Talk:John Gibson (political commentator)

message: 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)
replies: text: Being a neutral source isn't a requirement. A negative profile of Gibson is well within the bounds for ELs, just as a positive profile would be. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull.  If the information in that article is notable it should be included within the body of the article.  Arzel (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The body of the article isn't the point.  There is no NPOV requirement for outside content.  WP does not police the internet and their policies do not apply. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL does apply, however. --68.99.154.144 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel, your arbitrary application of WP policy is quite disturbing considering that you are an admin.  Arzel (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Please stop trolling and stay on topic. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the accusations fly.  I have had this page on my watchlist for some time, so don't give me that crap.  That EL fails per WP:EL.  For one it doesn't add anything that could not be incorporated into the article, it is simply a rant against Gibson from a notably biased source.  Arzel (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First it was NPOV, now it is EL.  What will you pull next from the alphabet soup?  Tell you what, quote what part of EL applies and we'll talk. Gamaliel (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't believe your description of the article is at all accurate.  It is merely a discussion of some controversial statements by Gibson, some of which are in fact discussed in the WP article.  I don't see anything "factually inaccurate" or intended to "mislead".  Please be more specific about your objections, because it appears we are discussing two entirely different articles. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Discussion is ongoing here so I won't bother duplicating the discussion on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV check needed 

message: ===Cleveland school shooting===
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."The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007
Gibson's comments were heavily criticized by colleagues in the media. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist,Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, October 11, 2007:  transcript Rick Sanchez of CNN called the comments "outrageous" and said Gibson "has some explaining to do",Out in the Open, CNN, October 13, 2007 Dan Abrams of MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams said Gibson was "out of line",Live with Dan Abrams, MSBNC, October 11, 2007 and Media Matters for America criticized him as well. "Gibson knew school shooter was white because "black shooters don't" shoot themselves; "they shoot and move on"", Media Matters for America, October 11, 2007 "Gibson defended his comments about race of school shooter, attacked "Soros-backed" Media Matters", Media Matters for America, October 12, 2007
==="Following the wrong religion"===
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." Media Matters - "Fox's Gibson: Christians tolerate those who are "following the wrong religion ... as long as they're civil and behave"" 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." Gibson's comments were criticized by Frank Rich of the New York Times,Frank Rich, "I Saw Jackie Mason Kissing Santa Claus", New York Times, December 25, 2005 and Media Matters for America.
===Comments===
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)
replies: text: Citation 1 is original research, and should be removed but it appears to be there to give context to the criticisms immediately following it.  The citation itself could be removed, since the statements are referenced by additional sources in the next paragraph, but in this case I suggest it's more helpful to have the primary source citation for clarity.  Citations 3 and 4 reference television show broadcasts, which constitute reliable sources (ie, 3 and 4 are fine/correct).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi Off2riorob, probably because nobody cares :), would rather watch paint dry :) Seriously, I was involved with the external links section awhile back, and also thought the criticism section was a bit much compared with the overall length/detail of this bio. I would agree that "better" sources could be used, especially to determine what "material" sould be included, rather than defering to partisan talking heads. Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate your comment 3after3. I have opened a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and have the time and the inclination to look at the quatity of the citations here. I would also like to see a better article, at present in the state it is in in has little of no informative or educational value. If you have time I welcome your comments in any discussions that arise. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Note: I have removed the MediaMatters as it seems it is not a RS for BLP's. Ink Falls 03:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content 

message: 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)
replies: text: Citation 1 is original research, and should be removed but it appears to be there to give context to the criticisms immediately following it.  The citation itself could be removed, since the statements are referenced by additional sources in the next paragraph, but in this case I suggest it's more helpful to have the primary source citation for clarity.  Citations 3 and 4 reference television show broadcasts, which constitute reliable sources (ie, 3 and 4 are fine/correct).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi Off2riorob, probably because nobody cares :), would rather watch paint dry :) Seriously, I was involved with the external links section awhile back, and also thought the criticism section was a bit much compared with the overall length/detail of this bio. I would agree that "better" sources could be used, especially to determine what "material" sould be included, rather than defering to partisan talking heads. Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate your comment 3after3. I have opened a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and have the time and the inclination to look at the quatity of the citations here. I would also like to see a better article, at present in the state it is in in has little of no informative or educational value. If you have time I welcome your comments in any discussions that arise. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Note: I have removed the MediaMatters as it seems it is not a RS for BLP's. Ink Falls 03:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's what reasonable criticism would be:  A very brief paragraph or couple of sentences which discuss that Media Matters and Keith Olbermann are frequent critics of Gibson, and maybe a single citation from each...but also makes mention that Gibson is a critic of Olbermann and that they've had a feud of sorts dating back to their co-worker days on MSNBC and specifically the Clinton-Lewinski scandal...and then include a citation of Gibson criticizing Media Matters. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite your claims, Media Matters is only cited a few times in passing, and only when other citations are used for the same controversy.  I don't see any problem with this.  If you have reliable sources that you feel would supplement this article and improve whatever imbalance you perceive, feel free to offer them. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also strongly support the removal of the weakly cited opinionated attack commentary. IMO the trimmed down version is much better and much more compliant with wikipedia principles and policy, the large version is basically a policy violating attack on a living person.Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Weakly cited? New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time, Fox, MSNBC.  Your version is not "trimmed down", it is gutted.  It violates NPOV by pretending that these controversies do not exist.  You want to reduce the section, fine, let's talk about how, in specifics. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not my version it is a version that imo with my experience and my neutrality as regards this living person is a lot better for wikipedia and readers that the attack version you and your friend support. Specifics, its a partisan attack, written and supported by people that do not like the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, you support this version, so "your version" is quick shorthand for "version I did not author but I support". Sorry for any confusion.  There is a clear difference between documenting partisan attacks and being a partisan attack.  If you feel it is the latter, please specify how so and what you think we could do to change the article so we can document these controversies and become the former. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This style of attack editing makes me sick, I am a neutral, you do not like this person , what can I say, your attack version is detrimental to the living person and to wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know or care who this person is, but I care about an encyclopedia article that documents what happens it the real world and doesn't serve up content-free promotional pieces.  Shelve the stupid accusations and let's talk about the article.  I feel that this article documents those controversies in a neutral manner.  If we have failed in this, I would like to correct it.  Please specify how we have failed to document them properly.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are unable to admit that you know or care who this person is then there is no possible meeting place between you and me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm supposed to admit that I have some burning hatred for some guy I've never read, seen, or met just because you say so?  Do you realize how profoundly stupid that is?  Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, a blind imbecile can see your edit history and smell your POV. Enjoy your attack article, bye. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the blind imbecile can start an RFC about me or take me to ArbCom, but until then, he can shut the fuck up and let serious, adult editors follow Wikipedia policies and discuss the article instead of hurling his own crap against the walls. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mirror mirror on the wall..Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the mirror because someone's been flinging too much crap everywhere. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still horribly, horribly POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please read Synthesis of published material that advances a position.  We should add references that discuss Gibson and the BBC.  We cannot add sources which do not mention Gibson at all to construct our own interpretation of events.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It is in fact an interpretation, since you are using sources which do not mention Gibson at all and connecting them to Gibson.  This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH.  Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibson vs. the BBC