Talk:John Gibson (political commentator)/Archive 1

Comments about Jon Stewart

I'm not sure about adding this. Admittedly, I want to add it because I'm a fan of the Daily Show, but I think it is still relevent enough for the controversies section. He mocked Jon Stewarts reaction to Sept. 11 (seen here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=105095&title=September-11,-2001 ) and said that it was phony. Information can be found here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200708140001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briham (talk • contribs) 04:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I fully support that. Unless he really does say such crazy things so often that it's unremarkable as a scandal. Good God. If making fun of a guy for that isn't noteworthy, how about him subsequently stating in a slow and deliberately declarative sentence that "we need another 9/11". My God. --GenkiNeko (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This Article is Really Shallow

It tells us very little except the barest-boned sketch of his bio. Then his quotes are listed like a list of crimes. He's a television commentator-- he is supposed express his opinions. He is somewhat conservative-- so they will be conservative opinions-- so what.

How about more about his life and less obsession with his commentary.

71.208.213.61 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's talk about how he looks like a rabid rabbit. --71.115.101.205 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not of much interest without his commentary is he? That's like saying a turd doesn't smell. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.233.227 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, this article seems like nothing but an attack on John Gibson. He apologized for the comments he made about Heath Ledger and he's also said he doesn't believe in faith or God or ANY GOD. To make the argument he was chastizing non-Christians is laughable considering he isn't one himself and he's said this! 12.208.119.247 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That he apologised does not excuse the fact that he said it. What sort of person would say such a thing immediately following a person's tragic death? Isn't there a line in the bible about knowing a man by his deeds? He made grossly offensive remarks which caused a flurry of outrage. He then apologised. Whether he meant it or was paying lip service we shall never know. If there are things to be said in his favour about his career, why don't you say them yourself? Lurkio (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The article does cover his life and career. It devotes a lot of space to his controversial statements, true, but the fact is that these statements stirred up a lot of controversy and public attention. Also, the language is neutral, so it seems to me no one but a fan would consider an account of his statements an "attack".Treybien 17:50 15 February 2008 (talk)

"We need more babies"

Does anyone think this might warrant a mention? Cdswtchr 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just spent the last hour listening to the "make more babies" comment. I believe that the mention of such in this article was not done well. John Gibson fishished his talking point segment by noting that Americans should not put all of the load on Hispanics to maintain and grow the population. He also noted Vladimir Putin's policy of giving money to parents in Russia who have children. I don't believe the suggestion of racism is with merit.....JBF

Of course there's no merit to it. But Media Matters puppets insist on putting MM funded opinions and misinterpretations in this page repeatedly, regardless of how pathetic the notion of MM as a reliable source is, and regardless of how utterly un-noteworthy MM opinion is.

A bunch of far left professional whiners have a gripe about a conservative talk show host, and that's worthy of an encyclopedia? It would seem so. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One-Track Article

This article seems obsessed with Gibson's allegations against the BBC. Perhaps this should be fixed.

--Thudgens 06:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article should be expanded. What else has he done? Tim Ivorson 11:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The allegations against the BBC led to a censure against his station by the British regulator; he is otherwise unknown outside his own country so it's a fairly big deal. I agree that it would be nice to know what else he has done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In America he's known mostly for his show on Fox News and his book, Hating America. --Thudgens 19:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not that I agree or disagree, but could someone please show me the research indicating John Gibson is "otherwise unknown outside his own country". Going off of the coverage area for Fox News, it appears that his show reaches a great number of people.

Cut it out

This is twice I've struck redundant comments from two different sections. And others have done the same thing. Whichever idiot keeps posting TWO SECTIONS containing the same quotes, stop it. Kade 23:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing

What's the objection to his being labelled "right-wing"? He pretty clearly is. JDoorjam 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

“Right-Wing” is a loaded term. Why label him at all? Don’t his actions and his associations label him enough? Besides Bill O’Reilly, Andy Rooney, Dan Rather and many others don’t have labels. And “right-wing journalist” is an oxymoronic phrase anyway. It sounds like the euphemism for a propagandist or worst. Zizzo 21:43, 12 January 2006

And this is too much. Both Ann Coulter & Michael Moore are without labels. Coulter is defined as an “American syndicated columnist” and Moore is an “American film director”. Zizzo 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether he is a propagandist aside, whether other articles have such labels is irrelevant to the question of whether saying he is "right-wing" (or "conservative," if that is more to your taste) is pertinent to the article. Whether his actions and associations label him enough is not the same as this article fully explaining his political stances, which "right-wing" seems to encapsulate pretty well. Giving a snapshot of information that provides an understanding of the subject is the point of an encyclopedia, right? JDoorjam 12:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibson’s political leanings are only part of the picture. It would show favoritism to label some hosts and not others. What the label does show is bias. It wasn’t included in earlier histories of this article and its adds only an impartiality by including it now. Giving a “snapshot” is not the same as “drawing someone a picture”, if you get my meaning.

The article “fully explaining his political stances” is not covered in the label, it is covered in the body of the article, or a least it should be.

Zizzo 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Labels being used in some articles and not others is simply not a reason not to include something, nor is precedent. Do you really think Gibson is not biased? Do you believe he's not on the "right wing"? You still haven't contended that the statement is false. JDoorjam 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

When labels are not used to describe the political slants of Moore or Coulter, I fail to see the benefit on this article. What happen to the NPOV issues? I don’t find “right-wing” to be all together false. I find the sentence to be far more accurate without its inclusion. A better label would be “author”. I would remove the word “journalist” and let “TV Host” & “author” label him. I find it bothersome to make political slants, because no one is without bias, the political center is always moving and individualistic. Are you sure “right-wing” is accurate? In the article histories “right of center” was used. But political bias is more a fingerprint than a color. I think it is clear in which ways Gibson is biased with the mention of his book “War on Christmas”. Everyone should make this call on their own. Zizzo 00:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on "author" instead of journalist. Political bias is more a fingerprint than a color; with that said, Mr. Gibson's smudge is rather ruddy. He's more than far enough into his political extreme that it's safe to label him as "right-wing," just like Coulter, or Moore on the left. With that said, I suppose one could also say that Coulter could also undebatably be described as "a blonde American syndicated columnist..." but its accuracy doesn't have much to do with its relevance. Or maybe not using controversial political labels is Just Another Small Sacrifice To Wiki Political Diplomacy. Please understand that I'm not belaboring the point because I think you're incorrect, but precisely the opposite, or half-opposite: I haven't made up my own mind on the issue and it's good to hear an argument about it one way or the other. JDoorjam 05:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you find my “regarded as a social and political conservative” agreeable. I don’t know if it is true, but it must be accurate. You are right in saying Gibson is “right-wing” and I would have easily have agree before with the label “conservative”, if I didn’t search and find others that weren’t labeled. There is an argument on the right that states people on the left aren’t given labels and can fly by undetached. Surprisingly I have found this site very neutral. I was told otherwise. Zizzo 08:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the beginning of the Ann Coulter article: "Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is a conservative American syndicated columnist, bestselling author, and television pundit. Her commentary has earned her a reputation as a strong critic of social and political liberalism. Her speaking and writing style is provocative and aggressive." Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, are all labelled conservative. But Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman -- none of these are labelled as liberal. Why is this? WBcoleman 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I came across this article by accident. Right wing is clearly a pejorative term and is used thus in American political discourse. It is the same thing as calling someone at the opposite end of the spectrum leftist or radical. Moreover, there is no such thing as a right wing journalist or left wing journalist: to take political positions is the act of editorialists and commentators. Of course we all know that human beings are capable of bias, and if a news reporter does show bias in any direction it should be documented. But it is clear that this individual, who I dislike, is not a journalist but a commentator. It would be like calling Arriana Huffington a journalist. If you truly believe that he is right wing then let the article's facts demonstrate that. But to use the same adjectives that an ideological opponent of theindividual in question would use gives the clear appearance of lack of objectivity. Please consider the integrity of Wikipedia. Do not be guided by animus for an individual or cause but for love of your ideals. Firmitas 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read some of this wackos comments. Calling him a conservative comentator is far more effective in getting where you guys want to go with the right wing label. Let the facts speak for themselves. Avoid politically charged labers, state the facts and trust in the people making the correct judgement on where this individual heart and mind lies. Firmitas 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does he look like a rabbit? All joking aside, would it be helpful to the article by having his known controversy in its current section, but moving the quotes section to wikiquote?

White Supremacist

His comments on babies, Christmas and homosexuality qualifies him as a White Supremacist. A closet Grand Wizard, I suppose?

No. Christmas and homosexuality have nothing to do with race. Aaрон Кинни (t) 02:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

His comment is aimed not at promoting a white racial majority, but rather at pointing out that American whites are reproducing at or below replacement levels, thus leading to dramatic demographic transformation across certain regions. His stated views are what they are, but "White Supremacist" is an awfully strong term for banter commonly heard across the country (and I am from VT).

His concern isn't for the "white race" in general, but for America to keep its cultural identity. I'm sure he'd have no problem with, say, Uganda also keeping its cultural identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.28.18 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that helps your case. David Duke also has no problem with Uganda keeping its "cultural identity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.234.228 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Per a similar edit at Rick Santorum, I've removed the quotations sections. If they can be worked into the body of the article, great, but on their own it's just lists of zingers... that's more the job for Wikiquote than the 'pedia. JDoorjam Talk 23:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-science/Anti-Intellectual?

His comments on the reclassification of Pluto reek of a lack of understanding of how science works.

"But no, you can't unmake Pluto as a planet.

Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?

Somebody somewhere, some mysterious person who answers to no one and seems to have dictatorial power sets new standards for planets and all of a sudden one of the original nine is dropped?"

"Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly.

The headline was all I needed to see to know I'm rejecting this attempt at revisionist history."

Using a loaded terms like "revisionist history" and "dictatorial powers" to describe a decision made by an assembly of experts appears to demonstrate ignorance of the process or malice towards science.

Source 1: http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/08/25/2034201.shtml Source 2: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210358,00.html

66.45.156.235 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree. As the writer of the Pluto section, I tried to keep the entry as encyclopediac sounding as I could, while still portraying to the reader this mans "unique" way of thought. However, on this page, I have no problem expressing my opinion that John Gibson is probably the most idiotic douche on all of Fox News. When I was watching his show and he responded to a letter decrying his opinion of Pluto, his response was something along the lines of "well you seem to be getting quite bent out of shape over nothing. All I said was that I'm going to keep calling Pluto a planet and nobody can tell me otherwise." I actually screamed at my TV "That's because you're a fucking idiot!". I was entranced by his utter stupidity. If I ever have any doubts that the Republican party is wrong for America, all I have to do to reafirm my faith is turn on Fox News and imagine what the world would be like if John Gibson was in charge. Spazik007 02:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Spazik007... I agree with what you say, but since Wikipedia tries to maintain NPOV, this is irrelevant to the article. Also, a couple of pieces of personal advice: watching FOX News is a waste of time (they are not going to change and you are helping with their ratings) and please check your spelling before placing something in the article. 66.45.156.235 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I love the concept of wikipedia and strive very hard to make all my writings NPOV. On the discussion page however, I don't see a problem with expressing ones opinions. It's called the "discussion" page after all, and even if were discussing our personal thoughts and feelings it usually still relates to the discussion of the article in some way. Spazik007 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the overall basis of this line of criticism. I have watched the segment, and indeed was watching it live when it first aired. It appears to me, and my friends agree, that the comment was intended somewhat in jest. He is not attempting to undermine science (probably), and commonly uses loaded terms such as "revisionist history" when joking. Furthermore, I believe that the intent of the segment was to question more the editing of an established definition "planet" to exclude a fixture in Americans' world-view. Thus, it is not "science" per se that he takes exception with, but rather revision of an establised definition.

Pluto

What's with the Pluto section? The conclusion of it is pretty politically charged and that shouldn't be. If the story is worth mentioning at all, it shouldn't be a whole section right at the top of the page. I'm not going to delete it now, but we should definitely look at whether stuff like that should be left in.Papercrab 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I'll admit the the ending is a bit politically charged, but that's the way some things are. Just because a person doesn't like the fact that their house caught fire doesn't mean it didn't happen. The statement I made certainly isn't innacurate, I'm sure a large majority of non biased points of view would agree that the Pluto thing is an accurate metaphor for traditionalist sentimentalism. In fact it's not even a metaphor, it's exactly what it is. So maybe I could change the wording a bit. The reason I gave it it's own section is the same reason his BBC encounters got their own section. In the minds of many people it was an intellectual faux pas of unbridled purportions, and has perhaps gotten more attention and negative criticism then even his call for white people to have more children in order to fight back the minorities. However, I can concede that there are valid points to your arguement as well. Spazik007 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT criticism? I mean, aside from complaints from the far left of the blogosphere?

John Gibson has stated that he is a registered Independent

From a transcript of Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO, Gibson states that he is registered Independent: Bill Maher And Fox's John Gibson On Being A Registered Independent, The CIA Being At War With The Administration And Joe Wilson Was The One Who Outed Valerie Plame. -- Dcflyer 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I could state I own a flying car, but that doesn't make it so. You would do yourself an intellectual favor by looking at his actions instead of his words. Spazik007 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Isarig 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Refering to his political affiliation by anything other than what he claims and what can be proven is ridiculous at best. I happen to believe that he is very much conservative, and most likely checks only the boxes with an "R" next to the name. But that is because of how I view the beliefs of each party. Others may disagree, in fact, an extreme right winger might even think he is liberal.

"Fox Noise"?

C'mon, clean that up. You can do better. "Fox Noise correspondent..." Just like Faux News, and Fixed News, and etc., joking renamings of networks have no place in an encyclopedia - unless that's what the article is about.Eh Nonymous 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"moving to"

The article states that Gibson "moved to" MSNBC and NBC and Fox News. However, Keith Olbermann (who himself works for NBC/MSNBC) has stated (Countdown, 8 Aug 2007) that Gibson was terminated from NBC. Anyone know the details, or why it's not mentioned in the article? /Blaxthos 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On Gibson's show of 11-06-07, he stated that he was "fired twice" from NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

to add to conreversial stuff thing

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708140001?f=h_latest

Can we be serious for just a minute here? Media Matters for America is not a valid reference source. They are a well-funded, partisan liberal opinion website. A glorified blog, and nothing more. Hillary Clinton recently admitted having a role in helping to create this organization.

It's unbecoming of an on-line encycolpedia to give Media Matters the same amount of credibility as an actual news source (CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal). It should take more than a ".org" in the URL to be considered a valid citation.

Furthermore, to be considered a "controversy", shouldn't something at least have made news somewhere? For instance, Hillary's comments about Ghandi "working in a convenience store" doesn't appear on her page (unless I missed it), even though it has been discussed somewhere besides an opinion website.

So I really have to take issue with Media Matters being the deciding factor in what's a controversy and what isn't.

Ann Coulter's comments about John Edwards, for instance, certainly do qualify as a controversy (as evidenced by how much they were discussed in the mainstream media); the same applies to several comments made by John Kerry about U.S. soldiers.

Yet, a single opinion website, staffed and funded by Democrats, gets to be the sole voice on what is considered controversial on this page? Is the point of John Gibson's Wikipedia page to tell us about the man and his career, or is it simply meant to be a stomping grounds for political hacks who want to attack him?

Media Matters lacks the credibility AND accountability to be a valid reference in an encyclopedia, even a user-editted on-line encyclopedia. You would do the internet community a great service by preventing MM from getting the same prestige as trusted news sources.

Is it fair to say that a "controversy" should be something that gets more people talking than just Media Matters? Or would it be fair for me to start citing my own blog as a source?

It is fair to say that. In addition to being thinly sourced, this section takes up most of the page, making the page read like a hit piece on Mr. Gibson, not an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps this section should be merged with the Media Matters page, since as it is currently sourced, it is really about what Media Matters thinks about Gibson rather than any actual controversy involving him. Evensong 07:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But now the Media Matters "hit page" aspect is getting worse. When discussing Gibson's mocking of John Stewart, some editor felt it relevant to add that Keith Olbermann awarded Gibson the "Worst Person in the World" award over the incident. This is Olbermann's OPINION, and has no place on a wiki page about Gibson.

Gibson has given plenty of criticism about Keith Olbermann, yet you do not see Gibson's commentary on Olbermann appearing on the Olbermann page...NOR SHOULD you see it there.

I tried removing the Olbermann reference...tried pointing out it was opinion...but someone just keeps editting in the Media Matters talking points. MM is making a joke out of many wiki pages, and I wish someone had the sense and the power to stop these MM drones from peddling opinion as fact.

Phil Collins

On his October 2, 2007 radio show, Gibson said that he worked with Phil Collins in the early 1970s.

He did not elaborate about what that work was. It could have been technical radio studio stuff. It could been getting coffee and donuts. I do not know.

If information about their connection/colaboration could be located, it would make a good addition to the Gibson article. 68.45.167.86 23:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Listening to the podcast in question right now...Gibson says he was the "west coast under-assistant promotion man."

NPOV

I added a NPOV tag to this article. It appears primarily as an attack on Gibson, with almost no actual information about Gibson at all. As such it is probably in violation of WP:BLP and is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Arzel 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a bullet list of controversial statements an "attack on Gibson". The information on Gibson is certainly light and needs expansion, however each item in the controversial statements section (except the very last one) are reliably sourced and neutrally worded. If there are responses from Gibson they should be included (of course), however I don't think that this comes anywhere close to an attack page or a non-neutral article. Gibson sells himself as a controversial figure; as such there is going to be controversy surrounding him. /Blaxthos 14:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that anything shouldn't belong, only that when reading it is sounds only like an attack on him. When almost the entire article talks about his controversies you have an article that is not neutral. But perhaps the better term is undue weight. Arzel 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree this article is really non-neutral, and would say that a bullet list of controversial statements is tantamount to an attack, as much as Gibson's recent report on factually-incorrect statements at Wikipedia was really a hit-piece on Wikipedia. I think this guy sounds like a real buffoon, and actually gives conservatives a bad name, but still think we need to be fair and follow the same standards as any other biographical page. It needs some more work. There should be more information about his personal life and career. The opening text is almost copied word-for-word from the Fox News bio. If he was a more famous personality, controversial statements would probably deserve more weight, but as it is I don't think many people even know who he his. I'm waiting for someone who's actually read his books to edit the article.

Note that if you see any violations of WP:BLP they must be removed immediately, and not simply tagged. --70.143.46.96 16:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried removing blatant opinion (like pointing out Keith Olbermann's criticism) and it just keeps getting re-added. Someone is working against the neutralization of the Gibson page.

As as far as the claim that "...each item in the John Gibson controversial statements section are reliably sourced and neutrally worded" is laughable. I quote: "The progressive media research group Media Matters for America claimed these comments were a specific directive to white Americans to reproduce." THAT is "reliably sourced and neutrally worded"?!? Citing a partisan organization's interpretation of what Gibson might have meant?

Further to the point, I maintain that you could create such a "hit piece" on ANY radio personality that is live on the air for 15 or so hours a week. We should set some standards as to what should be included in a controversy/criticism, otherwise every news anchor and every radio personality will have their bio's clogged up with this style of minor nit-picking. If these criticism of Gibson belong on his page, then guess what...we need to do major expansions of Keith Olbermann's page, Media Matters' page (note how the "criticism" on their page amount to little more than a defence of what MM has been criticized for), Chris Matthews' page...I could go on, but you get my point. EVERYONE says something that SOMEONE can criticize them for...but unlike Coulter's anti-gay comments about Edwards or moveon.org's "General Betray Us" ad, not everything said is controversial enough to make news. NOTHING on the Gibson's criticism page was discussed or quoted in a legitimate, respected media outlet (if I'm wrong, feel free to cite examples).

Media Matters employes teams of people to monitor conservative talk radio, and employes teams of people to send their press releases to hundreds of media outlets. It's my guess MM also employs people to write Wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Porn Star Controversy

I don't understand what is controversial about what he said about porn stars and AID's. Here is what the article currently reads: Following the positive HIV test of porn star Darren James on April 13, 2004, a new HIV scare led to a search for all potentially infected partners of the actor, as well as a two-month shut down of adult movie production in Los Angeles. Commenting on this on April 29, 2004, Gibson said that the actors "should not be surprised, considering what they do" and noted that "this was bound to happen to them sooner or later". [4] Why are those two comments listed as controversial? JettaMann 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Third World Comments

I also fail to see how his comments about third world countries belongs in the controversy / criticism section. Does anyone actually take issue with his claim that they have "problems of poverty, disease, and corruption?" He's basically saying that third world countries are...well...third world countries.

Bin Laden / Ahmadinejad Comments

Gibson isn't accusing Democrats of modeling themselves after Osama or Ahmadinejad, which I admit would be controversial if he did. He did just the opposite, in fact. He seems to be accusing the duo of modeling their pronouncements after standard talking points of the Democrats. This is a far cry from comparing Bush to Hitler, for instance.

France / Hip Hop Culture and the School Shoooting

His comment saying no one would care if France were nuked might be considered controversial, although it's proven not to be his "nappy-headed ho's" type career damaging statement. Every section in the criticism section has created NO RIPPLE outside of the highly partisan sections of the blogosphere, aside form his comments on the school shooting (which was mentioned in a small circulation hip-hop magazine).

For the sake of comparission, I'd like to cite Chris Matthew's June 26th edition of "Hardball", where Ann Coulter was a guest. After saying he was "deeply concerned" about people who think like Coulter, many of the members in the live audience cheered. This caused Matthews to exclaim, "My God, is this 'Deliverance'?". I personally criticize Matthews for comparing people to inbred hillbilly homosexual rapists (and not giving them a chance to defend themselves). Yet, I'm not putting my criticism on Matthew's page. It's not significant enough to merit mention...just like nearly everything on Gibby's page. Anyone disagree?

'Criticism' section

I have renamed this section 'Controversial statements', as it didn't contain any actual criticism of Gibson - only a list of controversial stuff he's said. While I do think this section is encyclopaedic and worth including, let's not try to call it something it isn't. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John Gibson oozes hate and contempt for Third World nations, UN

I don't know how much more critical that could be... reverted. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And again I ask, "controversial" according to what standard? Can I please see some evidence of outrage caused by his "controversies" that isn't confined to blatantly partisan opinion blogs? Mr. David Brock has his own page called "Media Matters for America". We aren't doing the internet community a favor by reposting Mr. Brock's opinion on Wikipedia.

Just let me know what the standards are to add such petty, frivolous complaints about a broadcaster to their Wiki bio. Do I just need an blog on a .org to be taken seriously?

The standards (or lack thereof) required for inclusion in a "controversial statements" section is a freaking joke. Either tighten up this standard or prepare to have it uniformly applied to each and every person who has ever had a daily or weekly column, show, or program of any sort. The incidents in Gibson's section are insignificant...so you run the risk of seeing this level of nitpicking on Olbermann, Matthews, Couric, King, Cooper, etc etc. Wikipedia will simply be one huge mess of an opinion blog eventually.

Perhaps the section should just be renamed "Controversies (according to the Democrat founded and Democrat funded opinion blog Media Matters)." Gibson's page is officially a joke now...and this joke will spread. We're going to see this level of crap-content appear everywhere on Wiki.

Is this an attack page now?

I was on WP:RFPP one day and decided to check out this article. I was quite shocked to see how a majority of the article is devoted to controversies over Gibson. As a firm believer in WP:BLP, I am very concerned over the neutrality of this article, that's why i tagged "check for neutrality" for this article. I think this article needs more focus on Gibson's career. Agree? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unfortuntely he says a lot of stupid stuff which gets picked up by MMfA and other liberal blogs and outlets, which makes it really difficult to try and balance out this page. Good news is usually not news that gets a lot of press. Arzel (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As a person who makes his living saying outrageous things, this is not particularly surprising, and unfortunately it is unavoidable. We should try to expand the article so it isn't top heavy with criticism, but as Arzel noted, it is difficult to find non-controversial information about a controversial figure. I did manage to dig up a bit of info about his career as a real journalist and created the early career section. Gamaliel (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good for starters. Please keep adding more non-negative info about Mr. Gibson if you wish, provided you source them. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Valarie Palame issue

I removed some criticism that was synthesis of material. The first link did point to the fact that he said what he said, but there was nobody criticising it. The second was some of Olbermann's worst person of the world of Gibson, but not the issue to which it was linked. Maybe this is an issue, but it needs to be better researched before it can be included. Arzel (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, none of these statements seemed "controversial" to me, they seemed like common sense. Let's leave the personal oppinions out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.105.24 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God, PLEASE stop putting Keith Olbermann's "worst person" mention on the pages of people he gives the "award" to. This meaningless award is based on the opinion of a single person. This is idiotic! The opinions of an opinion journalist belong on the page of said opinion journalist. END OF LIST! The fact that a hyper-partisan hack like Olbermann criticized John Gibson does not belong on Gibson's page...and nor do you see Gibson's criticisms of Olbermann appear on Olbermann's page.

Some claim Wikipedia has a liberal bias. When Olbermann's opinion is treated like fact and Media Matters is treated as a legitimate news source, I can see why people might come to that conclusion.

I'm not asking to remove things that are "liberal" or "conservative". I'm just asking for things to be removed that have no place in an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Criticism Section

As the entire sections fails to meet the sourcing qualifications found in WP:BLP, I have taken the liberty of removing it. The only two sources noting any criticism are Newshounds and MMFA, neither of which are RS’s for BLP’s. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! It might be worth a mention that Gibson has on on-going fued of sort with Media Matters, though...and maybe with Olbermann. His bio is a little thin, and it's hard to find information to expand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.243.147 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again someone has editted in "criticisms" into Gibson's page, including making note that Keith Olbermann and Media Matters have criticized him. When is this nonsense going to stop? Do we have to lock the page so the partisan hacks can't keep inserting OPINION and POV's into his page?!? I am, for the second time today, removing the irrelevant sections of his profile.

Political Vandalism

Look at what this page has degenerated into...it consists of the following...

1)a brief bio

2)a Media Matters / Keith Olbermann / assorted liberal criticism (opinion) accusing Gibson of racism

3)an irrelevant story about Gibson's criticism of the BBC

4)another Media Matters / Keith Olbermann / assorted liberal criticism (opinion) of alleged racism

5)brief mention of books Gibson has written

6)two Gibson / Fox News links

7)Salon.com (liberal) criticisms (opinions) about Gibson, including charges of racism

8)Media Matters criticisms (opinions) about Gibson, including charges of racism

9)F.A.I.R. (liberal) criticisms (opinions) charging Gibson with racism

WHY OH WHY should Keith Olbermann, Media Matters, and other assorted liberals have their OPINIONS appear on an allegedly factual encyclopedia entry? Isn't it painfully obvious that this page is nothing more than a CONCERTED EFFORT by multiple LIBERAL PEOPLE AND GROUPS to portray GIBSON AS A RACIST?!?

For crying out loud, if people wanted to hear Media Matters give their OPINIONS on Gibson, there is a website for that already. What if Keith Olbermann's page had nothing but highly partisan criticism from blatantly conservative individuals and groups? Sensible people wouldn't stand for it. Yet, Gibson's page is constantly being shaped into a slam against him and nothing more. Either lock this page and / or ban the partisan hacks, or lose credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When I tried to remove the sections in question, they were re-instated and I received a message that my edits might be considered vandalism. So, I at least removed the blatant opinions inserted into the page but left in the hard facts of the incidents. Let's see if the Media Matters sheep once again try to make Gibson's page an extension of their Hillary-founded (she admitted it) website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.240.6 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just downright pathetic. Olbermann's opinions of Gibson appear multiple times on this page. I just visitted Olbermann's page and there were no criticisms of Olbermann from Gibson featured there. Nor were there any of Michelle Malkin's or Mark Levin's criticism of Olbermann. Why in the holy hell should the opinion of Media Matters be treated like fact (yet the FACT that Hillary is on tape claiming to help "start and support" Media Matters isn't considered worthy of mention on the MM page.

Is Wikipedia an extension of the Hillary Clinton/Media Matters propaganda arm now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only two classes of entities who are criticizing Gibson on his page: his competitors, and opinion websites that don't bother to hide their liberal bias. Neither is a reliable source of information.

STOP treating Media Matters like it's a legitimate news source. STOP inserting opinions from competitors that are a blatant conflict of interest. You won't let Microsoft manage their own Wiki page, nor would you let Apple manage the Microsoft page...but you'll let Media Matters (started and supported by Hillary Clinton) write not only their own page, but the page of John Gibson too. MEDIA MATTERS HAS A WEBSITE ALREADY! Don't let them own this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gibson.....is that you?

Yeah, how dare Media Matters take actual transcripts and sound clips of what people in the media actually say and post it for people to read!!!! And I didnt realize Hillary is as all-powerful as George Soros!!

"It's unbecoming of an on-line encycolpedia to give Media Matters the same amount of credibility as an actual news source (CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal)""

Bwahahahahahhaha yeah Fox and the WSJ -- the pillars of objectivity!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.17.249 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your opinion, FNC and the WSJ are considered valid sources. I'm sorry that you're so dim that you can't distinguish commentary from a news report. Further to the point, CNN and the NYT are hardly "pillars of objectivity", although they do support your liberal viewpoint, so I can see why you'd give them a pass.

And I have no problem with Media Matters posting their selective quotes (minus context) and adding their biased, opinionated commentary...as long as they do it ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE.

If we allow Media Matters to dictate the entire tone of Gibson's bio, then Wikipedia can hardly be considered a non-POV entity.

So, do you have any legitimate gripes about what I said, or do you think liberal opinion should continue to be treated as gospel? 76.209.234.237 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FNC and WSJ both fit the definitions of "reliable source". Media Matters would more accurately be described as an "extremist source" ("organizations or individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political...or other nature..." and since they only feature liberal opinions, they fit the bill)...and it would be equally accurate to designate them a "self-published source" (meaning they should, on Wikipedia, only be used as a source for their own page).

FNC and WSJ both hire liberals...can you point out any conservatives working for Media Matters? Of course not. FNC is a RS, MM is not. Checkmate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.234.237 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And of course here come the ad-hominem attacks!!! I love how you make the assumption that I am a "liberal"...certainly I lean left of center on many issues but I am fairly (libertarian) conservative on a number of issues. Please explain to me how FNC is a reliable new source after watching the movie Outfoxed. They have been proven time and time again that they warp the truth while saying they are "Fair and Balanced". Do you have any idea of the background of Roger Ailes? And as far as having liberal voices on, everyone knows they are bought on to serve as punching bags. Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Susan Estrich, are purposely hired for this purpose. And what liberals are on the WSJ Editoral page anyway?

I am not sure how Media Matters is an "extremist source". I guess to you rejecting blind obedience and questioning the media is "extremist"? Oh yeah, and they dont only take quotes from right-wingers, they have constantly gone after the NY Times, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, you cant get more "mainstream" then those guys.

And why does everything you disagree with have to be considered "liberal" Fact is fact, whether you like it or not. It is a "fact" that Gibson, O'Reilly, etc. use incendiary rhetoric. The fact that they refuse to have a debate with anyone from Media Matters is basically the same as a sports team forefiting a ballgame. David Brock of MM wrote an open letter to O'Reilly willing to come on the show and debate and O'Reilly never acknowledged it.

So my question to you is -- did Gibson say those things, yes or no? Or did this supposedly radical organization doctor his quotes? Or, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, did he "not say all those things he said"?

And by the way, I dont understand why you have to be "liberal" to find what Gibson says offensive. I happen to be raised Catholic and his rhetoric doesnt exactly jibe with my beliefs.

And as far as me being "dim", I am not the one drinking the FOX kool-aid here. How about thinking for yourself instead of being a dittohead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.17.249 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Outfoxed is yet another example of an extremist source. They use selective presentation, and they misrepresent commentary for hard news (you still don't seem to know the difference between the two). I could use their very same techniques and put out a "documentary" that would convince the uniformed that FNC is radically liberal. Outfoxed is for liberal twinks who won't watch FNC to make their own decission.

I wrote Al Franken and challenged him to a debate. He didn't get back to me. According to you, he "forfeited". Right? Or maybe he just considers me a nobody...just like David Brock is a nobody.

Media Matters intentionally misinterprets quotes from Gibson (he never said non-Christians were practicing the wrong religion, nor did he ever call on "white people to have more babies", but MM said he did). So yes, MM really did alter his quotes...by inserting words HE NEVER SAID.

Learn what a dittohead is before you throw around that term. And since I get less than 10% of my news from FNC, I hardly consider myself a Kool-Aid drinker (and for the record, it's Flavor-Aid). And if I'm not thinking for myself, please show me where I stole my criticism of Media Matters from.

Media Matters may go after "mainstream" sources, but only for to forward the liberal/Democrat agenda. This still means they are an exteremist source (according the Wikipedia definition). And I'm sorry to tell you, but FNC is considered a reliable source, according to Wikipedia.

So can I start up my own .org and use it as a "reliable source" to flood the Wiki pages of liberal pundits like Matthews, Olbermann, Dowd, etc, with intentionally dishonest criticism? Can I take a five-word quote from one of those people, then add words to the begining to change their meaning? Or do I have to be a flaming liberal to get away with that? Ynot4tony (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep on using the word "extremist", I dont think it means what you think it means. The fact that you completely let Gibson off the hook for any of his extremist comments shows a lack of credibility on your part. You keep acting as an apologist for everything this guy says.

Um, David Brock is a "nobody"?? The guy is a best selling author and the right hates him because he was an insider for their smear machine. These hosts are clearly targeting his organization and he is willing to tell his side of the story, and they wont let him. It is easy to attack one side when you wont let them defend themselves. Is Al Franken attacking you regularly?

As far as Outfoxed being extremist, are you saying they doctored footage of various hosts saying that John Kerry "looks French", among other things? How about addressing the footage they actually showed?? Again I ask you, do you know what Roger Ailes background is? I watch FOX regularly and they blatantly spiked stories that could possibly hurt the administration, (eg: The Downing Street Memo, Jeff Gannon), and particularly reduced its coverage of Iraq when things were going poorly, and continue to use the usual distraction stories (eg: Anna Nicole Smith, missing white women) to deflect attention. In addition they are never critical of what I think most people would consider "extremist" figures like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc. and their incendiary rhetoric.

Just because something isn't convenient to your agenda, you cant keep brushing it off as "extremist". Facts are facts.

And as far as your strawmen like Matthews and Dowd, they are regularly skewered by the left as well as the right, which proves you really haven't read Media Matters.

Bottom line, if this organization (and Obermann's show) didn't exist, Gibson would have gotten a free pass on everything he says. How about you step up to the plate and acknowledge his extremist remarks that hurt the state of discourse in this country instead of being an apologist? If the media actually did their job and took him to task (including his own employer) we wouldn't be having this argument.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You want to give reliable source status to OPINION OUTLETS because they lean liberal, but you want to deny reliable source status to LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCES because they lean conservative. You're a partisan hack, and blind to what constitutes good research and valid sourcing. You defend opinion with more opinion.

Since you don't understand the difference between news and opinion, please stay out of the discussion on what's a reliable source and what isn't. Go find some message board to squawk out your Media Matters talking points.

Following the wrong religioin

This section is entirely misleading. Gibson's entire quote is as follows (emphasis added): "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."

NOWHERE does Gibson say "non-Christians are following the wrong religion," contrary to the false interpretation given on Gibson's page. "I would think" and "if" are ambiguous musings, not a hard-core condemnation of non-Christian religions.

Isn't this attempt to falsely change Gibson's meaning enough of a reason to declare Media Matters an unreliable, blatantly dishonest source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.48.9 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 

Are there any mainstream sources that talk about this incident? If not I think it should go. It is really Media Matters centric, and is being presented entirely from their point of view. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I've pointed out multiple times, but to no avail. Just about everything on Gibson's page is a complaint from one of his political opponents or one of his competitors.

Please set a standard and enforce it. If no standard is set, can I start flooding Olbermann's, Matthews', Colmes, and Brock's page with sourcing from opinion sites and blogs like Hot Air, Olbermann Watch, and Free Republic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, is this page going to continue to be a Media Matters authored attack screed on Gibson, or will it be brought up to Wikipedia standards?

If something Gibson said caused him to be rebuked by an organization like the ADL (like Keith Olbermann's use of the Nazi salute), it would be worthy of inclusion in this page. If his comments were covered and commented about in many major newspapers (like moveon.org's "General Betray Us" ad), it would be worthy. If his comments inspired a boycott (Dixie Chicks), got him fired (Don Imus), or even got some papers/stations to stop carrying his column/show (Ann Coulter), it would belong on this page.

The INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS from Gibson's COMPETIORS and POLITICAL OPPONENTS simply do not belong. (And don't use my off-hand comment about CERTAIN LIBERALS to justify taking my ENTIRE ARGUEMENT off this page!) Ynot4tony (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

90% of Media Matters material is naked excerpts of comments, in context, whose goal is to show you something someone said that is controversial or unreliable. So what if MM's goal is fight Conservative misinformations, and that links it to liberalism. It presents naked information without any bias in the articles but to have you pick a side based on that naked info. "Free Republic" is opinion as are others sources many have tried to link Media Matters to on this page. Again, MM is accurate excerpts. Just because it may ignore some comments from those on the left doesn't mean those excerpts concerning those on the right are not valid. They are factual.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but these comments are allegedly controversial only because Media Matters says they are. Reliability aside (and MM is hardly a RS), is it NOTEWORTHY that MM criticized Gibson, or that he said these things he's being criticized for? The answer, unless you're very liberally biased, is a resounding "NO!". Otherwise, the wiki pages of every news personality will be bogged down by nitpicking comments from the left (Media Matters, et al) and the right (News Busters, et al).

Dan Rather's fake memos made news. Fox News's "terrorist fist-jab" made news. Gibson's comments did not make news. They are not noteworthy and do not belong. Leaving such information in is a way to sneak partisan opinion unto this page, and nothing more. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am touching up the criticism section. In particular, I have took out the "following the wrong religion" section entirely, as the only source it cites is Media Matters for America, an admittedly progressive watchdog (and therefore opinion) group. I now quote Wiki's page on reliable sources as justification for excluding Media Matters on this page. Don't like it? Complain to Wikipedia for having standards!

From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>Wikipedia's page on Reliable Sources</a>: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press....Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters is used as a source all over Wikipedia (even in this article). If you're using that as the basis for removal, you'll have a lot of deleting to do. I'm sure there will be additional sourcing for this incident around 8pm EST tonight. Until then, sit tight... this section is sourced and neutrally presented. Reverted. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Neutrally presented"? No. MM claims that Gibson said non-Christians were "following the wrong religion". His is a shade away from a blatant lie. Provide an exact quote where Gibson said this, and you have a point.

And it is not my responsibility to clean up all of Wikipedia. I'm just cleaning up this page at the moment. Regardless of how many times Media Matter is improperly sourced, it simply does not make it proper to source here. You'll need a better argument than that "but they did it too!".

Consider the excerpts above regarding reliable sources, and biographies of living people. Now try and explain how MM can be considered a RS for BoLP according to the Wikipedia rules.

"When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Media Matters is not a "high quality" news organization. They are a funded political advocacy website. I'm reverting back because Media Matters fails to be a reliable source ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA! Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay let's clear a few things up:

1. Media Matters is commonly accepted as a source throughout Wikipedia. The precedent exists, no matter how often or loudly you shout otherwise. The argument isn't "they did it too", it's that "there is no support for your assertion".
2. There is no doubt about what Gibson actually said. The audio clip is available from MSNBC if you wish to do additional verification.
3. Both the Media Matters piece and the paragraph in this article give the full quote in context.
4. This has been covered by at least Media Matters and MSNBC.
5. Gibson's response is also contained in the paragraph in the article, satisfying WP:NPOV concerns.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"cover by at least Media Matters and MSNBC..." In other words, covered by a glorified partisan opinion blog, and covered on Olbermann's commentary opinion show. This entire page utterly fails to live up to NPOV, improperly cites opinion sources for BoLP, Media Matters is not a RS no matter how many people make the same mistake, and the criticisms of a funded partisan group and a Gibson competitor are hardly noteworthy.

What if someone flooded Keith Olbermann's and Media Matters' pages citing attacks by Mark Levin? I assure you, more people listen to Levin on a daily basis than tune into Olbermann, making anything he says far more noteworthy. But I'm not so petty and won't pollute Olbermann's page with blatant violations of Wikipedia rules, no matter how often it is done on this page. But I can see that I'm outnumbered by Media Matters parrots who care more about sliming Gibson than keeping Wikipedia up to decent standards, so reason simply won't win the day here. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What's really ironic here is that when you canvassed an editor whom you believed would also serve your agenda, he explained to you that Media Matters is a reliable and appropriate source of criticism. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What's really ironic here is that I was calling the editor on a double-standard, yet you confuse it with trying to get the editor to "serve my agenda". And what's really pathetic here is you trolling my correspondences to other users and highlighting them here (in a totally unrelated manner) to smear me. Way to evade the point!

As I said, I've given up on this Media Matters sponsored opinion page trying to pass itself off as an encyclopedia bio page. I maintain: this page fails to live up to NPOV standards; it improperly cites opinion sources for BoLP; it makes use of non-RS (Media Matters opinion site); and mistakes opinions as being noteworthy. It's a grand-slam failure fo live up to Wiki standards. How "ironic" that you ignore these points in favor of smearing me. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! --98.14.221.68 (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

I've reinstated the text regarding Gibson's comments on the death of Heath Ledger. This was a notable controversy in his career which drew comment from various media sources and I see no reason why it was removed. Please do not delete it again without some justification. Nsign (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The section is now being repeatedly removed without explanation and, as far as I can see, without justification. I'm a tad ignorant on how things work and I can't work out who is doing this from the history page and would like to know why they feel they can remove a perfectly valid reference to a controversial incident in Gibson's career. Can anyone help with this? Nsign (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be okay with leaving that controversy in, as he was reprimanded by a non-political (albiet liberal) organization. This is in sharp contrast to the rest of the controversy section where he is criticized by political pundits and competitors. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, leave it in. This is a known controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.11.20 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what of the other "controversies"? I mean, a conservative talk show host being criticized by Keith Olbermann or Media Matters is seldom noteworthy (an exception being the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" issue, which actually made news).

Is it really worthy of encyclopedia inclusion that Keith Olbermann criticized a competitor?!? Or that a "progressive" watchdog group posted a complaint on their website? How is any of that noteworthy?!? If Olbermann's criticisms of Gibson belong on Gibson's page, then Gibson's criticisms of Olbermann would belong on Olbermann's page...but they don't appear. And what about "Olbermann Watch"? They have as much credibility as Media Matters (both are politically biased watchdog websites). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect others will disagree, but I personally have no objection to including Olbermann Watch if you can demonstrate that it has any credibility at all? Has a significant commentator or publication cited it? Who publishes it? Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point. I'm asking someone to make the case that Media Matters opinion on John Gibson is N-O-T-E-W-O-R-T-H-Y. The fact that it's an admittedly politically biased site with an admittedly political agenda pretty much kills any chance they could be considered a reliable source, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The fact that a conservative talk show host was criticized by a liberal watchdog group simply does not belong in an encyclopedia!

Let me put things in prespective. Rush Limbaugh offers opinion, and news clips. Furthermore, he's far, far, FAR more noteworthy than Media Matters. Yet you do not see quotes from the Rush Limbaugh show littering the pages of each and every politician and pundit he criticizes on his show. Nor should you. PARTISAN OPINION IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIAC!!!! Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

John Gibson is still on Fox Radio

John Gibson is heard live every day on the radio station in my market. He's carried weekdays on at least 14 stations that stream onto the Internet. Verified List The lead implies that John is formerly of Fox Radio. I'm going to rewrite that sentence to make it clearer that radio is his current occupation.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is he fired from Fox News or does he still have a show there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.13.77 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

John said on the radio tonight (22 July 2009) that he was born at Mercy Hospital in Redding Californis; wiki incorrectly reports is birth city as LA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwylder (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Word count

Does it bother anyone that the criticism section of this page makes up for about 75% of the page as a whole? All that for a pundit so "controversial" that the mainstream media never covered any of his controversies. Anyone? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Time, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times are all cited in those sections. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces aren't "news", they are opinions. That's not the "mainstream media" covering these controversies by any stretch of the imagination, but some partisan talking heads offering opinions. No actual NEWS STORIES in newspapers, no actual special NEWS REPORTS from tv news. Just partisan sniping. Partisan sniping is NOT NOTEWORTHY. It's par for the course.

And still, NO ONE has a problem that the criticism constitutes 3/4 of the page? THREE QUARTERS OF THE DAMN PAGE is devoted to trashing Gibson. Non-POV standards anyone? This page has become an absolute joke. Why not just title it, "A screed against John Gibson, brought to you by Media Matters"?

I'm getting tired of "David Brock said so" being the Wikipedia standard over what's a noteworthy controversy and what isn't. Keith Olbermann's use of the Nazi salute has been scrubbed from his page, in spite of the ADL condemning his remarks. However, we're to treat David Brock's press releases and website as the authority on noteworthy criticisms? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should offer solutions instead of just complaining. Gibson apologized for the Heath Ledger remarks, so I would concede it qualifies as a controversy. Keep that section, but trim it a little. As for the rest of the "controversies", they could be summed up in a sentence of two, along the lines of "Gibson is a frequent target of criticism from Media Matters and Keith Olbermann." There's no justification for 3/4 of this page being anti-Gibson. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

MMfA != RS; move Criticism section here to discuss

This article has come to my attention. It is predominantly filled with MMfA references. MMfA is not a reliable source for anything except itself. To the extent it does raise legitimate issues, it links to reliable sources to support its claims. It is those sources that may be reliable, not what MMfA says about them.

To the extent MMfA is here because MMfA members work hard to keep it here, that is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, not MMfApedia.

I propose removing the entire criticism section, placing it here on the Talk page, then working to extract truly encyclopedic information from the morass. Encyclopedic information should then be inserted into the article in an encyclopedic fashion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Time, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times are all cited in the controversy sections, which is presumably what you are talking about. All MMFA references refer to the criticism and opinions of that organization. Thus there is no reason to remove the entire section under the rationale above. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the rationale that has been ignored for months? That 3/4 of the article is criticism...how can this POSSIBLY be considered NPOV?!? This article continues to be a screed mated with a joke. It's very existence damages wikipedia's credibility.

And how about the fact that the "reliable sources" you cite are opinion/editorial pieces? How are Keith Olbermann's criticisms noteworthy? I'm running out of valid justifications for you to ignore, Gamaliel. At least admit you're comfortable with the page containing 75% criticism. Let's at least establish that, please. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. But there seems to be little to talk about Gibson besides the controversies he creates. I'd love to beef up the non-controversial sections and I've done research trying to do that. Perhaps you could help with that as well. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, thank you.

Ynot4tony2, Gamaliel has suggested a course of action with which I agree, although a fresh look will be needed later. He points out that certain MSM are cited in the section so it should not be removed as a whole. Okay, I buy that. The rest of what he said, as I understand it, is that the MMfA references are not essential to the controversy section and may be removed. I buy that as well. MMfA is not itself a reliable source, except for information about itself, but any underlying references it may cite may be considered fair game as RSs on this Wiki page and should be referenced directly, instead of through the MMfA lens. If you, Ynot4tony2, agree to the removal of the MMfA references but not the MSM reliable sources, unless otherwise warranted, than I think we will be close to consensus. Further, if legitimate criticism were placed in the article in an encyclopedic fashion instead of in a laundry list, that would be a great improvement, and I'll bet we would all be in agreement as to that too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)