Talk:Gene Shalit

message: The article implies he provided his voice on 'Family Guy.' I don't think he did. I think someone is imitating him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.142.97 (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not His Voice 

message: The guy reviews movies for 40 years and now 2/3 of his bio has to do with outside criticism of his review of one movie in 2006?
: You have a point, but I think it's more a problem with the article being a short stub in the first place. I tried to expand it a bit and added some additional context for the "controversey." Ohnoitsjamie 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I hate the slanted term "the gay agenda," I was coming here to criticize the same thing.  It's kind of a non-issue and it's too bad his biography isn't any longer to counterbalance this one thing.  Moncrief 05:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with everyone that the article needs more information, but I don't think it's apropriate to remove the Brokeback Mountain controversy.  It's relevant and interesting.  Since at this time we have two for and two against, I'm going to leave the article alone, but I'd very much like to see this information back.  --HarrisX 13:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to add my STRONG vote for removal (or at least reduction to no more than a line or two without separate heading), albeit belatedly.  Quite bluntly, I think the term "gay agenda" is entirely accurate because this is indeed slanted and not a fair representation of man's life's work regardless of how much a specific segment of society likes or dislikes him.  While acknowledging that I'm coming to this ball a bit late, I think my timing advances a critical point about this one incident's relevance... the kerfuffle had a modest spate of media attention when it happened two and a half years ago, but to most of the world at large it has long since blown over and is regarded as little more than a footnote in the broad view of Gene Shalit's life today.  I sincerely doubt that anyone who looks at Gene Shalit's career objectively (regardless of their sexuality) sees the fallout of his Brokeback Mountain review as the pivotal climax of his entire life, yet it's emphasis in this article seems to make it so.  This is particularly unfair since I'm equally sure that the populace at large does not think of Gene Shalit as homophobic or openly bigoted against any group other than directors, actors and screenwriters -- and they are an unprotected class.  Even GLAAD itself acknowledged at the time that Shalit's "offensive term" was uncharacteristic of the good natured critic, who had previously written an essay clearly demonstrating a rather understanding attitude toward people of other sexual orientations than his own (specifically his son Peter).  I find it unsettling that the Wikipedia Biography Project's "biography" of Gene Shalit focuses on one event which is isolated in nature AND FOR WHICH HE PUBLICLY APOLOGIZED, saying any offense caused was entirely unintentional.  There is no compelling reason whatsoever to suspect that he was not being sincere or truthful in that apology, so why paint this as the single most important event for which he should be remembered -- because his 'biographers' can't let go of a grudge?  I frequently read "biographies" in Wikipedia (that of Montgomery Clift for example) that focus on the subject's homosexuality to the point of eclipsing the life accomplishments for which they should really be remembered... this article seems to do something equally off target... to denegrate the life accomplishments of a heterosexual because of one run-in with the gay community for which he apparently can never be forgiven.  I honestly think that if an article as one-sided as this appeared in Encyclopoedia Brittanica or World Book the editor responsible would be fired -- not because either organization is anti-gay, but because the slanted coverage is unbecoming of a non-biased educational resource.  Let's get this right or abandon the Wikipedia Biography Project entirely and hand it off to the Gay and Lesbian Project under a new sub-heading: "Retributional Reminders on Anyone who ever Offended Anyone in the Gay Community -- Either Intentionally or Accidentally -- In Their Entire Life". Odyssipedia (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree with previous user for removal.  Someone people out there are going to be emotionally attached to every movie Shalit has panned in his career.  Their being offended is not worthy of note, and does not become worthy simply because the offended persons are gay.97.83.104.146 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only heard about the Brokeback Mountain review once. Not really sure it needs to be in the article, since it's niether a prominent event in his life nor a notable entry. This guy has been a critic for years and all we can do is mention this event? If it even is an event. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Agenda Appropriate Here ?

message: User:Geneshalit has tried to add the following "trivia" to the article several times without providing a source.  I'd be inclined to dismiss these as silly hoaxes (e.g. Chuck Norris Facts), except that I know that one is true and several may be partially true (refer to the MSN bio: .
In 1995 he named “Tank Girl” one of the years ten best.
Has a Belgian Cream – “Shalit Sauce” – named after him at Schlotzky’s Famous Deli in Chicago, Illinois.
A famous mask known as “The Critic” is named after him.
Began taping his segments on “Today” after accidentally breaking wind during a live interview with Loretta Swit.
: Comment Could not verify any of these, though they seem somewhat plausible.
Plays the obo on a semi-regular basis for the Pittsburgh Philharmonic.
: Comment  I don't know of a "Pittsburgh Philharmonic." A close friend who has worked for the Pittsburgh Symphony for over ten years and has never met or seen Shalit around.  On the other hand, his MSN bio does mention that he once conducted the Pittsburgh symphony and has played bassoon at the Lincoln center
Was once run over by a car in Florida.
: Comment The MSN bio says that he was hit by a car in St. Petersburg, Florida in 1994.
Has not spoken to Willard Scott since 1987.
Has a penchant for collecting antique flutes, whistles and spinning toys.
Once claimed to have been born with a mustache already fully grown.
: Comment all possible; I can imagine him making the last comment in jest.
Rumored to have co-written “Candle in the Wind” with Elton John and Bernie Taupin, whom he was once neighbors with. When he learned that the superstar song-writing duo were working on a song about Marilyn Monroe, he hounded them to allow him in on the creative process.
: Comment I highly doubt this.  You'd think that there'd be at least ONE Google hit supporting this if it were true.
Shocked the family of Avery Schrieber when he attended the late actor’s funeral.
Hates Easter.
: Comment Plausible.
Can User:Geneshalit or anyone else verify these? OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research.  Such trivia needs to appear in a journal, biography, or other reliable source before it is included in Wikipedia.  And, of course, sources should be cited.  --HarrisX 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: In another episode, Peter obtains the power of transformation. While in the form of Britney Spears he kisses Justin Timberlake and then turns into Shalit, exclaiming to a horrified Timberlake "I'm Gene Shalit now! BYE!". A review that was supposedly written by Shalit was read aloud by Peter, in the episode "Big Man on Hippocampus". These were portrayals, but didn't involve Shalit (he didn't do any voices). Does this belong here? 76.244.154.7 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameo appearances 

message: Good little stub, but no mention of what he was doing
between the ages of 23 and 41 years, other than the 
bailing on Dick Clark incident, circa 1960.
It would be interesting to see how he landed a job 
on-camera on a national TV show at the age of 44...
what was he doing previously that qualified him?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.138.65.233 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilderness years? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gene Shalit. 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/20070927194227/http://www.gannett.com/about/map/ataglance/morrist.htm to http://www.gannett.com/about/map/ataglance/morrist.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I remember a commercial he was in for either a board game or a promotional restaurant game about "movie stars and trivia" back in the early eighties. Anyone know what this was? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was apparently "Stage II". I don't know think it warrants inclusion in the article, however. —ADavidB 19:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsement

message: For those wondering what he was doing during that big year gap, he's listed as an editor of Somehow It Works; A Candid Portrait of the 1964 Presidential Election (1965) and as having conceived and written the satirical Khrushchev's Top Secret Coloring Book (1962). I will not be adding this to the article as I have a conflict of interest (I publish the current edition of the latter work.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These and two additional books are now listed in a 'Written works' section. —ADavidB 06:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those missing years 

message: The sentence Clark never spoke to Shalit again, and referred to him as a "jellyfish", an informal term for "a person without strong resolve or stamina". is a WP:SYNTHesis problem, as the dictionary definition being used as the second reference has no reference to the subject of the article. I will not be changing this myself, as I have a WP:COI, as I mentioned above. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed the dictionary definition. I apparently added it in good faith in June 2012, though know better now. —ADavidB 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very understandable edit, and probably a correct guess to what Clark meant. Thank you for addressing it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis problem 

message: I note this has been raised before, but I would question whether the amount of material relating to parodying Gene Shalit in Family Guy that is included in the "Cameo appearances and popular culture" section is really needed. At the moment there is in excess of 180 words on this and an almost verbatim account  of scenes. If the subject is to be covered would it not be better to do it in a shorter format?  Dunarc (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement, especially since no source is provided for the content, unlike the rest of the section. I've trimmed the associated paragraph to a simple mention of the (linked) episoded titles. —ADavidB 23:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy material