Undid revision 298634737 by Mantion (talk) rm-ed. this is not a WP:SOAPbox |
→Removed: Don't remove anything from a discussion page |
||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
:::So David letterman (not the show) calls a specific 14 year old girl a slut, and there are editors in Wikipedia trying to cover it up? A new Wiki-Low.[[User:Mantion|Mantion]] ([[User talk:Mantion|talk]]) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::So David letterman (not the show) calls a specific 14 year old girl a slut, and there are editors in Wikipedia trying to cover it up? A new Wiki-Low.[[User:Mantion|Mantion]] ([[User talk:Mantion|talk]]) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::He didn't call ''anyone'' a slut. The only form of that word that ever came out of his mouth with regard to ''any'' of the Palins was when he said that Sarah Palin was going for the "slutty housewife" look, or something like that. You can vent here if you want to, I guess, but there's no "cover up", especially of things that never happened, such as Letterman calling Willow Palin a "slut." [[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F;font-weight:normal">Unitanode</span>]] 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
::::He didn't call ''anyone'' a slut. The only form of that word that ever came out of his mouth with regard to ''any'' of the Palins was when he said that Sarah Palin was going for the "slutty housewife" look, or something like that. You can vent here if you want to, I guess, but there's no "cover up", especially of things that never happened, such as Letterman calling Willow Palin a "slut." [[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F;font-weight:normal">Unitanode</span>]] 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
If you notice the lack of "". He didn't use the term "14 year old". It should be obvious if you say a 14 year got knocked up by a 33 year old man after being in the same city with for a day, your calling her a slut, or something to the effect. I am amazed anyone could be so obtuse. Would it be better if I said, David letterman joked that a governors 14 year old daughter had so much casual sex that when she was in town she hooked up with a 33 year old baseball player known for his recent affair and divorce, and as a result was pregnant with his child. The funny thing is IF, nothing happened, why did he apologize, if the show said it, why did he apologize. He clearly insulted a little girl only because she is the daughter of a Governor and former presidential candidate. So again, it was covered in most major news programs, many news papers and he him self made a set of apologies. Yet you don't think he should have it on his page because he didn't say anything and nothing happened. Even though there is clearly video all over the internet of him saying it. But you say nothing happened. |
|||
Now if we look at Imus's page we find this |
|||
" |
|||
Rutgers women's basketball controversy |
|||
On April 4, 2007, during a discussion about the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship, Imus characterized the Rutgers University women's basketball team players as "rough girls" commenting on their tattoos. His executive producer Bernard McGuirk responded by referring to them as "hardcore hos". The discussion continued with Imus describing the girls as "nappy-headed hos"[12][13] and McGuirk remarking that the two teams looked like the "jigaboos versus the wannabes" mentioned in Spike Lee's film, School Daze; apparently referring to the two teams' differing appearances.[14][15] At 6:00 p.m. that evening, Media Matters for America released recorded transcripts to the news media highlighting the brief exchange: |
|||
“ IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and— |
|||
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. |
|||
IMUS: That's some nappy headed hos. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some—whew. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like—kinda like—I don't know. |
|||
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. |
|||
IMUS: Yeah. |
|||
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes—that movie that he had. |
|||
” |
|||
(The audio for the Imus incident can be found here, on YouTube.) |
|||
After some outrage from the initial repeated reports, Imus dismissed the incident as "some idiot comment meant to be amusing".[16][17][18] |
|||
Imus immediately issued a statement of apology: |
|||
“ I want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team, which lost to Tennessee in the NCAA championship game on Tuesday. It was completely inappropriate and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry. ” |
|||
On April 9, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's syndicated radio talk show, Keepin It Real with Al Sharpton to address the controversy. Sharpton called the comments "abominable", "racist", and "sexist", and repeated his earlier demand that Imus be fired. Imus said, "Our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far. Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it."[19] |
|||
Shortly thereafter Imus was suspended. Media commentators were divided on the suspension: on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on April, 10,[20] for example, Pat Buchanan said that Imus is "a good guy... [who] made a bad mistake and apologized for it" and that the show should stay on the air. Comedian Bill Maher said that if a comedian apologizes for stepping over a line, that should suffice. Steve Adubato, an MSNBC media analyst, disagreed, saying that this incident was "not isolated". Joe Klein made the same charge, referring to Imus's comment about New York Times reporter Gwen Ifill 14 years before as evidence of a pattern of offensive comments. On The View, Rosie O'Donnell spoke out in support of keeping Imus on the air on free speech grounds, [21] while Emil Steiner of The Washington Post argued that Al Sharpton used the issue to further divide America along racial lines.[22] |
|||
The basketball team held a news conference where coach C. Vivian Stringer stated that the team would meet with Imus to discuss his comments. Several of the players expressed their outrage over his remarks. Team captain Essence Carson said Imus' remarks had "stolen a moment of pure grace" from the team.[23][24] |
|||
African American Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, at one time a frequent guest, once had confronted Imus about his characterization of certain black athletes and got Imus to take a pledge to stop. After the Rutgers team incident, Page said he would not appear on the show again and said of the original two-week suspension: |
|||
“ I know other stations... some shock jock who lost his job for less than this, or been at least suspended for a month or two. Why does Don, a repeat offender, keep getting away with it? I want to know.[25] ” |
|||
CBS board member and former NAACP president Bruce S. Gordon said that Imus should not be allowed to come back even after the suspension, claiming that his remarks "crossed the line, a very bright line that divides our country."[26] |
|||
On April 11, 2007, Steve Capus of NBC News, bowing to pressure from Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, announced that MSNBC would no longer simulcast Imus in the Morning, effective immediately. While the decision came on the same day that a few advertisers left Imus, the network also said employee concerns played a role. Several high-profile NBC African-American personalities, including Al Roker previously a friendly guest on the show, opposed Imus' return. The absence and silence from Imus's frequent NBC guests Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, Chris Matthews and close friend Tim Russert was too obvious to ignore and foreshadowed NBC's future action.[27] |
|||
In announcing the decision, Steve Capus, President of NBC News, said: |
|||
“ These comments were deeply hurtful to many, many people. And we’ve had any number of employee conversations, discussions, emails, phone calls. And when you listen to the passion and the people who come to the conclusion that there should not be any room for this sort of conversation and dialogue on our air, it was the only decision we could reach.[28] ” |
|||
The next day, CBS Radio canceled Imus in the Morning, effective immediately.[29] CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves stated: |
|||
“ From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent. There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision.[30][31] ” |
|||
The day before, CBS chairman Sumner Redstone said he trusted Moonves would "do the right thing," but didn't elaborate. Moonves had met with Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shortly before the announcement was made.[32] |
|||
In an internal memo, Moonves said that employee concerns were a factor in the decision to cancel Imus's show. However, he said that the decision was "about a lot more than Imus." Moonves said that CBS had to take Imus off the air in order to change "a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people."[33] |
|||
Seven sponsors had either pulled their ads outright or suspended advertising on Imus's show to protest his remarks — General Motors (Imus's biggest advertiser), Staples Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Sprint Nextel, PetMeds, American Express and Procter & Gamble.[34] One other advertiser, Bigelow Tea, expressed uncertainty at renewing their ads with Imus's show.[35] |
|||
Just hours after the announcement of his firing, Imus met with Stringer and her team at Drumthwacket, the New Jersey governor's mansion. The three-hour meeting was arranged by Buster Soaries, the former New Jersey Secretary of State and Stringer's pastor. New Jersey governor Jon Corzine planned to attend the meeting but was injured in a car accident on the way to the meeting.[36] Imus left without commenting, but Stringer said the meeting went well. She later commented that they had accepted Imus's apology, and "It would sadden me for anyone to lose their job,... And he came [to the meeting] in spite of the fact that he lost his job. So let's give him credit for that." She also emphasized that the basketball team had not called for Imus to be fired.[34][37] |
|||
CBS was criticized by some as being too harsh for canceling Imus's show. Senator John Kerry said a "long suspension" would be "appropriate to pay a price on the airwaves but I’m not sure that it was appropriate to say you’re off forever."[38] |
|||
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's role in the controversy has drawn complaints. Conservative African American columnist Armstrong Williams criticized Jackson (who in 1984 referred to Jews as "Hymies"[39]) and Sharpton for "ratcheting up the rhetoric" and holding Imus to a “higher standard” than they would have themselves judged.[40] Columnist Jason Whitlock questioned the motives of Sharpton and Jackson, "who pushed the hardest and shouted the loudest for Imus’s demise," suggesting that their aim was not to help the Rutgers basketball team but to "cause division for profit."[41] However, Williams and Whitlock both called Imus' statement offensive. Sharpton has been criticized for his hypocrisy by not attacking rappers who use similar terms. |
|||
Imus was not the first radio personality to utter such a phrase on the air; Troi Torain (aka Star) used similar language in 2001[42] and was subsequently fired. |
|||
Rachel Marsden said on the Fox News late night program, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld that the term 'nappy headed ho' is not an offensive term since the players were not wearing diapers on their heads (nappy refers to diaper in Britain) [43] |
|||
Gregg "Opie" Hughes and Anthony Cumia of the popular Opie and Anthony Show were long time friends and supporters of Imus, and Imus returned the support, occasionally wearing an Opie and Anthony XM Satellite Radio T-shirt during MSNBC broadcasts. (All were bitter rivals of Howard Stern). Opie and Anthony were very vocal industry supporters of Imus throughout the entire controversy, even saying they felt if the 'nappy headed hos' comment led to a radio pioneer and philanthropist getting fired, they would most likely go down with him for their admittedly edgier material. Only one month later, Opie and Anthony found themselves suspended from their XM Satellite Radio show for insensitive comments as well. These two controversies, along with a few others, sparked the creation of People Against Censorship, an organization started to defend freedom of expression over the airwaves.[44] |
|||
[edit]Subsequent litigation |
|||
By May 2, 2007, Imus had hired prominent attorney Martin Garbus to pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit against CBS for the remaining $40 million on his five-year contract. The contract contained a clause indicating CBS hired and supported Imus to exhibit "irreverent" and "controversial" programming.[45] |
|||
On August 14, 2007, CBS announced a settlement with Imus on his $40 million contract.[46] On the same day, Rutgers' basketball player Kia Vaughn, one of the woman involved in the controversy, filed suit against Don Imus, NBC Universal, CBS Corporation, MSNBC, CBS Radio, Viacom, Westwood One radio, and Bernard McGuirk, citing slander, libel, and defamation of character. Vaughn was the only one to pursue legal damages brought on by the controversy.[47] However, Vaughn dropped the lawsuit against Imus on September 11, 2007, citing her desire to concentrate on her studies and basketball training.[48][49] |
|||
" |
|||
So when a barely known radio/tv commentator is talking about how tough a basketball team is and uses a term that many performers use and doesn't specifically call one of the adult players a name and never intended to, he gets a few hundred lines |
|||
But it's not important when, when a Heavily watched Late night talk show host attacks a specific 14 year old girl because she is the daughter of a governor and presidential candidate. |
|||
Please explain how directly insulting a 14 year old girl because she is the daugher of a Governor is ok? |
|||
Oh wait you said nothing happen. Well you can think it didn't happen, but clearly it did and clearly it should be on this wiki page.[[User:Mantion|Mantion]] ([[User talk:Mantion|talk]]) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit war - page protected == |
== Edit war - page protected == |
Revision as of 21:45, 25 June 2009
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Wiki Project Cape Cod and the Islands
|
How Did Letterman Avoid Military Service?
If Letterman's grades were poor during the height of the Vietnam War draft, as they apparently were, how did Letterman avoid military service? Did he manage to get student deferments until the lottery plan was instituted? No bio of a male Letterman's age is even remotely complete until the biggest issue of that era (the Vietnam draft) is dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin
This whole incident with Letterman's joke regarding Sara Palin's daughter has had substantial media play. That it should be included is not really questionable, the scope of the inclusion, however, is. The question then is how to incorporate this material. Arzel (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Not even bothering to include what he said shows clear bias on the part of whoever wrote the section. 204.193.203.97 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to WP:ABF like the above IP, however personally I prefered this [1] version to the stripped down version. It doesn't deserve a huge article, but I think it needs more then teo sentances.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I would WP:ABF. simply calling comments potentially alluding to the rape of a person "off color" is either biased or stupid. 204.193.203.97 (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question here. Maybe I didn't get the meaning, but at what point does the
joke suggest rape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealitosnocturnos (talk • contribs) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or it could be a user that the section had too much detail. I disagree with that user on content, but there's a better way to discuss it without jumping right to name calling.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well putting some details in beside the fact that it was centered around a 14 year old, which provides no clarity would be nice. 204.193.203.97 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
All that is necessary and appropraite is that he received criticism, and that he addressed it. Lengthy cut/paste quotes from either side are not appropriate for a biographic encyclopedia article. Go visit wikinews if you want to create detailed news reports of the event. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be no more than a couple sentences on it. It was an insulting joke that got media attention, but it should not have its own section. Reywas92Talk 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Cube Lurker that this [2] is a proper write up that should be used rather then the watered down version currently shown. Sure it was some jokes, but it also shows the character of the man and this is suppose to be (as mentioned by someone else) a biographic encyclopedia. Mrhyak (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Shows the character of the man? Do you have an agenda here? Yes, he said it, but it was probably written by his writers. The current version is a little short, but an entire section for a single joke is WP:UNDUE weight. Reywas92Talk 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Reywas92. Any suggestion that the joke reflects "the character of the man" reeks of original research. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Shows the character of the man? Do you have an agenda here? Yes, he said it, but it was probably written by his writers. The current version is a little short, but an entire section for a single joke is WP:UNDUE weight. Reywas92Talk 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Cube Lurker that this [2] is a proper write up that should be used rather then the watered down version currently shown. Sure it was some jokes, but it also shows the character of the man and this is suppose to be (as mentioned by someone else) a biographic encyclopedia. Mrhyak (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It should also be noted that there are calls for boycots and now a call from New York Lawmaker for his [3] firing Agintx (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone should put in that the 14 year old daughter was the one at the game. Let it read "In June 2009, Letterman was criticized for off-color jokes made about Alaska governor Sarah Palin and her 14-year-old daughter, who were visiting New York City at the time.[34][35] Letterman later clarified his remarks, nothing "these are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter."[36]" I think it makes it quite clear, The daughter was the one there, and Letterman denies that was his target. 69.151.152.148 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that there's no verifiable evidence that the jokes were, indeed, about her 14-year-old daughter. According to Letterman, he was making a joke about the 18 year old, presumably not realizing that it was the minor who was at the ballgame. We need to be very careful about not letting POV sneak into how this is presented. Again, all we need to note in this encyclopedia article is state that he was criticized, and then also mention his response. Simple as that. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given the coverage that this has garnered it deserves more than what is currently presented. There is almost no context regarding why this is even an issue, and has been watered down to the point of not even being an issue. For instance NOW has also come out against Letterman regarding this incident. Also this has been just another of a long list of jokes Letterman has made against Palin, which has also been reported. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence that Letterman was not intending to make a joke regarding Bristol or Willow, the POV to which this became an incident is Palin's view, which is why this is even an issue. We simply should report what happened and let the reader make their own interpretation. So long as it is present in a NPOV there is no problem in presenting an expanded section. Furthermore, it must be noted that Palin's 14-year-old daughter was the one that was at the game. This is why Palin was so upset, and provides the context for the entire event. It has been reported in hundreds of reliable sources, so there is no worry about a NPOV issue. The current white-wash is not sufficient for what the story actually is. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The citations provide all this information; we don't need to re-hash the entire drama on his biography page. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Imus conterversy has three subpoints, including the full qoutes. Would you call for editing down? Would you include more in this section if it was Obama's daughter? This should be treated just the same as IMUS joke is Agintx (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Completely off topic. We don't know how people would react to that. Don Imus is something else altogether: That brought him to national attention, lost him his job (for a while), and could be considered racist and much worse. Let's stick to what's relevant and not be comparing lengths. I see Letterman's event as significant, but there does not need to be a full-sized section for it or else being WP:UNDUE weight to the event. Reywas92Talk 01:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Imus controversy received significant coverage in reliable sources; this has received some, while the bulk of it appears to originate in the fringe of the conservative blogosphere. i.e. non-notable. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's accurate to dismiss coverage of this as fringe blogs. It's on the front page of yahoo news atm, multiple AP stories, CNN.COM, Time.COM, looks like it's been carried in just about every major paper. I'm not adverse to moving this to the show page as opposed to the bio page, but let's be honest about the coverage.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Imus conterversy has three subpoints, including the full qoutes. Would you call for editing down? Would you include more in this section if it was Obama's daughter? This should be treated just the same as IMUS joke is Agintx (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Folks, fact of the matter is that this article is a biography of David Letterman, and it is not the place to report each and every daily detail of each and every daily drama he might be involved it. If you feel there should be an article about this incident, then to create that (and I'm not suggesting or endorsing such an article). But here, we just need to state the simple facts that he was criticized over a joke, and that he tried to explain what he meant. All the other drama should not be here. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly, there should be zero mention of it here in a bio page, and we seem to have a pile of one-issue users trying to pile on the misplaced criticism. If it fits anywhere, perhaps a mention on the main show page, along with the rest of the past memorial episodes, i.e. Joaquin Phoenix, Madonna, etc... Tarc (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I removed it from here and fixed up the cut n paste job that an anon had done over at the Late Show article. 2nd paragraph was trimmed a bit, as we really don't need to provide a platform here for Palin's full response. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Naw, the information about Letterman's requirement to apologize to Palin makes the situation reach the level of inclusion in the main article. The controversy was getting out of hand and Letterman had to issue a formal apology. There is a New York state senator calling for him to be fired and CBS has received tons of phone calls and e-mails. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. I know that it is an embarrassing situation for Letterman that does not mean that it should be removed from the main article and hidden in a child article. Wikipedia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your claim that moving the information from here to the article about the show is "censorship" is ridiculous and not in good faith. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, of course, censorship applies. There is a criticism section in many, many BLP. For example, in the Carrie Prejean article there is a gang of editors that demanded that Perez Hilton comment calling Prejean a "dumb bitch" HAS to be in the heart of the article. When other editors attempted to move the exact wording to a footnote these editors were called censors. Also, there is no mention of this significant error on the part of Letterman either in his article or the Late Show article. Wikipeidia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your claim that moving the information from here to the article about the show is "censorship" is ridiculous and not in good faith. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Naw, the information about Letterman's requirement to apologize to Palin makes the situation reach the level of inclusion in the main article. The controversy was getting out of hand and Letterman had to issue a formal apology. There is a New York state senator calling for him to be fired and CBS has received tons of phone calls and e-mails. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. I know that it is an embarrassing situation for Letterman that does not mean that it should be removed from the main article and hidden in a child article. Wikipedia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I removed it from here and fixed up the cut n paste job that an anon had done over at the Late Show article. 2nd paragraph was trimmed a bit, as we really don't need to provide a platform here for Palin's full response. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Has nothing to do with "hiding", that has always been a spurious and ridiculous claim that some like to bring up in these sorts of discussions. All it is is placing the information in the proper venue, and we generally do not put controversies or criticisms into WP:BLP articles. Dave vs. Oprah, for example, was a long-running "feud" of a sort that extended beyond the scope of either of their respective TV shows, which is why it warrants a mention here. The Plain flap is entirely a product of an in-show joke gone awry. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is merely your opinion. It is not fact. It is a significant aspect that Letterman had to issue one insincere apology and then a sincere apology. This is a moment that stands out in his career and as such must be mentioned. Until there is a good reason to removed fully reliably sourced, relevant information I am going to place it back in the article. No reason has been given for its removal.--InaMaka (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this edit: Example of reason compromise edit.--InaMaka (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is merely your opinion. It is not fact. It is a significant aspect that Letterman had to issue one insincere apology and then a sincere apology. This is a moment that stands out in his career and as such must be mentioned. Until there is a good reason to removed fully reliably sourced, relevant information I am going to place it back in the article. No reason has been given for its removal.--InaMaka (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Has nothing to do with "hiding", that has always been a spurious and ridiculous claim that some like to bring up in these sorts of discussions. All it is is placing the information in the proper venue, and we generally do not put controversies or criticisms into WP:BLP articles. Dave vs. Oprah, for example, was a long-running "feud" of a sort that extended beyond the scope of either of their respective TV shows, which is why it warrants a mention here. The Plain flap is entirely a product of an in-show joke gone awry. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Bad form
ZimZalaBim has just demanded that all others cease reverting the article -- but at the same time, ZimZalaBim has him(?)self reverted the article. ZimZalaBim has also demanded that others explain their edits on the talk page -- but has not done so him(?)self here when he(?) reverted the article. [4]
This is at the very least extremely bad form and could quite reasonably be considered inappropriate conduct. It is also reflective of this mindset. 95.89.172.215 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Er, "The Wrong Version" has to do with editors preferring a version of an article over another when it has been protected from editing. That isn't applicable here, since there is no article protection, currently. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Willow's presence
Is there even any proof that Willow attended the game? I have not seen any photos of her, just photos of her and Rudy. Even Sarah Palin said Willow "accompanied me on the trip" and did not claim she was actually at the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dozens of sources say Willow attended the game. Has any reliable source suggested she was not there?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any citations for these "dozens of sources"? None of the news stories I can find online mention it. The only places I see Willow's attendence mentioned have been in stories about David Letterman's joke. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The articles about the joke are the ones that mention she was at the game, that doesn't mean the sourcing is any less. Cites, 14-year-old Willow, who was at the baseball game in New York., [5], Willow. But Letterman said it's his responsibility that people believed that he intended to target Willow, who had attended a New York Yankees game with her mother.[6], Letterman has said from the beginning that he thought the Palin daughter who attended the Yankee game was Bristol. [7], I could keep on going till I hit a dozen but I see no point.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Link to a source that isn't about the controversy.
- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/07/2009-06-07_palin_hits_nyc_and_yankees_game.html
- The non-Letterman controversy sources, quoting Palin, do not mention Willow being at the game. If you can link to some pictures that would be fine too, there should be plenty of pictures about Sarah Palin for verification.
- Before the controversy Willow's presence wasn't anything the press cared about. After the controversy all the sources say she was at the game, and there are no sources that say she was not there. When all the sources that comment on Willow say she was at the game the burden now shifts to you to show that there's a significant viewpoint that says she was not there. That doesn't mean anonomous people on the comments section of an article, or people posting on message boards. That means reliable sources. Do you really think that if Willow was not there there wouldn't be someone blowing the whistle on it? And do you not believe that the press would fall all over themselves rushing to report that Palin had been caught is a lie?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Many people still don't even believe Willow was at the game at all, just at New York. Read below, for just one example, if you want more there is further reading. How can we disprove the fact that someone was at a game or not? I can't prove Willow wasn't there, I wasn't at the game for example. I can only ask you for evidence, the burden of proof is never on the person disbelivieng a claim without evidence. Why isn't there any pictures at all of Willow at the game, there are a lot of Palin pictures. Show me some solid evidence, otherwise we are just taking her word for it do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.239.101 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- We're not taking her word for it we're taking the word of the reporters who've written about it. That's what's needed for the article based on Wikipedias policy od verifiability and reliable sources. The article says Willow is Sarah Palins daughter. I haven't seen the birth certificate or a videotape of the delivery. Does that mean we're just taking Palin's word that Willow really is her daughter?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not! There are other ways of distinguishing whether or not she is her mother, that is a false dichotomy. If there was no evidence for it, however, then it would be an allegation until she proves otherwise no? Most of the reporters reporting were not even actually at the game, as I said, they are taking it upon Palin's assertion.
- This is ridiculous. Leave your WP:FRINGE theories for the message boards. The onus is on you to prove that she was not there. Numerous WP:RS validate the claim that she was there. Arzel (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I never said she was not there and I'm not saying she was not there. But you are asserting she was there, no? If you are asserting it, the burden of proof is always on you. Thus, to take a more neutral stance since we are basing this off of Palin's assertion, then we should acknowledge that. I am not claiming Willow was there, nor am I claiming she was not there. I'm claiming Sarah Palin is alleging that she was there, is this not the case?
- The burden of proof is that it's been reported in reliable sources. We've met that burden of proof. Just because you're not satisfied with the level of proof required doesn't mean that it's not proved per wikipedia policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are a vast number of reliable sources indicating that she was at the game. There are none which contend that she wasn't. I'm not sure why this is even being disputed. The assertion easily meets the wikipedia standards for factuality and requires no weasel words. Wellspring (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I never said she was not there and I'm not saying she was not there. But you are asserting she was there, no? If you are asserting it, the burden of proof is always on you. Thus, to take a more neutral stance since we are basing this off of Palin's assertion, then we should acknowledge that. I am not claiming Willow was there, nor am I claiming she was not there. I'm claiming Sarah Palin is alleging that she was there, is this not the case?
- This is ridiculous. Leave your WP:FRINGE theories for the message boards. The onus is on you to prove that she was not there. Numerous WP:RS validate the claim that she was there. Arzel (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not! There are other ways of distinguishing whether or not she is her mother, that is a false dichotomy. If there was no evidence for it, however, then it would be an allegation until she proves otherwise no? Most of the reporters reporting were not even actually at the game, as I said, they are taking it upon Palin's assertion.
- We're not taking her word for it we're taking the word of the reporters who've written about it. That's what's needed for the article based on Wikipedias policy od verifiability and reliable sources. The article says Willow is Sarah Palins daughter. I haven't seen the birth certificate or a videotape of the delivery. Does that mean we're just taking Palin's word that Willow really is her daughter?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Many people still don't even believe Willow was at the game at all, just at New York. Read below, for just one example, if you want more there is further reading. How can we disprove the fact that someone was at a game or not? I can't prove Willow wasn't there, I wasn't at the game for example. I can only ask you for evidence, the burden of proof is never on the person disbelivieng a claim without evidence. Why isn't there any pictures at all of Willow at the game, there are a lot of Palin pictures. Show me some solid evidence, otherwise we are just taking her word for it do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.239.101 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Before the controversy Willow's presence wasn't anything the press cared about. After the controversy all the sources say she was at the game, and there are no sources that say she was not there. When all the sources that comment on Willow say she was at the game the burden now shifts to you to show that there's a significant viewpoint that says she was not there. That doesn't mean anonomous people on the comments section of an article, or people posting on message boards. That means reliable sources. Do you really think that if Willow was not there there wouldn't be someone blowing the whistle on it? And do you not believe that the press would fall all over themselves rushing to report that Palin had been caught is a lie?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The articles about the joke are the ones that mention she was at the game, that doesn't mean the sourcing is any less. Cites, 14-year-old Willow, who was at the baseball game in New York., [5], Willow. But Letterman said it's his responsibility that people believed that he intended to target Willow, who had attended a New York Yankees game with her mother.[6], Letterman has said from the beginning that he thought the Palin daughter who attended the Yankee game was Bristol. [7], I could keep on going till I hit a dozen but I see no point.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you seriously think that she left Willow in the hotel room during the game? If she were not at the game there would be hundreds of stories accusing Palin of lying. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Where did Sarah Palin say that Willow was with her at the game? She said that Willow came with her to New York, I don't recall any quotes of her saying that Willow was with her at the game. 70.242.106.179 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- She says it in the interview with Matt Lauer "It took him a few days for him to think of that excuse, uhhh, no he wasn't talking about my daughter, the girl who was with me at the game, the 14 year old..."
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6M0FGB6Uo 2:30-2:40
- Where did Sarah Palin say that Willow was with her at the game? She said that Willow came with her to New York, I don't recall any quotes of her saying that Willow was with her at the game. 70.242.106.179 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any citations for these "dozens of sources"? None of the news stories I can find online mention it. The only places I see Willow's attendence mentioned have been in stories about David Letterman's joke. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly I have never seen any pictures of Willow at the game. If all we are doing is taking their word for it, I think that's a significant detail in this issue. All news sources have only reported Palin being at the game with Rudy Giuliani. Their claim that "Willow was at the game" may appear to be something inserted to actually support her assertion that Letterman was talking about her.
- FWIW, there is a lot of chatter about whether Willow was actually present at the game (see comment thread here). Nothing from reliable sources, of course.... --ZimZalaBim talk 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Once a reliable source picks up the fact that the fringe has challenged Willow's presence at the game, it can be cited as a minority/fringe opinion. Until then, it stays out of the article, since the WP:BURDEN is on those who assert that a controversy exists to provide a reliable source to document that controversy. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is not even a close call. Numerous reliable sources have reported that she was at the game. None have challenged that fact. Therefore, it stays in, and the minority (and unreported on) view that she was not even at the game stays out, until it's reported on by reliable sources. Unitanode 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This section is waaaay too big and POV. I t needs to be trimmed back to just the boring details, he made a joke, it was seen as offensive because the younger of the teen daughters was at the game. He apologized, she accepted apology. Let's not create a soapbox here. WP:RFPP can semi-protect the page if it's an anon issue. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Completely agree with you here. Additionally, if this issue continues to boil (in real life, not Wikipedia), would creating a separate article, and linking it from the scaled-down section, be an acceptable option, in your view? Unitanode 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't see it especially now that Palin accepted the apology. If she wanted a grudge with Letterman, for whatever reason, she could have handled it much differently. To her credit I think she sees that media coverage of one scandal after the next isn't helping her career as much as making her a Paris Hilton of politics, and she doesn't need to do that. Letterman's job is to poke fun at all current events. This was a misstep that Palin supporters or conservatives bit into and wouldn't let go. We don't have to aid or validate that however. -- Banjeboi 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can certainly see your point. I haven't followed the "scandal" that closely, and wasn't aware that Palin had accepted his apology. This does make it a rather moot point that some message board users continue to attempt to fan the flames a bit (see above). Unitanode 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I just tune out talkradio and most blogs for that very reason. If someone is upset about thier life they shouldn't waste time blaming politicians or famous people, they should work on thier lives. -- Banjeboi 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried moving the material to the Late Show article, as it seems to be more fitting there rather than a bio of Letterman himself, but a handful of SPAs got a bit riled up over that. So at the moment, we unfortunately have long-winded, POV passages in both places. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Arg why did I miss that? Indeed we should look to removing it from here altogether then, it really should only be on the show. -- Banjeboi 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried moving the material to the Late Show article, as it seems to be more fitting there rather than a bio of Letterman himself, but a handful of SPAs got a bit riled up over that. So at the moment, we unfortunately have long-winded, POV passages in both places. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I just tune out talkradio and most blogs for that very reason. If someone is upset about thier life they shouldn't waste time blaming politicians or famous people, they should work on thier lives. -- Banjeboi 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can certainly see your point. I haven't followed the "scandal" that closely, and wasn't aware that Palin had accepted his apology. This does make it a rather moot point that some message board users continue to attempt to fan the flames a bit (see above). Unitanode 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't see it especially now that Palin accepted the apology. If she wanted a grudge with Letterman, for whatever reason, she could have handled it much differently. To her credit I think she sees that media coverage of one scandal after the next isn't helping her career as much as making her a Paris Hilton of politics, and she doesn't need to do that. Letterman's job is to poke fun at all current events. This was a misstep that Palin supporters or conservatives bit into and wouldn't let go. We don't have to aid or validate that however. -- Banjeboi 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed
In June 2009, Letterman was criticized for off-color jokes made about Alaska governor Sarah Palin and one of her daughters, who were visiting New York City at the time and attended a New York Yankees baseball game with Rudy Giulani.[1] Letterman joked, "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game: during the seventh inning stretch, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." Noting that her 14-year-old daughter, Willow, had accompanied her to the game, rather than her 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, Palin responded by calling the jokes "sexually perverted comments".[2] On a show following the incident, Letterman stated "these are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter" and that he "would never, never joke about raping a 14-year-old".[3] He stated the joke was about Bristol, while acknowledging it was "ugly", "cheap", and "in poor taste".[2]
The following week, Letterman further addressed the situation, stating that the joke was "beyond flawed" and accepting full responsibility. He apologized to Palin's daughters Bristol and Willow by name, as well as to "the governor and her family, and everybody else who was outraged by the joke". Letterman said he would try to do better in the future. Following the broadcast, Palin issued a statement saying that she accepted Letterman's apology.[4]
- I've removed this as wholly Undue per BLP policies. the main TV show article can have a mention of this but this is waay overboard and becoming a WP:Soapbox of some sort. If the main TV article isn't right we can revisit o see where a sentence about this might fit. -- Banjeboi 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I placed the section back in the article where it belongs. There are no BLP issues. Also, if there are BLP issues then they apply to the attempt by Letterman to slander Palin. Moreover this is a major event in Letterman's career and as such it requires mentioning in the main article about Letterman.--InaMaka (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- In looking at what high-quality reliable sources state this does deserve a spot but not on these articles, it should likely go on the Sarah Palin article. -- Banjeboi 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I placed the section back in the article where it belongs. There are no BLP issues. Also, if there are BLP issues then they apply to the attempt by Letterman to slander Palin. Moreover this is a major event in Letterman's career and as such it requires mentioning in the main article about Letterman.--InaMaka (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. And look! Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman - there it is. -- Banjeboi 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
BLP Issues? Seriously, this was a very big issue regarding Letterman. Given your later comments, your apparent bias against Palin appears to be your primary reasoning. Unless you can provide a better reason that this lame attempt at a BLP violation you have to leg to stand. All of this information is reliably sourced and well known and sounds to me like an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Arzel (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it's a BLP issue of Undue. Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman does seem appropriate and it's presented there with due weight, or at least it was. Letterman's career is based on poking fun at current events and public figures and he jokes on those things on national TV, rebroadcast worldwide, every night he performs. We don't have a list of his funniest jokes or his biggest misses. It's generally too trivial. This issue seems the height of momentary gossip, sourced or not, it's just not as big of deal worthy of inclusion here. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- So David letterman (not the show) calls a specific 14 year old girl a slut, and there are editors in Wikipedia trying to cover it up? A new Wiki-Low.Mantion (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- He didn't call anyone a slut. The only form of that word that ever came out of his mouth with regard to any of the Palins was when he said that Sarah Palin was going for the "slutty housewife" look, or something like that. You can vent here if you want to, I guess, but there's no "cover up", especially of things that never happened, such as Letterman calling Willow Palin a "slut." Unitanode 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- So David letterman (not the show) calls a specific 14 year old girl a slut, and there are editors in Wikipedia trying to cover it up? A new Wiki-Low.Mantion (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If you notice the lack of "". He didn't use the term "14 year old". It should be obvious if you say a 14 year got knocked up by a 33 year old man after being in the same city with for a day, your calling her a slut, or something to the effect. I am amazed anyone could be so obtuse. Would it be better if I said, David letterman joked that a governors 14 year old daughter had so much casual sex that when she was in town she hooked up with a 33 year old baseball player known for his recent affair and divorce, and as a result was pregnant with his child. The funny thing is IF, nothing happened, why did he apologize, if the show said it, why did he apologize. He clearly insulted a little girl only because she is the daughter of a Governor and former presidential candidate. So again, it was covered in most major news programs, many news papers and he him self made a set of apologies. Yet you don't think he should have it on his page because he didn't say anything and nothing happened. Even though there is clearly video all over the internet of him saying it. But you say nothing happened.
Now if we look at Imus's page we find this
" Rutgers women's basketball controversy
On April 4, 2007, during a discussion about the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship, Imus characterized the Rutgers University women's basketball team players as "rough girls" commenting on their tattoos. His executive producer Bernard McGuirk responded by referring to them as "hardcore hos". The discussion continued with Imus describing the girls as "nappy-headed hos"[12][13] and McGuirk remarking that the two teams looked like the "jigaboos versus the wannabes" mentioned in Spike Lee's film, School Daze; apparently referring to the two teams' differing appearances.[14][15] At 6:00 p.m. that evening, Media Matters for America released recorded transcripts to the news media highlighting the brief exchange: “ IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and— McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. IMUS: That's some nappy headed hos. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some—whew. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like—kinda like—I don't know. McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. IMUS: Yeah. McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes—that movie that he had. ” (The audio for the Imus incident can be found here, on YouTube.) After some outrage from the initial repeated reports, Imus dismissed the incident as "some idiot comment meant to be amusing".[16][17][18] Imus immediately issued a statement of apology: “ I want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team, which lost to Tennessee in the NCAA championship game on Tuesday. It was completely inappropriate and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry. ” On April 9, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's syndicated radio talk show, Keepin It Real with Al Sharpton to address the controversy. Sharpton called the comments "abominable", "racist", and "sexist", and repeated his earlier demand that Imus be fired. Imus said, "Our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far. Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it."[19] Shortly thereafter Imus was suspended. Media commentators were divided on the suspension: on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on April, 10,[20] for example, Pat Buchanan said that Imus is "a good guy... [who] made a bad mistake and apologized for it" and that the show should stay on the air. Comedian Bill Maher said that if a comedian apologizes for stepping over a line, that should suffice. Steve Adubato, an MSNBC media analyst, disagreed, saying that this incident was "not isolated". Joe Klein made the same charge, referring to Imus's comment about New York Times reporter Gwen Ifill 14 years before as evidence of a pattern of offensive comments. On The View, Rosie O'Donnell spoke out in support of keeping Imus on the air on free speech grounds, [21] while Emil Steiner of The Washington Post argued that Al Sharpton used the issue to further divide America along racial lines.[22] The basketball team held a news conference where coach C. Vivian Stringer stated that the team would meet with Imus to discuss his comments. Several of the players expressed their outrage over his remarks. Team captain Essence Carson said Imus' remarks had "stolen a moment of pure grace" from the team.[23][24] African American Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, at one time a frequent guest, once had confronted Imus about his characterization of certain black athletes and got Imus to take a pledge to stop. After the Rutgers team incident, Page said he would not appear on the show again and said of the original two-week suspension: “ I know other stations... some shock jock who lost his job for less than this, or been at least suspended for a month or two. Why does Don, a repeat offender, keep getting away with it? I want to know.[25] ” CBS board member and former NAACP president Bruce S. Gordon said that Imus should not be allowed to come back even after the suspension, claiming that his remarks "crossed the line, a very bright line that divides our country."[26] On April 11, 2007, Steve Capus of NBC News, bowing to pressure from Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, announced that MSNBC would no longer simulcast Imus in the Morning, effective immediately. While the decision came on the same day that a few advertisers left Imus, the network also said employee concerns played a role. Several high-profile NBC African-American personalities, including Al Roker previously a friendly guest on the show, opposed Imus' return. The absence and silence from Imus's frequent NBC guests Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, Chris Matthews and close friend Tim Russert was too obvious to ignore and foreshadowed NBC's future action.[27] In announcing the decision, Steve Capus, President of NBC News, said: “ These comments were deeply hurtful to many, many people. And we’ve had any number of employee conversations, discussions, emails, phone calls. And when you listen to the passion and the people who come to the conclusion that there should not be any room for this sort of conversation and dialogue on our air, it was the only decision we could reach.[28] ” The next day, CBS Radio canceled Imus in the Morning, effective immediately.[29] CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves stated: “ From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent. There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision.[30][31] ” The day before, CBS chairman Sumner Redstone said he trusted Moonves would "do the right thing," but didn't elaborate. Moonves had met with Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shortly before the announcement was made.[32] In an internal memo, Moonves said that employee concerns were a factor in the decision to cancel Imus's show. However, he said that the decision was "about a lot more than Imus." Moonves said that CBS had to take Imus off the air in order to change "a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people."[33] Seven sponsors had either pulled their ads outright or suspended advertising on Imus's show to protest his remarks — General Motors (Imus's biggest advertiser), Staples Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Sprint Nextel, PetMeds, American Express and Procter & Gamble.[34] One other advertiser, Bigelow Tea, expressed uncertainty at renewing their ads with Imus's show.[35] Just hours after the announcement of his firing, Imus met with Stringer and her team at Drumthwacket, the New Jersey governor's mansion. The three-hour meeting was arranged by Buster Soaries, the former New Jersey Secretary of State and Stringer's pastor. New Jersey governor Jon Corzine planned to attend the meeting but was injured in a car accident on the way to the meeting.[36] Imus left without commenting, but Stringer said the meeting went well. She later commented that they had accepted Imus's apology, and "It would sadden me for anyone to lose their job,... And he came [to the meeting] in spite of the fact that he lost his job. So let's give him credit for that." She also emphasized that the basketball team had not called for Imus to be fired.[34][37] CBS was criticized by some as being too harsh for canceling Imus's show. Senator John Kerry said a "long suspension" would be "appropriate to pay a price on the airwaves but I’m not sure that it was appropriate to say you’re off forever."[38] Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's role in the controversy has drawn complaints. Conservative African American columnist Armstrong Williams criticized Jackson (who in 1984 referred to Jews as "Hymies"[39]) and Sharpton for "ratcheting up the rhetoric" and holding Imus to a “higher standard” than they would have themselves judged.[40] Columnist Jason Whitlock questioned the motives of Sharpton and Jackson, "who pushed the hardest and shouted the loudest for Imus’s demise," suggesting that their aim was not to help the Rutgers basketball team but to "cause division for profit."[41] However, Williams and Whitlock both called Imus' statement offensive. Sharpton has been criticized for his hypocrisy by not attacking rappers who use similar terms. Imus was not the first radio personality to utter such a phrase on the air; Troi Torain (aka Star) used similar language in 2001[42] and was subsequently fired. Rachel Marsden said on the Fox News late night program, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld that the term 'nappy headed ho' is not an offensive term since the players were not wearing diapers on their heads (nappy refers to diaper in Britain) [43] Gregg "Opie" Hughes and Anthony Cumia of the popular Opie and Anthony Show were long time friends and supporters of Imus, and Imus returned the support, occasionally wearing an Opie and Anthony XM Satellite Radio T-shirt during MSNBC broadcasts. (All were bitter rivals of Howard Stern). Opie and Anthony were very vocal industry supporters of Imus throughout the entire controversy, even saying they felt if the 'nappy headed hos' comment led to a radio pioneer and philanthropist getting fired, they would most likely go down with him for their admittedly edgier material. Only one month later, Opie and Anthony found themselves suspended from their XM Satellite Radio show for insensitive comments as well. These two controversies, along with a few others, sparked the creation of People Against Censorship, an organization started to defend freedom of expression over the airwaves.[44] [edit]Subsequent litigation By May 2, 2007, Imus had hired prominent attorney Martin Garbus to pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit against CBS for the remaining $40 million on his five-year contract. The contract contained a clause indicating CBS hired and supported Imus to exhibit "irreverent" and "controversial" programming.[45] On August 14, 2007, CBS announced a settlement with Imus on his $40 million contract.[46] On the same day, Rutgers' basketball player Kia Vaughn, one of the woman involved in the controversy, filed suit against Don Imus, NBC Universal, CBS Corporation, MSNBC, CBS Radio, Viacom, Westwood One radio, and Bernard McGuirk, citing slander, libel, and defamation of character. Vaughn was the only one to pursue legal damages brought on by the controversy.[47] However, Vaughn dropped the lawsuit against Imus on September 11, 2007, citing her desire to concentrate on her studies and basketball training.[48][49]
"
So when a barely known radio/tv commentator is talking about how tough a basketball team is and uses a term that many performers use and doesn't specifically call one of the adult players a name and never intended to, he gets a few hundred lines
But it's not important when, when a Heavily watched Late night talk show host attacks a specific 14 year old girl because she is the daughter of a governor and presidential candidate.
Please explain how directly insulting a 14 year old girl because she is the daugher of a Governor is ok?
Oh wait you said nothing happen. Well you can think it didn't happen, but clearly it did and clearly it should be on this wiki page.Mantion (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit war - page protected
FYI, the page has been protected from editing for three days due to the frequent back-and-forth over the Palin issue. Please resolve the issue on the talk page; if consensus is reached prior to the end of the three-day period, please alert me (or any other admin) to update the page. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 00:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your decision to protect the page. Wikipedia is NOT censored. That is a Wikipedia required. However, I did notice that you protected the page because of edit warring but you did not place an edit warring warning on the talk page of the anon user. That user's IP address is 217.128.249.54. I'm just pointing out because you have been quick to warn those editors that did not agree with your point of view in the past. So we now know where this article is going and my early comments are have fully and completely verified. Your handling of this issue is clearly in bad form. Good Evening.--InaMaka (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your only objection is a seriously weak "don't bury it in another article", which is one of the more commonly used, and patently ridiculous rationales we see around the Wikipedia. There is no reason why this incident should be in the article of Letterman himself; this controversy is about something that happened on the show and thus it should be mentioned on the show article and not here. Your comments above also represent a fundamental lack of understanding of BLP policy. It applies to how we treat material within the Wikipedia, not with how other people treat others in real-life. Ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Completely concur. Unitanode 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your only objection is a seriously weak "don't bury it in another article", which is one of the more commonly used, and patently ridiculous rationales we see around the Wikipedia. There is no reason why this incident should be in the article of Letterman himself; this controversy is about something that happened on the show and thus it should be mentioned on the show article and not here. Your comments above also represent a fundamental lack of understanding of BLP policy. It applies to how we treat material within the Wikipedia, not with how other people treat others in real-life. Ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Seeing as how InaMaka has made repeated accusations here and elsewhere regarding my supposed POV regarding this issue, I feel compelled to come clean and admit that I do, in fact, have a history (and therefore a bias) with regards to this article. Based on my extensive edit history on this article over the past three years (all one of them), I must disclose that I did remove an external link to a Hollywood Reporter article about Letterman's contract negotiations. Obviously, this is directly related to the Palin issue, and as I am therefore hopelessly biased I should recuse myself immediately. --Ckatzchatspy 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh give me a break! You know that you and another admin who has been repeated reverting my edits and threatening me on my talk page have each other's back. The other editor is CLEARLY on the side of censoring the article by taking one of Letterman's most embarrassing moments as a talk show host and bury it deeply in the child article. You have been assisting that editor. So your argument that you made one edit misses the point entirely--just as you intended with your red herring argument. And the comment is clearly biased in that Benjiboi has jumped in and high-fived you. It is clear where you point of view is and that is fine--just be honest about it. At least with the other editor his edits are so clearly on the side burial and cover up for Letterman that he/she can't hide that fact. Once again, all of the discussion on this page misses the point entirely. The fact is that Letterman had to apologize not once but twice and that has never happened in his career before. It is a historic event in his career and it belongs in his article. Wikipedia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "bury[ing] it deeply in the child article". The premise that a reader cannot find their way to The Late Show With David Letterman as easily as they can to David Letterman is just ridiculous; the show is as notable as the host. Since your argument rests entirely on this false premise, I really don't see how you can be an honest contributor to this discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! Well thanks for coming clean! I think that's just the first of the Twelve-step program so you have a journey ahead of you! -- Banjeboi 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I just don't see this information as having much merit here. From looking into it it seems like she egged it on by claiming the joke was a perverted something against a 14-year-old when clearly it was not; it was about her unwed 18-year-old who was pregnant and also is milking the national spotlight as an unlikely abstinence-only spokesperson. A very short blip on the Palin article(s) is likely all that's needed. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have you even been paying attention to the issue? Letterman himself stated that it was the perception of whom the joke was about that started this whole issue, in addition to the degregation of women in general. NOW has also come out against Letterman in defense of Palin. What you are presenting here is your own personal bias against Palin. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have i been reading reliable sources on this, yes. It's rather dry subject which Palin seemed to milk by going on several TV shows. This makes it somewhat relevant to her and we have Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman already covering this. It was a joke poorly done and received, we don't bother including these per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of your opinion, but I didn't realize that you Owned wikipedia, or that your research invalidated the opinions of others. Just who are you to decide that this event is not notable? Please present your evidence of BLP violations to which you used as your primary reason of exclusion. Your presumption of undue weight is rather weak compared to some of the other sections in the article like "Letterman and Oprah Winfrey" and the "2007–2008 Writers' strike" which are nothing more than fluff sections. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good reason to clean-up those sections which are not casting the subject of this BLP in a negative light or otherwise disparaging way. I don't own this article anymore than anyone else does. I would feel the same way of Palin had made jokes regarding Letterman - is this notable enough and let the reliable sources lede us. In either case we certainly apply WP:Undue. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of your opinion, but I didn't realize that you Owned wikipedia, or that your research invalidated the opinions of others. Just who are you to decide that this event is not notable? Please present your evidence of BLP violations to which you used as your primary reason of exclusion. Your presumption of undue weight is rather weak compared to some of the other sections in the article like "Letterman and Oprah Winfrey" and the "2007–2008 Writers' strike" which are nothing more than fluff sections. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have i been reading reliable sources on this, yes. It's rather dry subject which Palin seemed to milk by going on several TV shows. This makes it somewhat relevant to her and we have Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman already covering this. It was a joke poorly done and received, we don't bother including these per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Have you even been paying attention to the issue? Letterman himself stated that it was the perception of whom the joke was about that started this whole issue, in addition to the degregation of women in general. NOW has also come out against Letterman in defense of Palin. What you are presenting here is your own personal bias against Palin. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Rollback lede edit please
{{edit protected}}
Hi, in the scuffle over Sarah Palin material my edits to clean up the lede also were reverted; could you please replace the old /present version with:
“ | David Michael Letterman (born April 12, 1947) is an American television host and comedian.[5] He is best known as the host of a late night television talk show Late Show with David Letterman broadcast on CBS. He has been a fixture on late night television since the 1982 debut of Late Night with David Letterman; only Johnny Carson, one of Letterman's idols, has had a longer late-night hosting career.[6]
Letterman is also a television and film producer; his company Worldwide Pants produces his show as well as The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson that follows his. Worldwide Pants has also produced several prime-time comedies, the most successful of which was Everybody Loves Raymond, currently in syndication. Letterman also owns a small share of Rahal Letterman Racing, an IndyCar Series part-time auto racing team, with 1986 Indianapolis 500 winner Bobby Rahal who is a friend. |
” |
Most of it's minor but we should certainly get the Rahal Letterman Racing out of the lede sentence; I'm not sure it needs to be in the lede at all but this at least is more in compliance with MOS. -- Banjeboi 04:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree here. The racing thing is not what Letterman is notable for at all, and I don't think it should probably even be in the lede. But certainly, what you've written up is better than the current state of affairs. Unitanode 04:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done - material is unrelated to the disputed text. Thanks for noting the situation. --Ckatzchatspy 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! -- Banjeboi 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- ^ McGevna, Allison (June 11, 2009). "David Letterman Slammed For Sex Jokes About Palin's Teen Daughter". FoxNews.com. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
- ^ a b Saul, Michael (June 11, 2009). accessdate=2009-06-14 "Sarah Palin attacks David Letterman over 'sexually-perverted' joke". New York Daily News.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help); Missing pipe in:|url=
(help) - ^ "Fire David Letterman cry spurs on serious apology". Examiner.com. June 16, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-16.
- ^ "Letterman Apologizes to Palin for 'Bad Joke'". FOXNews.com. June 16, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-16.
- ^ "David Letterman Biography". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-02-03.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
rs2008
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).