This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Gibson (political commentator) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The link to fair.org doesn't belong. As I had pointed out, it's not a neutral source. You'll also be hard-pressed to find a link to scathing criticism in the external links section of other political commentators. Links are typically to their own homepage, their blog, or their bio on the news source they work for. But apparently, 75% criticism on Gibsons page just isn't enough. We somehow need to smear him more in the external links section! Again, this page is a bad joke. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Arzel. Since when are EL's used to try and mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material and unverifiable research? ie: Fox company man: rabidly pro-Bush, ferociously conservative and willing to launch feverish attacks on his political opponents. Not to mention nothing from the EL was even incorporated into the Gibson article. Even if there was it would make more sense to just find an actually credible NPOV link for the article instead. Then everyone would be happy Thismightbezach ( talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:BLP#External links: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links. And from WP:BLP#Reliable sources: "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections." Just like the use of material from the Media Research Center would be, material from an advocacy organization like FAIR is not "of high quality" and is a "questionable source," failing the Reliable Source test.-- Drrll ( talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that this is a BLP, it's remarkable that the vast majority of the article is taken up with Keith Olbermann's and Media Matters's criticism of him -- especially when it would be impossible to cite to a Fox News correspondent, or even a conservative Pulitzer-Prize winner, on a BLP of a liberal journalist. There seems to be some WP:ELNO violations, too, but I leave that to others. I take no further position, and am disengaging from this page, which was on my watchlist for some reason. THF ( talk) 22:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Following the 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, on his radio show Gibson commented "I knew the shooter was white. I knew he would have shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. And I could tell right away because he killed himself. Hip hoppers shooters don't do that. They shoot and move on." [1]
Gibson's comments were heavily criticized by colleagues in the media. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist, [2] Rick Sanchez of CNN called the comments "outrageous" and said Gibson "has some explaining to do", [3] Dan Abrams of MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams said Gibson was "out of line", [4] and Media Matters for America criticized him as well. [5] [6]
During a November 17, 2005 appearance on the radio program Janet Parshall's America, Gibson said "Minorities ought to have the same sense of tolerance about the majority religion — Christianity — that they've been granted about their religions over the years." [7] A few minutes later in the same interview, he said "I would think if somebody is going to be — have to answer for following the wrong religion, they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to." [7] Gibson's comments were criticized by Frank Rich of the New York Times, [8] and Media Matters for America. [7]
At a quick look, citations one, three and four are not reliable for any content, we don't go, I saw it on this program on this day, that is not wiki reliable, is it. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In a BLP it is correct to watch a tv program and then use it like that to cite content? I would disagree with that, perhaps in some article about survivors on the beach or that channel 4 celebrity show but not in support of content that is a bit contentious like this, the highest quality of sources should be used. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the comment about the guy calling him a racist is a bit primary, is it not reported anywhere? The transcript is a primary (first draft) transcript and often are with errors corrected later. In the transcript there is a ? mark, where ihe appears to ask the question, so is he a racist? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos stuck it back in with the edit summary These sources are fine. so that that is it, end of discussion start the war, in out in out, the content is rubbish anyway, simply valueless weakly cited insults that are detrimental to the article. imo, people do not bother reading poor pov articles, they just go and tell their friends how rubbish wikipedia is. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No one wants to talk about it then? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am going to look again at this this week. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the bulk of the article (not counting headers), the word count is 1094. When you delete everything aside from the criticism, you are left with 751 words.
Wiki policies state that points of view should be balanced. When criticism outpaces neutral wording by a ratio greater than 2-to-1, it does not take a math whiz to realize that the criticism has gone beyond undue weight and has entered the realm of obese propaganda.
Now let's look at the 27 citations for the article. Over half of them (16) come from liberal opinion sources. Aside from the three citations in the non-opinion sections, the remaining 8 citations may be reliable sources but are used only to push the anti-Gibson message.
Of the 16 liberal opinions cited, six of them are from Media Matters, four of them are from opinion journalists from MSNBC like Keith Olbermann. The remaining six are from various sources, but are still opinions.
Absolutely none of the alleged "controversies" are real controversies since they were not newsworthy (otherwise, they would exist in news stories and not just in the realm of opinion.
So, to sum up:
1) This article has zero positive remarks to balance any of the criticism
2) The criticism accounts for nearly 70% of the entire article
3) The opinion website Media Matters and opinion journalists on a rival news station make up well over half the citations for the criticism section
And yet, in spite of the absolute %&$#'ing joke this page is, it has remained this way for years (literally), in spite of efforts to provide any sort of balance. Isn't it about time we wrestled this page away from Media Matters control, made it something besides an anti-Gibson screed, and brought it up to the standards Wikipedia is supposed to follow?
Or will we let an opinion website set up a pseudo-mirror site here? Or will we hem and haw and pretend to care about balance, while refusing to budge on a single point? Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I tried to hat template this discussion but Off2riorob objected for some reason. I don't see the point of continuing this crapfest. Let's bury it and move on. If you want to continue, feel free, but you'll just be flinging crap at yourself, alone. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gamaliel, please just admit you are content with the fact that this article is 70% criticism. Get that formality out of the way. Your passionate defense of this indefensible Media Matters propaganda hit piece is getting out of hand.
And, I seriously suggest you recuse yourself from further discussion and instead enlist the help of an editor who doesn't zealously defend 70% scathing criticism as "acceptable". You sound like a bad joke coming out of a broken record player.
For instance, you again chime in with, "If you have more reliable sources," ignoring the very problem that 70% of the entire article is left-wing criticism, and that none of the so-called "controversies" exist outside the realm of far-left opinion sources. You can't honestly miss the point that many times, can you? Ignore the legitimate complaints, ignore all the bold-faced and italicized words, ignore the points that have been made repeatedly over the years, and think this problem is something that can be fixed by adding "more reliable sources"? Seriously?!? Are you needlessly obstructive with such asinine suggestions, or are you oblivious yet sincere?
NOTHING ever gets done to improve this page. Like I predicted, we have some hemming and hawing and lip service to wiki standards, yet we still encounter the unrelenting insistence that this entry remain an absolute joke and be little more than a Media Matters mirror site. And what of the other editors who don't even come here to discuss obviously contentious edits? How can we possibly arrive at any sort of meaningful conclusion if editors ignore the fact that this page is over 2/3 criticism?!? Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Fact: Article items are sourced to the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time, Fox, MSNBC. You can't wave away the entirety of the mainstream media as "left-wing criticism" outside of the pages of Newsmax. These sources meet RS/BLP criteria. Fact: Media Matters is employed as a source to supplement these mainstream items. No MMFA source is as the sole citation for an item. If there is a problem with this article, it's clear Media Matters isn't it.
If we are to act upon criticism of this article, it would be helpful if that criticism was based in reality. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Note that while Gamaliel supports quotation after quotation appearing in the article of a conservative journalist, adding up to about 75% of the article, he strenuously opposes a SINGLE quotation going into the articles of lefty journalists Spencer Ackerman and Jeffrey Toobin. Drrll ( talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty amazing hit-piece. Keith Olbermann is NOT a reliable source under any circumstances, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh is not citeable except for opinions. The entire public comments section could easily be a paragraph or two tops. Soxwon ( talk) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Gamaliel, looks like you're mobilizing liberal editors to put comments here but seemed to only get one, the ever reliable Blaxthos. I've had issues with both of you in the past, and, at one point, one of you tried to get my account deleted. Reading this article, I'm convinced we should just start from scratch. This article is terribly negative. It's nowhere near neutral. Call me demeaning all you want, as I know just putting a comment here will raise both your ires, but this article should not become the pattern for how Wikipedia operates. I don't even really like John Gibson, except that he's sometimes funny on "Red Eye," but no one, even Olbermann, should have an article like this. PokeHomsar ( talk) 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
User Fat&Happy reverted additions which show that Gibson's claims about the BBC were supported by reputable sources. User Fat&Happy undid this with the reason given that the articles did not mention Gibson by name. It was not necessary for them to mention him by name. Gibson's claim of anti-American bias was supported by the articles so there is no justification for their removal. This article as a whole suffers from a left-wing political bias against Gibson and the sentences I added give it a more neutral POV. The user needs to provide better justification before deleting the sentences again otherwise it smacks of vandalism. RickW7x2 ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not a personal interpretation of events, it is factual data supporting a claim made in the article, without which bias is inserted into it. RickW7x2 ( talk) 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Gibson is a twat but Fish-n-Chips bias .. O Yeah Brits perennial butt-hurt thanks to there micropenis or metrosexual totally no homo culture .
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Gibson (political commentator) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The link to fair.org doesn't belong. As I had pointed out, it's not a neutral source. You'll also be hard-pressed to find a link to scathing criticism in the external links section of other political commentators. Links are typically to their own homepage, their blog, or their bio on the news source they work for. But apparently, 75% criticism on Gibsons page just isn't enough. We somehow need to smear him more in the external links section! Again, this page is a bad joke. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Arzel. Since when are EL's used to try and mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material and unverifiable research? ie: Fox company man: rabidly pro-Bush, ferociously conservative and willing to launch feverish attacks on his political opponents. Not to mention nothing from the EL was even incorporated into the Gibson article. Even if there was it would make more sense to just find an actually credible NPOV link for the article instead. Then everyone would be happy Thismightbezach ( talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:BLP#External links: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links. And from WP:BLP#Reliable sources: "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections." Just like the use of material from the Media Research Center would be, material from an advocacy organization like FAIR is not "of high quality" and is a "questionable source," failing the Reliable Source test.-- Drrll ( talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that this is a BLP, it's remarkable that the vast majority of the article is taken up with Keith Olbermann's and Media Matters's criticism of him -- especially when it would be impossible to cite to a Fox News correspondent, or even a conservative Pulitzer-Prize winner, on a BLP of a liberal journalist. There seems to be some WP:ELNO violations, too, but I leave that to others. I take no further position, and am disengaging from this page, which was on my watchlist for some reason. THF ( talk) 22:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Following the 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, on his radio show Gibson commented "I knew the shooter was white. I knew he would have shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. And I could tell right away because he killed himself. Hip hoppers shooters don't do that. They shoot and move on." [1]
Gibson's comments were heavily criticized by colleagues in the media. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist, [2] Rick Sanchez of CNN called the comments "outrageous" and said Gibson "has some explaining to do", [3] Dan Abrams of MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams said Gibson was "out of line", [4] and Media Matters for America criticized him as well. [5] [6]
During a November 17, 2005 appearance on the radio program Janet Parshall's America, Gibson said "Minorities ought to have the same sense of tolerance about the majority religion — Christianity — that they've been granted about their religions over the years." [7] A few minutes later in the same interview, he said "I would think if somebody is going to be — have to answer for following the wrong religion, they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to." [7] Gibson's comments were criticized by Frank Rich of the New York Times, [8] and Media Matters for America. [7]
At a quick look, citations one, three and four are not reliable for any content, we don't go, I saw it on this program on this day, that is not wiki reliable, is it. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In a BLP it is correct to watch a tv program and then use it like that to cite content? I would disagree with that, perhaps in some article about survivors on the beach or that channel 4 celebrity show but not in support of content that is a bit contentious like this, the highest quality of sources should be used. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the comment about the guy calling him a racist is a bit primary, is it not reported anywhere? The transcript is a primary (first draft) transcript and often are with errors corrected later. In the transcript there is a ? mark, where ihe appears to ask the question, so is he a racist? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Blaxthos stuck it back in with the edit summary These sources are fine. so that that is it, end of discussion start the war, in out in out, the content is rubbish anyway, simply valueless weakly cited insults that are detrimental to the article. imo, people do not bother reading poor pov articles, they just go and tell their friends how rubbish wikipedia is. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No one wants to talk about it then? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am going to look again at this this week. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the bulk of the article (not counting headers), the word count is 1094. When you delete everything aside from the criticism, you are left with 751 words.
Wiki policies state that points of view should be balanced. When criticism outpaces neutral wording by a ratio greater than 2-to-1, it does not take a math whiz to realize that the criticism has gone beyond undue weight and has entered the realm of obese propaganda.
Now let's look at the 27 citations for the article. Over half of them (16) come from liberal opinion sources. Aside from the three citations in the non-opinion sections, the remaining 8 citations may be reliable sources but are used only to push the anti-Gibson message.
Of the 16 liberal opinions cited, six of them are from Media Matters, four of them are from opinion journalists from MSNBC like Keith Olbermann. The remaining six are from various sources, but are still opinions.
Absolutely none of the alleged "controversies" are real controversies since they were not newsworthy (otherwise, they would exist in news stories and not just in the realm of opinion.
So, to sum up:
1) This article has zero positive remarks to balance any of the criticism
2) The criticism accounts for nearly 70% of the entire article
3) The opinion website Media Matters and opinion journalists on a rival news station make up well over half the citations for the criticism section
And yet, in spite of the absolute %&$#'ing joke this page is, it has remained this way for years (literally), in spite of efforts to provide any sort of balance. Isn't it about time we wrestled this page away from Media Matters control, made it something besides an anti-Gibson screed, and brought it up to the standards Wikipedia is supposed to follow?
Or will we let an opinion website set up a pseudo-mirror site here? Or will we hem and haw and pretend to care about balance, while refusing to budge on a single point? Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I tried to hat template this discussion but Off2riorob objected for some reason. I don't see the point of continuing this crapfest. Let's bury it and move on. If you want to continue, feel free, but you'll just be flinging crap at yourself, alone. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gamaliel, please just admit you are content with the fact that this article is 70% criticism. Get that formality out of the way. Your passionate defense of this indefensible Media Matters propaganda hit piece is getting out of hand.
And, I seriously suggest you recuse yourself from further discussion and instead enlist the help of an editor who doesn't zealously defend 70% scathing criticism as "acceptable". You sound like a bad joke coming out of a broken record player.
For instance, you again chime in with, "If you have more reliable sources," ignoring the very problem that 70% of the entire article is left-wing criticism, and that none of the so-called "controversies" exist outside the realm of far-left opinion sources. You can't honestly miss the point that many times, can you? Ignore the legitimate complaints, ignore all the bold-faced and italicized words, ignore the points that have been made repeatedly over the years, and think this problem is something that can be fixed by adding "more reliable sources"? Seriously?!? Are you needlessly obstructive with such asinine suggestions, or are you oblivious yet sincere?
NOTHING ever gets done to improve this page. Like I predicted, we have some hemming and hawing and lip service to wiki standards, yet we still encounter the unrelenting insistence that this entry remain an absolute joke and be little more than a Media Matters mirror site. And what of the other editors who don't even come here to discuss obviously contentious edits? How can we possibly arrive at any sort of meaningful conclusion if editors ignore the fact that this page is over 2/3 criticism?!? Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Fact: Article items are sourced to the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time, Fox, MSNBC. You can't wave away the entirety of the mainstream media as "left-wing criticism" outside of the pages of Newsmax. These sources meet RS/BLP criteria. Fact: Media Matters is employed as a source to supplement these mainstream items. No MMFA source is as the sole citation for an item. If there is a problem with this article, it's clear Media Matters isn't it.
If we are to act upon criticism of this article, it would be helpful if that criticism was based in reality. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Note that while Gamaliel supports quotation after quotation appearing in the article of a conservative journalist, adding up to about 75% of the article, he strenuously opposes a SINGLE quotation going into the articles of lefty journalists Spencer Ackerman and Jeffrey Toobin. Drrll ( talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty amazing hit-piece. Keith Olbermann is NOT a reliable source under any circumstances, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh is not citeable except for opinions. The entire public comments section could easily be a paragraph or two tops. Soxwon ( talk) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Gamaliel, looks like you're mobilizing liberal editors to put comments here but seemed to only get one, the ever reliable Blaxthos. I've had issues with both of you in the past, and, at one point, one of you tried to get my account deleted. Reading this article, I'm convinced we should just start from scratch. This article is terribly negative. It's nowhere near neutral. Call me demeaning all you want, as I know just putting a comment here will raise both your ires, but this article should not become the pattern for how Wikipedia operates. I don't even really like John Gibson, except that he's sometimes funny on "Red Eye," but no one, even Olbermann, should have an article like this. PokeHomsar ( talk) 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
User Fat&Happy reverted additions which show that Gibson's claims about the BBC were supported by reputable sources. User Fat&Happy undid this with the reason given that the articles did not mention Gibson by name. It was not necessary for them to mention him by name. Gibson's claim of anti-American bias was supported by the articles so there is no justification for their removal. This article as a whole suffers from a left-wing political bias against Gibson and the sentences I added give it a more neutral POV. The user needs to provide better justification before deleting the sentences again otherwise it smacks of vandalism. RickW7x2 ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not a personal interpretation of events, it is factual data supporting a claim made in the article, without which bias is inserted into it. RickW7x2 ( talk) 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Gibson is a twat but Fish-n-Chips bias .. O Yeah Brits perennial butt-hurt thanks to there micropenis or metrosexual totally no homo culture .