Talk:Bryant Gumbel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Editing
Cracks me up to no end that people keep "cleansing" Gumbels bio. Talk about censorship. Wikipedia is guilty of surpressing free speech...talk about revisionist history. Who censors the censors here? Various members have been attempting to remove facts from Gumbels bio that shed the true light on his racist agenda.
- Bryant is talented and outspoken. Deal with it.
-
- Bryant is clearly outspokingly liberal. But the edits only removed claims like he is best known for his olympics comments. I would say that is a POV push, as one would think he is most known for being on the Today Show.
-
-
- So is the long list of quotes supposed to make us admire Gumbel or hate him? He's right on the mark as to how Republicans don't care about poor people and black people. In either case, it's not NPOV to obsess over controversial remarks. Two-thirds of the article is just a list of quotations.
-
-
-
-
- "He's right on the mark as to how Republicans don't care about poor people and black people."
-
-
-
-
-
- And we Democrats wonder why we can't win elections. Maybe it is because of these types of comments.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Added intoduction on controversial remarks section.
-
-
-
[edit] Controversial remarks
I removed the following paragraph (among other edits made) because it violates Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy and includes original research. I first tried to write it in an NPOV way, but there really isn't any way to do so. Besides, if the remarks below it are so "controversial", they should need no explanation. Fagstein 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- While many conservatives believe that there is a liberal bias in the media, most of their accusations are only based on a similarly biased interpretation of evidence. As many of the comments below illustrate, it is not the case with Bryant Gumbel. It is impossible for even the most stingent defenders of media bias to deny Gumbel's obvious dispain for conservatives and that his reports do not carry a non-partisan objectivity. However, it is important to note, that Gumbel has never publically declared himself to be an impartial reporter. In addition, Bernard Goldberg who also appears on Real Sports on HBO is a liberal media bias accuser appears to maintain a cordial and professional relationship with Mr. Gumbel.
- Furthermore, since this entire section was cut and pasted from the Media Research Center here and is hence arguably a copyvio, does anyone object to my removing it and replacing it with a link to the article instead? Fagstein 22:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- If it's a copyvio, it has to be removed. No Guru 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- But, is it? It's a list of quotations. It's clearly copy-pasted, but the quotes themselves can't be copyrighted, and there's no text other than the quotes and attributions. Fagstein 03:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Whether or not is it copyvio, the whole section needs to be removed. As mentioned above and below, the section is extremely POV because the choices of quotes and their presentation are explicitly designed to attack Gumbel. The Media Research Center's agenda is clearly to cast Gumbel in a particular negative light; while the quotes may be accurate, selecting ten quotes from a career of decades on television and implying that they are representative is ridiculous. Plenty of media figures make more controversial statements before breakfast than Gumbel made in decades. The fact that Gumbel has expressed some opinions on television is legitimate for the article. But this particular list is not. The MRC article should be linked to as an example of one perspective on Gumbel - their POV is legitimate for their website, but not for repetition verbatim in a Wikipedia article. Matt Toups 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This section of the article is ridiculous. Aside from the Winter Olympics comments & the "fucking idiots" one, the rest of those quotes are just anti-republican. Since when has having a political opinion been considered controversial? Those weren't even that radical. I mean in one of them he just stated that the government might need to raise taxes. Come on, now. 72.138.81.82 03:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I removed all the quotes except for the top two. If anyone has an issue with this, please reply instead of reverting my edits. --Liface 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've re-removed the other quotes, since they have no sources which indicate anyone has expressed issue with them (other than the MRC). Again, if someone feels differently, please reply here. Fagstein 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've again re-removed the other quotes. I would ask those who want them added to discuss them here. Fagstein 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Changing the section title doesn't make it better. If you think his quotes are that important (and there's still no sources to suggest that any respectable media has cared about them), then they should be added to Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Fagstein 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If one would bother to look there are numerous articles that point to the politicking of Gumble on the air. Biased Gumbel Left Right Clash Over Reagan Media Coverage
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Then feel free to summarize these articles in the "controversial remarks" section. Giving the quotes themselves with no context as to the controversy is entirely unhelpful. Fagstein 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Dont know quite what you mean. If you think these remarks can be properly summarized then the more apporpriate thing to do would be to do that instead of just erasing the entire section. Mbofuc 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
I removed the following: "Bryant has earned a reputation as one of the most politically active journalists on TV.". This sweeping assertion is justified by one reference to a partisan, conservative journal (National Review) and nothing else. Without more, and more credible, support, this is clearly POV. It is not even clear to me that it would be accurate to assert something like "most conservatives consider that Bryant is one of the most politically active journalists on TV" - one would need better evidence to support this claim. My own sense is that there are several other TV journalists that most conservatives would claim are more politically active or biased - but of course I would submit to reasonable documentation. Gogh 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
The clips at the bottom of the page are unfair and seek to portray Bryant, one of the most revered journalist in modern times, as a liberal fanatic who uses his public pulpit to spout liberal views. All Tv journalists make statements to one side of the issue or the other when discussing certain topics, play "devil's advocate" at times, or jump on the bandwagon of positive or negative controversies, just look at Fox News. If Wikipedia is going to have these clips for Bryant Gumble, they must have them for every Tv journalist. -Reg
- Then feel free to add them to more Tv journalists. See Bill O'Reilly controversies
I don't have a problem with the idea behind the following line at the end of the article: "Bryant has earned a reputation as one of the most politically active journalists on TV.[2]." I do, however, have a couple of problems with the execution of it. For one thing, to say that he has "earned a reputation" implies that the matter is settled (and I'm sure that some would disagree with that statement, even if I don't). More importantly, the source for the statement is an article from the National Review, which isn't exactly a bastion of objectivity in its own right. Perhaps the statement could read that "According to the National Review, Bryant has earned a reputation...etc."--Mcglotda 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Dennis
"Gumbel's remarks about the lack of black athletes in the Winter Olympics oddly enough came immediately following a piece he did on the 1966 Texas Western University basketball team, which had five all black starters."
'Oddly enough' this turd of a sentance was in the article to nurse someones bruised feelings. Its like, waaah waaah, bitch cry and moan, Gumbel made an obvious statement about how not a lot of black people play resort sports like the ones in the winter games. Quick white america! Get all defensive and say something like yeah, but lots of black people play basketball. Obviously, because of that any person who tries to point out that black people are underrepresented in activities of the middle and upper classes is a racist hypocrite and should ALWAYS be countered with a remark about blacks and basketball.
WTF Wikipedia! This sentance is foolish, petty, defensive, and at its heart comparing apples to oranges. Shame on you, wikipedia! Shame! Shame!
P.S. Im not an editor, but I'm going to go ahead and delete the sentence. I was going to just complain and let somebody else do it, but simply pondering upon the absolute absurdity of the reasoning behind including it will keep me awake at night, and frankly, Im not losing any sleep over Bryant Gumbel, so Im going to delete it from the article. I made a wiki editor account just for this: Gumbel'sRevenge
[edit] Creole
Unless there is some proof or something that shows he is creole it shouldn't be in there. Especially considering americans use the one-drop rule
- He was born in New Orleans.
[edit] Lifting protection
The article was protected over claims that certain edits violated a NPOV. This is not vandalism according to Wikipedia's vandalsim policy There were also attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Two user's involved in the dispute were both stubborn in what should be included in the article. Again according to Wikipedia's policy on vandalsim this is not vandalsim. Also note that [1]Wikipedia's policy on semi-protection states, " It is also not an appropriate solution to regular content disputes since it may restrict some editors and not others." Therefore in the spirit of Wikipedia and in compliance with stated policies of Wikipedia the protection should be lifted. Mbofuc 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Talking white"
I've moved this from the article, since it's unsourced. If someone can locate a reliable source which asserts this we can discuss it further.
- "Largely because of his polished image as host of the Today show, Bryant Gumbel has come to symbolize the archetype of a African-American who "acts White" or "thinks White". While his political views and level of community involvement strongly indicate that such a notion has no merit, this image has nonetheless persisted for years. To this today, being compared to Bryant Gumbel is considered to be an insult to most African-Americans."
- I won't search the entire Net trying to back up something that is, admittedly, based in large part in anecdotes. But anecdotal information is not necessarily incorrect. Gumbel's "Blackness" has been attacked by a number of individuals for at least 20 years, and being compared to him is most definitely NOT a compliment to most African-Americans. Personally, I think that the whole idea of trying to measure someone's "Blackness" (or "Whiteness", etc.) is ignorant and racist. But what can you do . . .
ABCxyz, 00:57, 07 July 2006 (UTC)
