Jump to content

Talk:Don Imus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ecostaz (talk | contribs) at 12:09, 12 April 2007 (→Should Rutgers controversy be its own article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconRadio B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do List:

Lesley Stahl

Lesley Stahl, not Leslie (common mistake). TVBarn, 28 October 2005

I pulled out the link to the missing image:

File:Imus pic.jpg

. If that image reappears, we can add back in the link to it. Amoore 22:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


how did imus grow up listening to wolfman jack as a child? they are the same age.

Removed MSNBC apologize for Imus remarks Clicking on it brought up a box with donation request from CAIR not an MSNBC apology. If article is on this website, I hope someone can make the direct link. Sorry, I don't have time to fix it.--FloNight 16:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imus in the Morning

Don't you think 'Imus in the Morning' should have it's own entry seperate from Don's?69.177.150.109 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's pros and cons to doing this, but a couple of people started it without finishing it, so I've now finished it, more or less. Wasted Time R 03:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Controversies?

During a broadcast in 2004 sportscaster Sid Rosenberg referred to Palestinians as "brainwashed" and "stinking animals." He also said they were "stupid to begin with," that a bomb should be dropped on them, and that they should be "killed right now". The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission condemned the comments and accused Imus of violating the Canadian Specialty Services Regulations of 1990.

I know this won't be on here long, because it doesn't agree with many. What happened to FREE SPEECH? People should be able to say what they believe. Why is it OK to be walking down the street with your 10 year old daughter, and hear blasting from a passing car, this RAP CRAP that they call music, the N word, F word, HO's, BITCHES, and anything else they choose. When a white person does the same thing, he should be fired. Don't Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson have anything better to do than run to every talk show on the air..The only time you see them on TV is when they're protesting something. What about this girl claiming rape against the 3 college kids? She's not even being charged with anything. I don't hear Sharpton yelling about her. I'd like to fire him. GALP

If Sid Rosenberg made those comments, why would the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission accuse Imus of violating anything?

--LedFloyd 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound right to me either. Also, the external link doesn't work. This paragraph needs to be verified but, in the mean time, I moved it to Imus in the Morning. It was definately out of place in the Don Imus biographical article. Accurizer 14:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why does this idiot, keep saying Jesus is on his side?????? He is making a mockery of the symbolism of jesus's "dying for our sins" on the cross, Ok imus, so jesus died for your stupid idiotic racist remarks, go get a damn life Imus! until you do stop blabbering about jesus died because you said nappy headed hoes on the air, during a moment in time where imus simply was talking through his anus.

NPOV?

I pulled this quote from the howard stern controversary section "The truth of this dispute lies in the ear of the hearer"....does that sound encyclopedic to anyone?--Alex 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is awkward at the very least. I took a shot at rewriting it, please take a look to see if you think it reads better now. Accurizer 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good as far as I'm concerned! Thanks! --Alex 00:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra ball.

Should the article mention that Don Imus has three testicles? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a verifiable source for this? If no, then definately not. Accurizer 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where, but there ought to be. I know Imus Himself has talked about it freely enough in interviews. I'd google for it, if I knew what the correct technical term for having three testicles is. (there is bound to be some fancy word) -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 17:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick googling didn't provide any conclusive referrable sources, but using various combinations for google searches, there were a handful of results (so to speak) in google groups and forum talk, proving that I am not the only person to know about this. ( Here is an example - check the first result. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 02:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White House press dinner

I've seen several references to Don Imus in comparison to Stephen Colbert's performance at the white house press dinner. I came here to find out more, which I have about Imus, though the article makes no mention of his speech (also considered rude by some).

Transcript to speech: http://imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm Barnetto 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imus and Colbert both made their presidents uncomfortable.

Nixon Fan

It should be mentioned, in greater detail than I know, that Imus is a fan of the Nixon problems. Notably, Charles McGord's outburst on Imus having said he'd stop talking about it, and then talking about it more. The date of this is December 3, 1997, because the clip (my favorite of Charles) was played recently. So, can anyone else support this? Rockhound 15:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This entry needs a section on Imus' political beliefs. --70.150.12.98 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. McCord's outburst had to do with Imus's incessant references to The Whitaker Chambers book by Sam Tannenhaus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.125.218 (talk • contribs)

Charities / politics new sections

It would be good to add a section on Imus' support for charities especially the large amount he helped raise for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund building in San Antonio. Also, a section on his political beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.87.114 (talk • contribs)

Sid's firing

It was my understanding Sid Rosenberg was let go because of a continuing cocaine addiction. Also, considering other comments made by the rest of the staff, it seems ludicrous to fire someone for some off-color remark from this show. I'll look into it.

Rosenberg was indeed fired from Imus in the Morning for the comments regarding breast cancer. He continued to be employed by WFAN on his own midday talk show with Joe Beningno until failed to show for a scheduled show from a remote location, reportedly on a cocaaine binge. He subsequently found work in Miami, and was recently rumored to be returning to WFAN before deciding to extend his contract in Florida.

Rutgers controversy

There are two different dates listed for the Rutgers controvery. One is listed under the racism, homophobia category and the other is listed under the Rutgers headline. Someone might want to fix that, I'm not sure of the exact date or I would do it myself. kc12286 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)kc12286[reply]

Correcting date for the Rutgers controversy

The original offensive remarks occurred on Wednesday, 2007-04-04, not Thursday 2007-04-05. Sources:

The WNBC source which claims Imus made the initial remarks on Thursday is wrong; please do not revert to it.

Actual timeline:

Baileypalblue 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Because of the recent controversy and some questionable WP:BLP edits, I'm protecting the article for a week. I'll watchlist the article and see if anything develops. Cheers, alphachimp 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His popular radio show, Imus in the Morning, airs daily." Is his show actually popular? Maybe this adjective should be removed? --The Lone Bard 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been. His show is one of the most popular on MSNBC and his share of the Arbitron ratings, while certainly not what they were before the advent of the new media and oversaturation of television channels, is consistently high. Not to mention the types and quality of guests he has on his show and the influence his show can have on shaping national opinion.

Mister Jinxy 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry. I had heard he had a weak 1 share with 96% of his audience being in the 65-100 age group. --The Lone Bard 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sites suggesting antisemitism

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2535 http://www.forward.com/articles/imus-cbs-bosses-money-grubbing-jews/

Women's Media Center?

This was added earlier "In addition on April 9th 2007, the Woman's Media Center (WMC), a non-profit women's media organization, also spoke out against Imus' comments in an exclusive article on their website. (see article)" I'm sure lots of groups have come out against Imus, but I'm not sure this one is notable. Should it be removed? They might just be trying to get more web traffic. --AW 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral?

I think the section about his comments on Al Sharpton's Talk show should be changed. it currently states that [he stated I cannot win with "you people" likely referring to black people] It is very presumptuous to say what he meant with such a vague comment, he may have meant that he cannot win against reporters or talk show hosts or even arguing with other men. The way it is currently worded barely falls short of calling him a racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.100.0.42 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

agreed, i took "you people" to mean the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's of the world

Didn't Don Imus once said that Venus Williams and Serena Williams (the famous tennis sisters who happen to be black) should pose in National Geographic and not in Playboy? If so, that should be mentioned.Fclass 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like wise I'm deleting "Some say that this recent controversy may be the "straw that broke the camel's back" and ultimately lead to the firing of Don Imus." No quote, no purpose or reason for it, and as far as I know he's still working. Kinglink 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Rutgers controversy be its own article?

A controversy of this magnetude should have its own article. There's precedence with Mel Gibson's drunken racial tirade and the mistaken terrorist threat caused by ads for the television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. I was watching a thorough "Anatomy of a controversy" segment on ABC News that pretty much outlined how every thing occured, from the first first day when the comment was made, to the complaint e-mails to Imus's apology to his appearance on Sharpton's show to the Rutgers team press conference and on and on. Does anyone support this idea? I wouldn't mind compiling the info. - Throw 09:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless/until the section becomes so large that it needs to split, per WP:SUMMARY. I don't think it's there yet. It might not get there. Of course, if you do compile that stuff and make the article so large it needs to split, well then there you go. — coelacan — 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This controversy is important to Imus but otherwise it is a tempest in a teapot and gets way too much attention as it is. The current section should be deeply edited and trimmed. But wait until after the furor dies down.--Blue Tie 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. A controversy that made him lose his TV show? There's nothing to trim. — coelacan — 11:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. I think that much of what is there can be moved to footnotes and summarized in the article. Right now it reads like a diary not an encyclopedia. --Blue Tie 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No separate article is needed at this time Ecostaz 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Imus&oldid=122199966"