Talk:John Gibson (political commentator)

POV check needed
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)

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."

Gibson's comments were heavily criticized by colleagues in the media. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist, Rick Sanchez of CNN called the comments "outrageous" and said Gibson "has some explaining to do", Dan Abrams of MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams said Gibson was "out of line", and Media Matters for America criticized him as well.

"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 &mdash; Christianity &mdash; that they've been granted about their religions over the years." A few minutes later in the same interview, he said "I would think if somebody is going to be &mdash; 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, 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I am going to look again at this this week. Off2riorob (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Still horribly, horribly POV
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Mirror mirror on the wall..Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see the mirror because someone's been flinging too much crap everywhere. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 2 August 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)

Media Matters Mirror Site
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)


 * Presently we have twenty six citations in the article and at least thirteen of them (half) are completely critical pieces and that is excessive and likely to create an feeling of an attack article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, you seem to be confusing neutrally presenting source material with advocating a particular point of view. If the majority of sources out there are critical of this individual (as in, if he's largely known for gaffes and controversy) then the Wikipedia article should and will reflect that.  If you feel the article is missing some other key components regarding his biography (it probably is!), then by all means source it and add it.  The solution, however, is not to remove richly sourced material "just because" there isn't really a whole lot of flattering material out there.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:13, 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)


 * I've explained the difference between the two to you already. If you require another explanation, I'll be glad to discuss it with you elsewhere. If you have something to say about this page, say it, otherwise we have enough contentious editing going on here without your helpful addition of more kindling for the fire. If there is anyone serious about editing this article, then they should respond to Blaxthos' cogent comments above.  If an editor is not serious about editing this article, then they shouldn't be posting here.  Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nitpicking criticism does not belong in an encyclopedia. WHY is that so hard to understand?!?  Why is every other media figure's bio page so neutral in tone, yet this one is mostly an anti-Gibson screed?  I mean, is Gibson that universally hated that his bio must reflect that?  Crap's sake, I don't even think Hitler's bio page has 70% criticism!  Does Gibson's "controversial" nature make news?  No.  So it's not noteworthy.  Nitpicking complaints from a partisan critics are NOT encyclopedic, not by a long shot.


 * I'm serious as a heart attack, Gamaliel. I am seriously asking you to recuse yourself from this page as you have resisted ANY AND EVERY attempt to reduce the 70% criticism rate.  I won't question your motives (as you are often known to do with others), just your effectiveness (or lack thereof).  This page continues to remain a hideous joke, and you're one of the primary reason.  You won't accept ANY progress in right direction.


 * Your comment of "You can't wave away the entirety of the mainstream media as 'left-wing criticism' outside of the pages of Newsmax," is yet more proof of your ineffectiveness and obstructionism here, as NO ONE was criticizing the mainstream NEWS SOURCES, but rather the noteworthiness of the people (i.e., LIBERAL OPINION journalists) who offered the opinions, and the noteworthiness of the opinions themselves. Stop building straw-men, stop trivializing the influence of Media Matters, and please recuse yourself from this page. You're no help here. 24.12.244.13 (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to participate in a discussion about how to improve this article, providing we actually have one. 99% of the comments here are some variation of "delete it all" and "I hate Gamaliel/Media Matters/the left".  As for the accusation that I'm trivializing Media Matters, go ahead and remove every Media Matters reference and see what you are left with - exactly the same article as before!  The same sections, the same controversies.  So obviously Media Matters is not the problem, it's just a smoke screen.  What most here find so hard to understand is that documenting controversies and criticism is not the same thing as being anti-Gibson, but editors are unable or unwilling or too stupid to see the difference.  Is there a problem with the tone of the article, as you claim in your first paragraph?  Okay, what is it?  Identify inappropriate passages.  Every time I ask for specifics, I'm greeted with some variation of "you suck!" and nothing more specific than the fact that these sections 1) exist and 2) dare to mention That Organization Which Must Not Be Named.  Some editors don't want to use this page to do anything other than complain about me and TOWMNBN.  It would be nice if they actually tried discussing edits.  Who knows, we might actually accomplish something.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is indeed one of the problems. How about instead of just removing Media Matters citations, we remove any citations or incidents that aren't NOTEWORTHY?!?  Why do you constantly refuse to address that issue, Gamaliel?
 * This article is indeed anti-Gibson. Any partisan opinion commentator who is live on-air for 10-15 hours a week, mostly unscripted, is guaranteed to "offend" people from the other end of the political spectrum.  Gibson has criticized Media Matters and Olbermann, for instance...but God forbid anyone insert these opinions into those wiki pages.  The community wouldn't tolerate it.  Gibson is no more inflammatory or controversial than Keith Olbermann.  The fact that this page is an anomaly on Wikipedia is evidence enough that it is anti-Gibson.
 * One political pundit taking issue with another is not N-O-T-E-W-O-R-T-H-Y. If it were, we could expect every pundit's wiki page to practically explode with comments, footnotes, and citations.  Noteworthy would mean things like a non-partisan organization taking issue with Gibson...Gibson being the target of boycotts or protests...advertisers pulling their advertisements from his show...him being fired for outrageous comments...or, his comments making mainstream NEWS (not brief mentions in the opinion section of a news outlet, but his comments appearing in actual news stories).  None of these things have happened, have they?  Just pundits complaining about their opponents and rivals.  Move along.  Nothing noteworthy there.
 * And finally, Gamaliel, comments like "editors are unable or unwilling or too stupid," and your sarcastic, exaggerated straw-man arguments are just more reasons why I expect you to recuse yourself. You're demeaning to other editors, and I believe you are intentionally ignoring the question of notability.  Please, just go away.  Your obstructionism and incivility are doing more harm than good. I have documented your incivility across other pages, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture of you.  Maybe you're just hostile towards specific editors, but that's just more of a reason to recuse yourself form this page. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You and other editors have made a series of personal insults and insinuations. I'm hostile in the face of such hostility and incivility.  I'm not going away and I'm not going to smile while I take your abuse.
 * Our duty is to document Gibson's career, and reactions to his outrageous comments are a key part of that and are in fact quite NOTEWORTHY?!? If you want to discuss whether including a particular reaction is or is not N-O-T-E-W-O-R-T-H-Y, I am willing to do that.  But you have not done that, instead you've just attacked me and tried to strip out ALL negative reaction to Gibson.  Documenting negative reaction to Gibson is not anti-Gibson, and if you can't tell the difference, then that is stupid, and if that notion offends you, I'm willing to withdraw those comments as soon as editors here stop screaming at me in such a hostile manner every time I post here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not attacking you, screaming at you, nor being hostile towards you. This fake drama is just yet another example of why I am politely asking you to recuse yourself.  I have documented much of your incivility across several pages (because I knew a day like this would come sooner or later), and it's just not even remotely accurate for you to imply it is all a product of "self defense".


 * "Documenting negative reaction to Gibson" could fill volumes of books, and you know it. Documenting negative reaction to Olbermann could also fill volumes, and you know that (except that Olbermann is protected by a double standard).  One known person expressing an opinion about another known person is not a noteworthy event.  If it is, our work here will never be done.


 * But let's focus on the "following other religions" passage for now. The only source is Media Matters.  Gibson never says that those not following Christianity are following the wrong religion.  Media Matters tries to claim otherwise (but has to re-arrange his words in an attempt to make their point).  But even still, what is controversial or noteworthy about a person assuming their own faith is the right faith...particularly on a Christianity themed show, like the one where Gibson's comments were made?!?  Do you realize the crazy standard that could set?


 * So please, answer this, straight up. Does that fact that a partisan opinion website criticize a political pundit...for saying that people who follow the wrong religion will answer to a higher power...without specifying who will answer, to whom, or what the "right religion is"...on a theology themed radio show...qualify as "noteworthy"?  Ynot4tony2 (talk) 03:41, 12 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)


 * More than a month has passed since I asked someone to justify how someone talking about "the right religion" on a religion themed radio program was controversial. Not a single person has taken me up on this direct challenge.  Yet, watch editors swoop right in to revert my deletion of this nonsense passage... Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, what of the "making more babies" alleged controversy? There isn't even a citation of Gibson being criticized over this (I know, there used to be a Media Matters citation, but fortunately someone had the sense to scale back on the excessive MM sourcing).  What really makes this controversial?  Did it lead to a boycott?  Did advertisers pull their sponsorship from Gibson's show?  Was he fired?  Did a non-partisan group condemn him?


 * I would be okay with keeping the white/black shooter comment, as it was an outrageous thing to say. However, if we can't find a reliable source of criticism, it needs to go.  Again, where's the outrage that would make this noteworthy?


 * The Heath Ledger comments are worth keeping in, although the criticism sources are no surprise (the surprise would be if Huffington Post and Media Matters DIDN'T criticize him). But since Gibson apologized for his comments, that makes them controversial by my standards.


 * As far as the Holder / monkey with a blue scrotum thing goes, there's a reliable, non-opinion source on it, and someone did get fired over the incident (making it both noteworthy AND controversial, unlike the other nitpicking on this page). It also, in a way, provides balance to the article, as it points out an instance where Gibson was the target of unfair and inaccurate criticism.


 * Drop the making more babies passage, find a source for the shooter comment or remove it, and leave the rest. Then we're truly looking at a page that is basically balanced, properly sourced, and full of noteworthy bits of information.  Any thoughts?  Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has objected to the last change I made, and no one has commented on my proposed changes. I guess it's safe to assume this page has fallen off the radar of the people trying to turn this into a Media Matters mirror site.


 * I'm going to go ahead and remove the "make more babies" passage, as it's obviously not noteworthy enough to merit mention in a reliable, non-opinion source. These actions will bring this page closer to Wikipedia standards, even though it will still have the stench of partisan opinion blogs tainting it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibson vs. the BBC
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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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.