Jump to content

Talk:Dana Jacobson

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

Possible sources for this article

[edit]

These sources should be considered and introduced to this article. Morenooso 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing this entry. Get a job.Thebookpolice 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to this young lady, I did mention the fact that she was inebriated when she did make the statement. K8cpa (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article cited does not support the assertion that many people feel the discipline imposed by ESPN was inadequate compared to other public figures who have made controversial statements.

2) The characterization "nothing more than a love tap" is pejorative, not neutral.

71.107.17.98 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not getting here instead of just editing away first of all. I think a 'just the facts' approach makes the most sense. Conflicting reports on whether or not she said "f--- Jesus" have not been put to bed. Pointing out double standards (that certainly exist in this case, in my opinion) only invites more edit wars. Beorach (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

If you feel the article can be improved in some way, discuss it civilly. Do not continue to edit the page to reflect your own POV. Enigmaman (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settled down now? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

i agree with sukiari. it is common knowledge that jacobson got out of line at the roast. what if i go to the barack obama article and add that he was "recently elected president" but don't cite a source? does that mean it didn't happen? hell no. everybody knows it's a fact. cited source or not. open a volumn of encyclopedia brittanica, NO SOURCES CITED. facts are facts, sourced or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's get the facts correct:

At a roast for co-workers Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic in January 2008, an intoxicated Jacobson cursed the University of Notre Dame, Touchdown Jesus, and Jesus Christ. Rothamell (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not facts because they are not verifiable. Please stop adding unsourced information. Enigma msg! 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they were indeed reported widely at the time. I guess the goal here is to completely remove any traces of what she said, and then delete the 'controversy' section, no? Please don't vandalize articles by claiming no cite and then deleting perfectly viable information.

Sukiari (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't introduce unverifiable and uncited information. We went through this when the incident happened. Now it's happening again? Enigma msg! 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation so you can stop claiming no cite. And there has hardly been a "we" going through this - you simply revert other people's edits. Clearly, there has been no consensus. Sukiari (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page's edit history, there clearly is a we. The issue had been determined and the article lay dormant for a while after the initial adding of factually questionable statements. Enigma msg! 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edit page, and it appears that thanks to your ample free time you indeed have the time and ability to simply out-edit other people. Note that yesterday there have been edits trying to insert what you have removed (claiming no cite). Well, I have put the information in, and it is cited. It seems important to note that she didn't just "curse notre dame" - that's about 1/3rd of the story.

But, in any event, why are you so desperate to 'form' a consensus that the article shouldn't include certain cited facts? I have been going over the edit history, and you never, EVER attempt to verify or insert citations - you have only reduced the amount of viable information in this article. I will assume good faith for now, but this article has gotten both shorter and lighter on facts since you took an interest in it. Please consider the usefulness of the Wikipedia is founded upon having solid articles that are not constantly reduced both in citations and actual information. Sukiari (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has absolutely not gotten lighter in information. I simply have been reverting additions of claims that are not verifiable. In fact, most of my edits related to this article were dealing with the legendary User:Seancarlin84. Enigma msg! 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that there is a verifiable citation that she reportedly said these remarks, will you revert? Note the operative word - reportedly.

In the past there have been other verifiable citations which have been simply deleted in this article. This is pretty disturbing. Sukiari (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false claim. Please stop throwing around unwarranted accusations. Enigma msg! 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a true claim that can be verified by simply looking at the edit history. This is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact. Sukiari (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP instead of making unwarranted accusations against other editors. Thanks. Enigma msg! 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I merely stated that "In the past there have been other verifiable citations which have been simply deleted in this article." - a true and verifiable statement. Perhaps I hit a sore spot with you? Note I did not accuse anybody specifically. You certainly have the time to go through the edit history of this entry and indeed verify that a large amount of edits that removed viable information have taken place. I consider this to be vandalism of the worst kind, and there is a lot of vandalism and censorship masquerading as WP:CITE. I find it necessary to fight it where and when I can - there are a lot of people with a lot of barnstars working to systematically remove information and censor the Wiki, while innocently pretending they are helping fight the vandalism which they perpetrate.

So, why was this quote removed over and over and over again, despite it being cited in certain revisions of the article? A lot of people don't even know who this Jacobson chick is, outside of the context of her "fuck Jesus" remark. So it is notable and cited. And please read Wikipedia:CITE - it is preferable to find citations yourself rather than repeatedly deleting (which indicates that consensus is indeed NOT reached). Thanks! Sukiari (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukiari (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you accused me personally of vandalizing this article, an accusation that I resent. Enigma msg! 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually merely accused you of deleting cited material, which is easily verified by looking at the edit history. It is rarely called vandalism, perhaps because editors are indeed targeted for drastic action / bannage / and retaliation if they criticize people with too many barnstars. I resent that this article has been pared down despite numerous citations available. The value of this article, and indeed any on the WP, is reduced or eliminated when statements are removed. But rather than feeling blue about being implicated in reducing quality around here, perhaps instead of the old WP:CITE --> delete habit you could instead insert citations when they are needed or lacking. Then you wouldn't have to endure accusations of censorship and quality reduction.

Sukiari (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Please don't vandalize articles by claiming no cite and then deleting perfectly viable information."

In other words, you accused me of vandalizing the article. I resent that. Also, it's not my responsibility to cite material you wish to insert. If you want to add material, you need to cite it. Not me. Enigma msg! 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is one of the strangest arguments I've ever heard. No one is trying to brush anything under the table here. But we're trying to build an encyclopedia here based on verifiable information. Additionally, we have to abide by WP:BLP. Enigma msg! 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a report quoted by the press, from somebody in attendance, claiming she said "Fuck Jesus." Of course, until the video surfaces, it is a "report" but her behavior and that of ESPN clearly indicate that she did not merely insult JUST Notre Dame. This is a clear case of "brushing under the rug" if I have ever seen one. Even McGraw Hill isn't as blatant in their attempts to modify facts on this site.Sukiari (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor form

[edit]

Having read the above Sukiari I can appreciate your right to "defend" articles but it appears to be very poor form indeed to accept and continue to promenade a barnstar on your user page from Rothamell who has "rewarded" you for being uncivil when you called another defender of the article a "vandal".--VS talk 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
The best you have there are people writing blogs saying she "reportedly" did something. That in fact is not verifiable. WP:V Enigma msg! 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable that it was "reported", and that's all the article said. But if she didn't do anything, why the apology and statement? Clearly those are indications. There hasn't been any video released of the incident, but it was widely reported and stands as the most notable thing Dana has done.

Sukiari (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did do something. That's what we had in the article. It meets the standards of WP:V that she cursed the University of Notre Dame. Enigma msg! 03:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she also was REPORTED TO HAVE cursed Jesus and Touchdown Jesus, whatever that is.

Congrats, though. It appears you found a buddy to support your revert.

Sukiari (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to you for finding someone to support your adding unverified info. Enigma msg! 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that with all those new links the info is indeed "verified" Sukiari (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC) And note that Rothamell was trying to combat your removal of material from the article before I gave it my attention. I have never engaged in any discussions with that user, and never knew he existed until today. Can you make the same claim about C. Fred? Sukiari (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had any interaction with C.Fred before today and I don't know who he is except that he's another editor at Wikipedia. I do find it interesting that this article hadn't seen much activity lately, until two mostly inactive editors coincidentally started pov edit-warring within a few hours of each other. I could also comment on a barnstar being given out for edit-warring, but I guess I won't. Enigma msg! 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not edit warring, it's inserting previously censored data. Now it's "properly cited" so I suppose there should be no problems with it. Sukiari (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Free Press

[edit]

The Detroit Free Press [1] was cited as a source today. However, the Free Press article almost suggests that the "Fuck Jesus" alleged quote cannot be used in the article:

Jacobson, a Bloomfield Hills native and Michigan grad, reportedly dropped F-bombs on roastee Mike Golic's alma mater, Notre Dame
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a Catholic rights group, said ESPN's response might be lacking, though, if Internet reports are true that her targets included Touchdown Jesus and Jesus.
"If she did, then that changes everything ... then the penalty in force is obviously inadequate," Donohue said at catholicleague.org.
So far, ESPN has not verified exactly what Jacobson said. Donohue said his group is still pushing for a response.
Emphasis added.

What I see is the FP affirming that she f-bombed Notre Dame but speculating on whether she did it to Jesus or Touchdown Jesus. I don't see enough, per BLP, to support the latter two. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources, such as the one I listed, indicate she said "fuck jesus". Note I did not refer to Detroit Free Press. Sukiari (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added quite a few more references. All support that she said "fuck Jesus" and are from relatively notable press sources... Sukiari (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Detroit free press citation because the link did not work. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very 1984...

[edit]

I love what you guys have done, going from a statement with multiple sources to an unsourced statement that "a reporter" (WHO?) couldn't exactly remember. You can't just go around making up lies and posting them as the truth.

This seems like behavior that I would expect from a very clever troll. Kudos to you Enigmaman!

Sukiari (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why I reverted to the sourced version. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Enigmaman's edits were constructive. It was Suzyq33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made the controversial deletions. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sukiari Calling an obviously constructive editor a troll is a personal attack. I have left a warning message on your talk page - please do not continue to make such attacks.--VS talk 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw edits to the page and I noticed several typos and fixed them. Enigma message 02:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another 1984-esque moment

[edit]

I noticed that over time, the citations were removed, and then the whole controversy section was removed because it was unsourced. Neat little bit of work! Anyway, I re-inserted the citations and then restored the controversy section. I suppose I will have to continue doing this, as people keep censoring and then trashing the article. Sukiari (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was then; this is now. Will threads so olde be archived, ever? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because not much activity here. Husounde (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness, 2016

[edit]

Dana Jacobson is doing a great job as the 'reporter on the floor' for TBS. Interestingly, the current game is Notre Dame vs NC. She interviews coaches, players, and provides insights. Winner here goes into the 'Final Four'. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dana Jacobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dana Jacobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dana_Jacobson&oldid=1198603708"