Talk:Gregg Doyel

Regular Readers
Why was the caught cheating inserted? --Ndlovunkulu 03:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Gregg Doyel should also being mentioned as a controversial figure. He has a history of asking sensationalized and nonessential questions creating confrontations See LeBron James post game conference, Jim Boeheim's post NCAA game conference, Dan Patrick's radio appearance. In addition he has defended his racist and unqualified coworker Mike Freeman in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.36.254 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of well sourced information and no explanation
What is going on with this page and why is user SR023 obsessed with deleting well sourced, relevant information? Anyone he knows anything about Doyel knows he makes his living on being provocative and creating controversy and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out as long as the information is backed up with citations. The parts about Duke and Bob Kraft were on this page with multiple citations backing them up for a long time with no issues whatsoever. Recently however SR023 decided to pick a fight and has repeatedly and without explanation delete these passages. Looking at his user page, this is not the first time he has been called out for this sort of behavior. I think a.) these passages should be added back in when the article's protection expires later this month and b.) an admin should be contacted if user SR023 continues this behavior. DB42817 (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the explanation: it's a poorly sourced, unencylopedic BLP violation being repeatedly added by accounts whose sole purpose seems to be to add potentially defamatory material to a living person's biography. You actually believe that "and in the opinion of many, frequent perspectively biased stories..." is appropriate? Come on. Sro23 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanation makes no sense: the passages you removed about Duke and Bob Kraft were WELL SOURCED (there's that word again) and your history of removing WELL SOURCED information from other pages (as documented on your user talk page) means you don't get the benefit of the doubt. You need tone down your sense of entitlement and check your privilege: this article belongs to all wiki users, not just you. I'm going to continue to add these WELL SOURCED passages when the protection ends and if you don't like it we will just have to have an admin decide. Have a pleasant evening :) DB42817 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To SR023 - Below is what I plan to add back into he article - It is a slightly revised version of the passages you have been deleting. Note that I have removed the specific line that you said you had a problem with. I also made a couple minor grammatical changes. If you would like to have an adult conversation about this, I'd welcome it. DB42817 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Doyel was known at CBSSports.com for provocative and contentious columns. One example was a 2012 column about a potential NCAA violation regarding Duke basketball and 2010 freshman player Lance Thomas, where Doyel was harshly critical on Duke, but did not mention mention that Duke self-reported the possible violation. In the end, the NCAA cleared Duke of involvement in a violation in the incident. Doyel has also purportedly exercised posting imprecise information to get page views. In September 2015, shortly after Patriots quarterback Tom Brady's suspension was vacated by a federal judge, Doyel erroneously stated that Patriots owner Robert Kraft had accepted the findings of the now discredited Ted Wells report. despite the fact that Kraft has vehemently and repeatedly disagreed with its findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DB42817 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Since Doyel isn't even mentioned at either of the latter cited sources, and the first citation is a 404, it's a simple matter to say that no, you can't make these claims about Gregg Doyel based on those citations. The transcript at media.weei.com, which is mostly gibberish and itself bears a disclaimer as to accuracy, cannot be used as a reliable source for anything.  You cannot claim a motive for someone's actions (much less errors or omissions) in the absence of a citation of a reliable source that explicitly makes the claim.   General Ization   Talk   13:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I understand your point about the visual transcript, but Doyel is mentioned prominently in the WEEI audio file, which is why i posted it as a citation. And although he is not mentioned in the other two sources, they prove that he misrepresented Kraft's statements, which is addressed in the audio file. I will find another citation about the Duke story, I didnt realize the link did not work anymore. DB42817 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Using the latter sources, you may be able to show that Doyel was mistaken about Kraft's statements, but proving that does not prove misrepresentation by Doyel or an intent to do so.  General Ization  Talk   20:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (DB42817 blocked indef as a sockpuppet.)  General Ization  Talk   22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)