complaints about Gregory. I'm going to work on expanding the serious info and removing some of the excess. Gamaliel 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure of this criticism. When I read this article I did not feel that Gregory having disputes with the White House necessarily reflected poorly upon him, he is a journalist after all. The complaints from the White House about Gregory are of the ad hominem variety and therefore, not that convincing. Also, if the conservative media watchdog gives him an award and now the Bush administration hates him, then one could argue that he is doing his job. So, in the end, I still felt able to make up my own mind on the subject. Moomot 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that some of this stuff needs to be removed. Fully half of the article is given over to some of the more "contentious" elements in Gregory's career, i.e. the confrontation with W., the argument with McClellan, and the Imus incident. This kind of thing is really more in the nature of a footnote, or maybe a link; it doesn't deserve to be half the article -- is this Wikipedia or is this Wonkette? 68.93.120.212 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)From the original author of the temp page, who is still too lazy to sign up for an actual account.
Instead of removing it, why not add more positive items to balance out the POV? I hate it when Wiki takes things out. I depend on Wiki to give me a starting point for research, and knowing more about any subject, positive, neutral, or negative, makes my job much easier. 66.8.139.9 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of this article is critical of Gregory. The opposite case can be made and should be made. See, e.g., http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070604&s=roth060607 (The New Republic TV, David Gregory's Greatest Fights by Zachary Roth) and http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070604&s=roth060407 (The New Republic, King David: How a pompous reporter saved the press corps by Zachary Roth). -- PubliusPresent 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Last night on Conan O'Brien's show, David Gregory stated his height as 6'5". They were talking about this thing he calls a "dream sack" that he sleeps in while in hotels (apparently he's afraid of the hotel sheets) and said something to the effect of, "It's particularly hard to find one when you're 6'5"". I corrected this last night, but someone has changed it back to 6'6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.157 ( talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
These do not generally fit Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, but they may be useful sources if someone wants to use them to improve the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed he is listed as Jewish in the tag line but I do not see any sources cited. Please cite a source for that or maybe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
When Tim Russert died, he said on air that according to his religion, which is Judaism, ... 130.64.70.240 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC).
The citation given for him having a Jewish upbringing has nothing of the sort in the article, it is a false attribution and should be removed.
This article mentions Judaism, which is irrelevant to his celebrity, so many times and so prominently it's absurd. Why does it require more than the religion label in the sidebar? Or why not mention he's white, with white parents, and his wife is white, and his kids are white too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.201.171 ( talk) 01:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
References
the info box set up was info box "celebrity" rather than info box "journalist" - I tried to clean that up but could not get it to display properly. could someone give that a try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the incident in December, 2006, it is not true that Tony Snow did not answer Gregory's question. Snow clearly stated the report in question was not a rejection of the President's policies. The resultant controversy erupted because Snow stated Gregory was framing the report in a partisan fashion. The video of the press conference is widely available. Snow does answer Gregory's question and any claim to the contrary is misleading.
comment is from this edit
I did a fairly major edit on this page, mostly condensing the information. I strongly believe that each little blip in his career does not need its own sub-headline. I also deleted some information that I don't really believe added anything to the content of the article Kika chuck ( talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..”
I think we all know that the edit was accurate. Since the policy only applies to unsourced comments the comment needs ot be reinstated. Removing it again would be an act of vandalism as this is obviously relevant to his "Meet the press" career:
Someone w/ the right privildeges please add the below ( or something like it):
"On a recent show, Mr Gregory broke the Districts Gun laws by possessing a 30 round magazine. He even admitted to it in his description and showed it on national TV as a prop in his discussion with Mr. LaPierre. As of this writing he has not been arrested or charged" ^26
To add for references: 26. DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf
Palmerwmd ( talk) 02:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: It <is> a little weird locking the article.. though citing the policy of no unreferenced writing about legal problems of living persons.. This very act of locking it takes away this posters ability to add the reference in the first place... pretty weird... 03:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerwmd ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the reply. : ) Would it be sufficent if i linked a vid to him holding it during the show, which we know is in DC? It is common knowledge that they are illegal in DC and the law, the primary reference that exists, is a matter of public record and can also be quoted. It is also of tremendous interest because of his position on the matter that banning them would make people safer implicitly because then they would be absent. yet he himself proved that in DC ,where its banned you can easily get it, as would any crinimal (which he now may be). The irony of this is too delicous to hold back no matter which side of the debate you are on.
Palmerwmd ( talk) 03:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source that mentions Gregory's violation of D.C. gun laws:
And here's a reliable source that says the private school that he sends his children to employs 11 armed guards. These are not secret service agents to protect Obama's kids - instead, they are regular employees that the school had long before Obama ever became President:
The reason that both of these are notable enough for inclusion is because they show that Gregory is a gun control hypocrite.
Larry Craig has an entire article devoted to his gay sex hypocrisy. Gregory at least deserves one sentence about each of these two things in his article.
Gh82xc56 ( talk) 20:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are some more reliable sources on Gregory's alleged violation of D.C. gun law. The newsbusters link also accuses him of hypocrisy for opposing armed guards in schools while simultaneously sending his own children to a private school with 11 armed guards:
Gh82xc56 ( talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention this latest bit: [1]. "An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine [...] 'Meet the Press' may have gotten 2 different answers from law enforcement." I wouldn't necessarily consider TMZ a great source, but in this case, that's even more reason to just wait for more information. Other media are picking up the TMZ report now as well. It may have been against DC gun laws, but it's certainly BLP without the proper context...e.g., did Gregory willfully violate the law as initial reports stated? Doesn't seem notable unless he's actually charged with something, in any case. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 22:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
People keep putting in "softening" language about Gregory's display of the magazine. Here, some snips of the letter where the Attorney General of Washington, DC, explains the law and violation that occurred:
Someone should probably download the entire thing and store it away here for future references. htom ( talk) 06:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why people keep inserting the word "apparent" in front of violation. Gregory claimed it was a 30 round magazine. The law claims such are a violation. The police investigated, found the magazine, it is a 30 round magazine. The Attorney General of DC states the possession was a violation; "There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter"; and "the clarity of the violation of this important law". How does this become "in apparent violation"?
I'm not removing it again, but I'm really disappointed in this example of WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED; there is nothing in the AG's language, opinion, and explanation that approaches "apparent violation".
For consistency, then, "apparently" should be struck from the paragraph I've quoted. - htom ( talk)
Regarding the explicit noting of WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED within "Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, in apparent violation of D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibiting the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition," the context is about media noting the potential code violation. I think it reads fine as-is, but could be rephrased along the lines of "Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, with media reports noting D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibits the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition" or such. UW Dawgs ( talk) 20:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I want all 500 and some employed government in Washington take a cut in pay.
Work together. Stop all pay after they leave office! Barbara — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.195.192.180 (
talk)
14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I just had an reverted. To avoid an edit war, I am taking the dispute to the talk page. Here is the core of my edit that resulted in a revert:
The edit was reverted because " WP:OR, source cited does not discuss Gregory". My edit created a wiki-link to the specific fallacy employed. Then I used my source for a direct quote describing the common use of the fallacy in journalism. I do not believe this constitutes WP:OR, but I ask for the opinion of other Wikipedians. -- JHP ( talk) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
References
Probably should be added to the page. Numerous sources debunk his mistruth on the matter and he had to apologize:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/07/meet-the-press-david-gregory-falsely-claims-all/194751
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/david-gregory-correction-apology-obamacare_n_3600462.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a story about a murder in Forest Ms. I think you might remember it because you from time to time worked with the today show I used to watch you all the time I am not a writer wouldn't know the first step but I know you write and thought you might be able to help me get my story on paper I am the guy that helped break the case when the murderer broke in and attempted to murder the ex-wife and her other 3 children and I spoiled his plan but the next day the 12 year old boy we had been looking for was found burried in the back yard the today show did coverage on this story I laid in my hospital bed and watched it after comming out of surgery please get to back to me if you could help me to put this into book form you can contact me at Reggie0913@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.162.174 ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I reworded one paragraph in the "High-capacity magazine display" section to improve the grammar and remove the wordiness and unnecessary legalese, including the quote and repeat of the criminal Code number which is already mentioned previously in the section. Another editor, UW Dawgs, reverted my changes completely, [6] linking to a 2013 talk page discussion among a couple editors. [7]
I kept exactly what was stated in the original version, but simply rewrote it to improve the presentation and add a link to Nathan's article. The "lawyerly speak" quote from the police chief's spokesperson isn't needed as there's nothing remarkable about it; it can simply be explained in our own wording. Also, alluding to the "7-2506.01(b)" legal lingo serves no purpose since it's already used in the first paragraph of the section. I also placed both sources at teh very end of the paragraph, rather than splitting them up, since they verify the entire paragraph and improves the appearance.
Old version:
On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. Police Chief
Cathy L. Lanier said her department has "completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the District’s Office of the Attorney General for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case." On January 11, 2013,
Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b),
[1] but that he would not proceed with prosecution.
[2]
New version I changed it to:
On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. police chief
Cathy L. Lanier said her department had completed its investigation into the matter and referred it to the office of the
District's attorney general to determine if Gregory would be prosecuted. D.C. attorney general
Irvin B. Nathan announced three days later that although Gregory had violated the law, no charges would be filed against him or any other NBC employees.
[1]
[2]
If any editors want to give their opinion as to which version they prefer, please comment.
Rowssusan ( talk) 00:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Gregory (journalist). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)