Talk:Don Imus

Lesley Stahl

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

Image link

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)

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

Removed link

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) if you have the edit button i have freedom of speech,,,,,, imus deserves better than msnbc i hope he gets hired by fox and runs msnbc out of business,,,,glenn brandon

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Extra ball.

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

Is there a verifiable source for this? If no, then definately not. Accurizer 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Correcting date for the Rutgers controversy

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

• the [media matters] article that broke the story,
• the [New York Times],
• the [Larry McShane article] cited in this Wikipedia article.

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

Actual timeline:

• Wednesday, 2007-04-04 Imus makes offensive remarks
• Thursday, 2007-04-05 Imus says people should not be offended
• Friday, 2007-04-06 Imus apologizes

Baileypalblue 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Popular

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Anyone? --AW 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

I've added some references on that. Dogru144 11:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See discussion further down the page DocGratis 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No thanks. A controversy that made him lose his TV show? There's nothing to trim. — coelacan — 11:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

No separate article is needed at this time Ecostaz 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait for things to settle down. Then wait for the pruners to get rid of the stuff that doesn't belong. Once that happens see if it meets the criteria for a split. Right now things are just too chaotic. Davidwr 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill statement is not correct

Allegations of racism, misogyny, and homophobia Imus and his crew, Charles McCord and Bernard McGuirk, have been repeatedly accused of racism, misogyny, and homophobia. For example, Imus referred to African American sports columnist Bill Rhoden as a "New York Times quota hire" and PBS anchor Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady" over twenty years ago.[5]

This statement is in gross need of correcting because for the most part it is at least in part not correct. I have listened to Imus for years going back to when C-SPAN used to come by his studios once a month and film the show. I have seen several news outlets use the Gwen Ifill "cleaning lady" statement to prove Imus's history of racism. Both Al Sharpton and Matt Lauer cited this incident which Gwen Ifill herself wrote about in the New York Times. She was informed by New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson that Imus had said "Isn’t the Times wonderful, It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.” what nobody ever reports is that the qoute aired during a political parody segment that the Imus Show used to have Imus in Washington which featured various characters in a roundtable like discussion such as David Brinkley and Richard Nixon voiced by Larry Kenney with Imus serving as the announcer for the segments. Rob Bartlett also appeared on many of these segments as Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh. The Ifill comment came during one of these segments and was not said by Imus himself though Imus has said repeatedly over the years that since his name is on the program he is solely responsible for the content. So yes the Ifill comment did go out on Imus's air but as he explained on his show and on Al Sharpton's radio program it was a political satire and was not stated as his personal opinion. When he spoke on the Today show on April 10, 2007 Matt Lauer mentioned the Ifill comment and when Imus tried to explain Lauer cut him off and Imus never got to finish his answer as he had done on the Sharpton show. I have heard FOX, CNN, and MSNBC commentators all site this qoute as if Imus said it himself and never mention it's true origin. It has also appeared in the New York Times and various other reputable new outlets as a direct Imus qoute. If this article is going to have the Ifill comment it should have more details. This happened so long ago that it has become part of the "Imus Legend" and if you tell a story long enough it becomes the truth. Maddhatt 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First, do you have a citation (preferably contemporaneous) that contradicts the commonly understood perception? I've clarified the text a bit and added better citations for what is widely reported. You could certainly be right about the context, but somethi. ng more than his self-defense, and a listener's recollections, would be helpful. And I don't know that it changes anything anyway - the words were said. Any time Imus gets caught by his words, or words on his air, it seems he tries to cover it by either saying it was political satire or that it's not his personal opinion. But I would assume these segments were scripted, so presumably someone intended to say that - if someone else said it on his live show he could have said after the segment something about it being a joke, or satire, or said in fun or any of a number of things. But it appears, like this latest episode, that his first reaction is to find it funny and then to stand by it as not really significant. Only when the furor begins does he own up, or apologize, or defend. That sounds a lot like someone who meant it in the first place. Just my opinion, but read the Mike Wallace bit in that section. I think the article needs a reasonable citation in order to change the Ifill graf - the current text has reliable sources, even though I take your point that they could all be reporting the same mistake. Tvoz |talk 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no proof except for my memory of hearing a clip of it it may have been on A&E Biography. My lack of hard proof is the very reason I did not make the edits myself. Too many people including Ifill herself have cited the "cleaning lady" incident as if it were pure fact and if I were writing an article on Imus every credible source including Media Matters has "Imus once reffered to Gwen Ifill as a cleaning lady." and then other media outlets use these sources as their sources making it impossible to find the whole truth. I saw your changes and I agree that they are at least a bit better.

I also noticed the part about Clarence Page making Imus pledge to stop using racial remarks but there is no real explanation as to why. During the time that Imus made this pledge I recall Page was a frequent guest. It was also around that time that he had Bernard doing Antwan from the Bronx and Al Rosenberg calling in as Vernon "Kingfish" Jordan and Rob Bartlett doing bits as Al Sharpton. NBA player Jayson Williams was frequent caller and in studio guest on the program as well during this time so Bernard changed Antwan from the Bronx into Jayson Williams. It was the exact same impression and Williams thought the imitation was silly but he had a good sense of humor and even mentioned that some of his close friends and even his own mother heard Bernard on Imus and called him thinking it was really him saying all that stuff. You may recall in 2003 that it was Bernard as Jayson Williams claiming that he spent the night with Howard Stern's girlfriend Beth O that prompted Howard to actually call Imus and confront him on the air claiming that he knew stuff about Imus's daughter and Al Rosenberg that Imus didn't want to go out over the air. Nobody at MSNBC said a word about the Kingfish stuff and it was really rough at times. Al would call in and say "Good moanin', good moanin', good moanin', and a fine moanin' it be too Imus!" I was really surprised that no one did or said anything until Clarence Page spoke up. The Kingfish and Sharpton bits were phased out but he kept doing Williams since he was still a guest on the show and didn't seem to mind. Imus had Bernard phase out Jayson because of the murder making the bit less funny. Jayson disappeared from the air and Antwan was back. Maddhatt 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But my point still is that it doesn't make a difference if these slurs and offensive stuff are part of his routines or part of his regular banter - they actually are both - he doesn't get to say racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic things in character and not get called on the offensiveness of them. At least that's what I think - so even if we are able to more accurately source the Ifill quote - no one is questioning whether it was said, and the point still holds that he should be accountable for things like that. And overall the point is that this is a clear pattern of offense, not an isolated Michael Richards anomaly (if that's what that was). Tvoz |talk 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

True but comics often say offensive things in their acts and are not called racist. Lenny Bruce and George Carlin are often cited for offending with a purpose which Imus claims he does. If it's done in this context as opposed to Howard Stern's claim that he repeatedly heard Imus refer to black employees as the "N word" there has to be a difference. There is a big difference between using such language in the work place or in your private life and using political satire to offend. One reflects a comics wit the other what you really feel in your heart. And for the record I don't think the Michael Richards incident is isolated, he just got caught and I guess Imus did as well. Maddhatt 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the Mike Wallace interview excerpt that someone saw fit to remove from the article, as I guess it was too clear an identification of Imus' actual personal non-act racism. That is the point indeed - I don't know about RIchards, but Imus had a pattern that went well beyond "just his act" - and this last incident proves it. So I hope you agree the Ifill reference has to remain, presently as accurately as we're able to reliably source and cite. Tvoz |talk 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before I've been long time listener of Imus. I do not condone what he did but it has been blown way too far out of purportion. The 60 minutes reference is very valid. Mike Wallace was a very frequent guest on Imus which is why Imus agreed to be on. Imus promoted his appearance on the show so I watched it when it aired back then and after the heat came down for what he said about Bernard's purpose on the show he said that Mike Wallace "sand bagged" him and that his remarks should not have been part of the piece since they took place during a casual conversation while he was being miced up and he wasn't even talking to Wallace when he made the statements. Tiger Woods got burned in the same way during a Sports Illustrated interview when he was telling off color jokes during a photo shoot. He was just joking around and thought what he said should be off the record. I think both 60 minutes and SI did the right thing in running the pieces, but the Imus I see now is a much better man than he was then. I've watched his wife and son have a most positive effect on him. I was listening to Howard Stern when he first came to Sirius and he layed out again all the bad racial stuff that he saw Imus do. A few weeks later Imus appeared on Larry King and King decided to ask Imus about whether any of what Howard said was true. Imus said that he was so drunk and on the drugs at the time that he couldn't remember but that he probably did do and say all those things and he shouldn't have and that he's sorry for them now. This was only a year ago and the old Imus never would have admitted that. He certainly didn't when he appeared with Larry after the 60 minutes piece first aired and King asked Imus about the Bernard comments and Imus tried to dodge the question saying he was kidding around and that Mike Wallace screwed him. After last years appearance Howard played part of the King interview the next day and was shocked to see Imus finally cop to what he has been saying for years. My point is just as Imus has been saying everything has a context and there is a big difference in an offensive bit that was done over the air and Imus saying really foul racist stuff about the women of Rutgers. The Ifill thing happened but since I have at least found proof of Imus's explanation of the bit audio file of Imus full interview with Al Sharpton it should at least be made more clear. Maddhatt 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Howard Stern Controversies

It should be noted that Stern has repeatedly state since he parted ways with Imus' old flagship home of WNBC that Imus mistreated employees at the station, including calling some of the black female office workers the N-word. JRNYC 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you note it, then? 76.99.45.130 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Macdogg This is exactly what I tried to add which was been removed by the other users. "Howard Stern has also made accusations that back in WNBC, Imus had called a receptionist a "nigger" " This shows that Imus had appearantly had racist thoughts way before Rutgers.Macdogg

I posted a section below regarding this (which I will unify into this one). The first part of the sentence could be included, but adds little. The second is an unverified accusation by Howard Stern that dates back 20 years, (the citation given is simply Howard Stern's show). There is already a section of alleged racial statements by Imus. The addition could be "Stern has recently gloated over Imus's "apology tour" spending the majority of the week 4-9-07 to 4-12-07 on Imus." A source other than Stern transcripts for this week would be needed. DocGratis 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Stern write about it in either of his books? I'm pretty sure he did, but I moved semi-recently and most of my books are packed away. Snarfies 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If so, then it is best place under the Allegations sections, above Stern, not in Stern's section. DocGratis 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just listening to a replay of the Stern show from 4/12/07 - he mentions this subject was adressed to Imus in a Larry King interview, and Imus admits it was "probably" true - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/14/lkl.00.html Snarfies 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

With a finalized transcript, it COULD go in under the allegation's section. Not the Stern section. The finalized version of that transcript it would be something like "Imus admitted that while he was abusing alcohol in the 1980s, the had "probably" used the word nigger to describe black people.[x]" In the end I don't think it adds much. DocGratis 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello, I have two questions.

1. He's sometimes being quoted as having referred to the female players as 'jiggaboos'(I have no clue how to spell that). Is this true, or one of those distortions that gets passed on?
2. The article mentions allegations of "homophobia", but I'm not actually finding the specific allegations? Bladestorm 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search says yes he did. And here's the direct video on the top right corner: [1]. Homophobia is kind of sketchy and is probably assumed from this clip: [2]. Other than that, I can't find anything else homophobic. 128.227.51.234 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He constantly referred to various people as "half a fag". - Nunh-huh 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

editorialized comment

is it really nescessary to accuse Opie and Anthony of being Howard Stern immitators under a subject heading relating to Imus' sobriety? please delete... Meatwad666 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the "imitators" comment. — coelacan — 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Child Murders

I grew up in Central Jersey and listened to "Imus in the Morning" on WNBC (am) back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I am 100% certain that he played Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust" during the Atlanta Child Murders -- 29 young African-Americans were killed between 1979 and 1981. There was an uproar about it and I believe Imus was reprimanded. I have been scouring the web for in the last week or so to see if anyone else remembers this and have found some comments on blogs, but those are not necessarily good references. Anyone else have any information about this? Any good sources? I do think it's worth mentioning on the "controversies" area of the Imus page, since it shows his LONG history of racism and inappropriateness.

Ottseetotsee 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Christine Ott

That's interesting, since the song wasn't released until August 22, 1980. dposse 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The young blacks were getting murdered into 1981. The song was new at the time, and Imus played it after a news report or comments about the murders happening in Georgia.68.44.46.239 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Ottseetotsee

You do know original research is against Wikipedia policy? 70.48.115.156 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Recentism and WP:LEAD

Ok, as folks are no doubt aware of this article's getting a lot of attention currently. As a result this section is going to be large. This is normal. Over time the essential aspects of that section will remain and the non-essential bits will be sorted out. I would recommend that editors not make too much effort to curtail good faith editing in this section for now and let things play out. As things settle down this section will be ripe for paring down. Also the fact that his show has been canceled stemming from these events merits mentioning in the lead of the article. WP:LEAD spells this out. See the Michael Richards article for a good exmaple of this. It is true that he has been involved in good number of controversies in the span of his work but given that he's essentially been fired stemming from this latest one makes the weight of it a bit more than the others. (→Netscott) 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"racial and sexist"

the use of "racial and sexist" is confusing... "racist and sexist" or "racial and gender-related" work just fine. im sure the imus-defenders would push for "racial and gender-related" while the imus-bashers would pick "racist and sexist", but the fact is that either works but theres no room for compromise. pick one or the other, not in between. as is, the use of "racial and sexist" leaves open a HUGE elephant in the room: people reading the page will automatically wonder "hmmm, so its racial, but is it racist? cuz it is sexist..." and in the end it will only read like the wiki community has been painstakingly calculating the right "spin" on the race and gender issues. thats unprofessional, so lets pick between "racist and sexist" or "racial and gender-related".... if nobody has any feedback, i'll simply flip a coin to decide, since i am impartial. i just want wikipedia to look a lot less like people were prudent and calculating for the sake of political technicalities.

perhaps this would be a good place to discuss the difference between racialism and racism... has Imus been accused of both?

160.39.211.133 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend avoiding the words "racist" and "sexist" as such terminology falls afoul of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. (→Netscott) 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when? The language has been characterized by dozens of wpeople including those who fired him as being recists and sexist. Tvoz |talk 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that sources are using such terminology... but sources are not obliged to abide by a neutral point of view. If you have a look at the Michael Richards article you won't find any mention of the word "racist" (and what he said was arguably more inflammatory than what Imus said)... (→Netscott) 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Violates NPOV to call them "racist" or "sexist". We can only point to verifiable information that (notable) individuals have called them as such. Wikipedia does not decide if they were sexist or racist. We only point to facts that say others have called them as such. --75.21.179.121 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Tvoz you should read some basic wikipedia policy. It was never allowed to state something as fact coz "dozens of people" said it. At most you are allowed to write it as an opinion of the source. Dozens of people won't make it into a fact ,sorry. Ecostaz 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you lost any points you night have been making, Netscott, when you entered the line "he apologized pubically" here in the midst of your complaint about "racist". Grow up, won't you? Tvoz |talk 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just following the Michael Richards example... you'll note that it mentions that he apologized in the lead of that article. In the grand scheme of his show's cancelation the apologies merit mentioning there for balance. If you're thinking I'm trying to whitewash this article, you're mistaken... I'm editing/discussing from a very very long and protracted experience working on the Richards article where I encountered folks who did their best to downplay the whole Laugh Factory incident. (→Netscott) 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with netscott above) The talk page should be about discussion of the article not personal attacks on other editors. The solution could be to put a direct quote in the lead and avoid any 'remarks about the remarks'. Ecostaz 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Richards is a different situation, in that Imus' latest comments caused his shows to be cancelled - the apologies he gave are noted but they're not the story here. Tvoz |talk 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to "racially-charged" and "demeaning to women" if somehow that sits better with editors than "racist" and "sexist", but I don't see why it would. My point was made too quickly above - let me spell it out. I did not mean to suggest that because dozens of people are saying it - actually it's a lot more than dozens - it should be included. (And Ecostaz, as I think you know, I',m not a new editor.) WHat I was saying is that this characterization can be backed up by dozens of citations, some of which are probably already in the article. It is hardly OR or NPOV to refer to Imus' comments as racist and sexist. But I do agree that citations there would be valuable. Tvoz |talk 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it could be written as "racial and gender slurs" ... the main point is that the article needs to read from a neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is "racial slur" any more neutral than "racist language"? ONce you say it's a slur, which it is, you're saying the same thing. As long as it is referenced, so it's not OR, the argument is really moot in my view. Lots of citations say it's racist and sexist - I've added two. Lots more where they came from. Tvoz |talk 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that CNN and other news sources, using the phrase, qualifies it as well sourced as being racist (or racial). Sighting an article in quotes, is better, but still I don't think it is the correct way to handle this. Quotations should be from public figures or people. I think that for the time being it is better left where it is in the main body of the article rather than attempting to place it into the opening section. DocGratis 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See now Ecostaz clean up, has left the quoted source as having the opinion that the phrase was a "racial and sexual insult", but the sited article is a business news piece. Organization-wise, the format is fine now, but we need a citation that has someone quoted as saying racist and sexist. DocGratis 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article states "Some sources held the opinion that these were 'racist and sexist' comments." and when I read that it sounds to me like it is implying that the comments were in fact not racist and sexist. I would change this to "Many sources..." Rodrigotorres 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Numerous sources? Any issues with that? DocGratis 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can whomever keeps adding the reference to the New York times article by BILL CARTER and JACQUES STEINBERG, stop adding it to the 'sexist and racist' section at the begining. It does not belong there, it is three person news story and the sexist racist is unatribuated description. This has been discussed previous. The other sources are fine. I would remove it but I don't want to scrub the reference tag... DocGratis 05:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be me, and no, I don't happen to agree with you, Doc. And unless I'm missing it, it wasn't exactly discussed previously, it was merely stated by you about 5 comments up that you think that news sources using the phrase doesn't qualify the phrase as being well-sourced. Well, I don't agree with that. The statement that is being made is "Numerous sources called these comments 'racist and sexist'." I think that news articles printed in respected newspapers and magazines, or disseminated by mainstream tv/radio operations and the like - professional publications and operations with editorial and news boards who vet their output - are examples of numerous sources calling these comments racist and sexist. These sources verify that indeed there are a broad range of sources who refer to the slur in that way. So no, I don't want to remove that New York Times article as a citation there - it is doing exactly what I think it should be doing. And I might add a few more to show the diversity of sources that make this point. Just stating it on talk doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you. I am accepting for now yours and Ecostaz's position - even though I don't agree with it - that you don't want to just refer to the phrase as a racist and sexist comment, but instead want the more wordy and I think unnecessary "numerous sources called these comments" approach. These sources verify that claim. What I might do is make them all one footnote instead of the multiple numbers if I can easily do that - that would be less cumbersome, and the readers would get a sampling of the numerous places it is cited as such. Tvoz |talk 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

However - the Times source is not the essence of what I think should be there, so if I find others that do what I am trying to do, and I think would be more acceptable to you, I'll switch to those. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't agree with your analysis. So let's see what happens. Tvoz |talk 07:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead in the article says "sources called these comments", wiki guidlines regarding siting sources "make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." There are three writers on that piece (the two listed, and one contributing). It is esentially like qutoing an 'opinion' of an AP piece without a listed author. Which of those writers has the opinion it "racist and sexist"? Does the New York Times as an organization hold that opinion? You have other citations there, attributable, verifiable opinions, remove the non-attributable opinion.. DocGratis 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a meaningful contingent of sources who found the words NOT racist and sexist? Without true disagreement over the meaning of the words then DocGratis reservation is an extreme position. NPOV does not require us to take the position that language only means what independent published sources reiterate. Frondelet 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are enough people posting in this subsection alone, requesting an attempt to keep NPOV on this topic. Ecostaz, Netscott, and myself have all suggested that lack of quotation lends a non-neutral POV. It is opinion, simply site opinion sources. And on that note heaping on more sources does not make for a stronger arguement. I think the PBS source added does not constitute a useful source for the specific language being used here. I would request that not be used here on the same ground I mention above regarding Tvoz's New York times reference.DocGratis 12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is "opinion" that the language "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States" declares independence from British rule, yet I don't see calls for Declaration of Independence to have third-party sources who believed it to actually declare "independence." Without sources who found the Imus phrase not sexual, racial, or insulting, over-neutralizing the phrase suggests that it can have a benign interpretation. It can't. Characterizing the phrase as "racial, sexual insult" -- as every cited news source has done -- is NPOV. Frondelet 13:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence had it's opinion sources noted. The signed the bottom, and they would have "hung together" for those opinion had they lost. But Declaration of Independence is NOT a wiki article, and is a total non sequitur. Do not make significant alteration to the article without consensus from the Talk page. DocGratis

First, you apparently don't understand how joint authorship or newspapers work - the article is signed. That means yes indeed it is the characterization of all of the writers or the phrase wouldn't have made it to the next step - and yes, there is a next step - Times writers don't publish themselves - it also passed the editorial level. This was not an op-ed, it was a news piece, and yes, unless I see a retraction, in which case we can amend the article, the Times stands behind the characterization. Your position is indeed extreme, and since this was under discussion here I don't know where whoever removed it again comes off doing that. It's your opinion, Doc, not some kind of policy. I think your opinion is wrong, and so does Frondelet apparently. And I attempted to be conciliatory to you when I even agreed with this unnecessary couching about what is being characterized everywhere as racist and sexist, in an attempt to compromise with your extreme position. But I should have known better - extremists don't compromise - they bully and act arbitrarily, hiding behind imagined problems. Netscott doesn't have much credibility to me as he didn't even bother to explain why he posted that Imus "apologized pubically" - if it was a typo, hey, we all make typos. Not responding suggests it was some kind of joke. Ecostaz made a point that the RIchards article was an example of what we should do, and yet if you look at the Richards article you see it calls them racial epithets. I don't know what your agenda is, but I do know that you are stepping on the possibility of reaching consensus here about a ridiculously minor point - that this phrase was racist and sexist as it is reported everywhere - so congratulations. Bullying works again. Tvoz |talk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, this is interesting: - User:Ecostaz has been permanently blocked becuase he was a sockpuppet of User: Kgeza67, so I think we can safely disregard anything he added to this. So that leaves you standing with Netscott, and that's hardly a consensus, is it. Tvoz |talk 17:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is that while it is necessary (per WP:LEAD) to mention this very notable controversy in the lead of this article about the man, it should be brief. The lead has become too bloated with details of the event. It should read something like, "it was canceled … following a controversy stemming from racial and gender slurs said on air by Imus for which he later repeatedly apologized." All of the Rutgers details, etc. are well covered later in the article. The lead is supposed to give a full and balanced picture of what the contents of the article consists of and as things stand now... this latest controversy is represented too heavily there. Oh and as far as the usage of the word "slur" we can look to the Michael Richards article for a previous example of such usage. (Kgeza67 was a disruptive sockpuppeting editor on the Richards article who did his best to downplay/whitewash the racial nature of the Laugh Factory incident and I suspect he'll be back here trying to do the same before too long. ) (→Netscott) 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On the point of consensus I agree with Netscott. And also support the previously proposed unsourced, racial and gender slurs.DocGratis 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And yet portions of articles are routinely taken from AP sources. I do not have a problem with language being there. I want quotes with source attributions. And I did compromise. I added 'numerous' as 'some' felt to be too weak. What consensus would you like? All I am aiming for is accuracy, and organization. I took out both of those references as they were not direct quotes. I could have left yours and just taken out Frondelet's, but how would that be better? Bullying? You repeated reinserted the citation. So Ecostaz is baned, fine. It does not matter if I am the only person suggesting this, you need to come to consensus. What is the importance of using that citation there? Why do you fight for it? There are two citations there already. Is you real issue the quotes, the numerous, what? The point is not made by constant tacking on of new citations. My personal opinion of the words is not important, and is not known to you. And I would ask you to refrain from ad hominem attack against myself or anyone else. DocGratis 18:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus proposal ...following public objections to a racial and gender slur he made on-air, referring to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Later, Imus apologized which was accepted by the team.

This would eliminate any concerns regarding sitation (none are needed), any some vs many vs numerous concerns, it shortens the lead. Any thoughts? DocGratis 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was posting something along the same lines when you posted yours. If we want it with even fewer details, could try: ...following public objections to a racial and gender slur he made on air, for which he later apologized. (Either way I don't think the team's acceptance is needed in the lead, as it's beside the point.) Any good sources, like the Hajeli and Payton sources, can be incoporated into the appropriate section below. Tvoz |talk 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd excise the Rutgers university bit and the quote and the team acceptance... again there's too much detail in the lead... what I would concurrently suggest is that the lead be expanded to better reflect the rest of the article as well. (→Netscott) 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So ...following public objections to a racial and gender slur he made on air, for which he later apologized.  ? Tvoz |talk 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes... that is better than what is currently in place.. imho. (→Netscott) 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Who wants to do it.. (I hate messing with Refs...) but will. Tvoz you want the honors? DocGratis 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

fine. Tvoz |talk 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(but for the record - I'm ok with reinserting after "on-air" referring to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." if other editors weigh in with that.)Tvoz |talk 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that (it is what I originally proposed), but I think Netscott's is a little better for the lead. Details can exist in the body. DocGratis 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - my insertion of "sexual" instead of "gender" earlier when I was putting the new wording in and juggling the citations was inadvertent - thanks for catching it. But in re-reading it with fresh eyes now, I do think "racial and gender slur" is awkward (and so is "racial and sexual slur"), and am open to further discussion if anyone comes up with something that is less so. My preference remains with "racist and sexist comment" which, again, is how the news media are pretty much universally stating it. Tvoz |talk 22:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Treybien altered the lead, which I restored. I did leave the linkage for racial slur, which I kind of like. Any group opinions stay? go? DocGratis 11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Honors

"Imus is also being awarded for his comments on the so called "nappy headed hoes" Rutgers women's basketball team."

looks a bit like vandalism... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.245.4 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Right, it's gone. More juvenile vandalism. Thanks for pointing to it. Tvoz |talk 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 to-do: Merge/order controversies

After the current Rutgers Basketball Team controversy dies down, all controversies should be put under a single section called "Controversies." They should be in some logical order. Date order, grouped by theme, or grouped by importance are all possibilities. "Date order" is probably the easiest. For now, people are looking for Rutgers and it deserves its own section. Davidwr 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that this one is not just another controversy - it stands out as the one that caused his show to be cancelled - so I think it may need to remain as its own section. But as you say, we should see how things look after this settles down. Tvoz |talk 22:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Then once the whole thing dies down, we can find some sort of consensus. Or whatever. Deletion Quality 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don Imus was fired from CBS.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4710937.html

74.132.138.151 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Admiralthrawn999 (Just saw it, and decided to drop it in)

I'm not going to edit or remove Thrawn's comments, but while the article uses the word fired, the only official CBS statements involve canceling his show. (if someone else wants to remove thrawn's comment feel free to remove this also) DocGratis 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Full Protect, time to consider?

There has been significant changes being made to this the primary article, and while it is a current event, does a full protect need to be placed? DocGratis 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still semi-protected. Unless there is edit warring, there is no need to fully protect. Is there edit warring? — coelacan — 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake re: full protect. I was concerned that the page was going to become more of an editing fight. DocGratis 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now can we consider a full protect? DocGratis 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Page is protected, I don't have account, somebody else please fix by removing this sentence from the 'Honors' section: "Imus is also being awarded for his comments on the so called "nappy headed hoes" Rutgers women's basketball team." (and removing this request when done). Thanks. 65.96.190.159 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• done, someone beat me to it. Davidwr 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is his history of racism?

On Jews, and calling a Jewish guest's black wife a "ho". Etc. Etc. With references: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200704110004

Canned

Looks like his show's getting canceled, according to what I saw on Nightline last night. Does anyone care to do the honor of declaring his radio show officially dead in the water? Wandering Star 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it officially canceled right now or are you just being part of the problem? This page needs to be watched for vandals. With all the crap on the TV and radio it is only time before someone starts editing because they have an opinion.Not Wandering Star 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is officially canceled on CBS now. 128.189.175.184 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll mention it here too, his show has been canceled, however he is almost certainly under contract and will be paid, so realistly he is still a radio show host (not yet former). Plus let's wait for this pass from current events to add the former.

Repeating this, but Don Imus has not been fired. Yes, every headline says fired. The CBS text says the show has been canceled. This is not the same thing as terminating his contract. DocGratis 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, he's not working as a talkshow host any more - we don't know, and it's not relevant, whether or for what he's getting paid. You can say he's currently an employee of NBC or CBS, if that's true, but his status today as a talk show host is "former". However, he is not a former comedian - he said on Sharpton this week that he is a comedian, he considers himself one. So either we leave off comedian altogether which would be ok with me, or we have leave off former there. Tvoz |talk 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz. My comment was regarding avoid the word "fired" in the description of what CBS did to Imus, in the body of the article. The being paid is not the issue, but accuracy should be a goal, and I haven't seen an official CBS "fired". I was resisting the change of talk show host to former on the grounds that the cancellation has just taken effect. Of course we can just drop the former again if he ends up back on the air. And I never wanted to take the former off of comedian. I did move writer so it was not behind former (suggesting former writer). DocGratis 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And I was speaking only about the opening line that at that time read "radio talk show host and former comedian" - and I was making the point that he was a former talk show host even though he had not been fired, and that he is still considered a comedian, by himself and others. So I think we more or less agree. (At this point, who can tell?) In any case, the way the line reads now is fine with me.Tvoz |talk 07:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the technical term for someone who was formerly employed, and is no longer employed, by a company due to improper behaviour, and whose employment was terminated as a punitive measure, is actually shitcanned. This comes from the Latin, meaning literally, "to watch your career float gracelessly down the toilet". Cf. Michael Richards. You can translate that as fired if you like, but either way, I fail to see how that is 'contributing to the problem'. And I am flattered that you started a new Wikipedia account with a monniker that refers to my own. Hey, any press is good press, right? Wandering Star 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous Dates

The article suggests Don Imus died April 13, 2007, which would be in the future at the time of this posting. This should be corrected. Either the date should be taken down or an explanation given how Don Imus died in the future. 24.60.217.164 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Brian Monroe April 12, 2007

Someone already removed it, the person who added it has been given a final warning for vandalism. — coelacan — 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

General editing

As soon as protected status is removed, article needs a few spelling and punctuation corrections throughout. 4.225.187.27 06:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Julie, 13 April 2007

There's also a spurious <ref> tag after "He was fired for saying hell on air." That should be fixed immediately if possible.--Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's been fixed. Dhartung, it's only semi-protected, so you can fix anything you see. — coelacan — 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing "racial and gender slurs"

It's a little too much to refer to Imus's comments "racial and gender slurs" when "racist and sexist" is more appropritate and to the point. Some here have argued that it's a POV violation but here's an article by CNN refering to Imus's comments as such [3], so I feel it should be changed accordingly. - Throw 07:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would vote that an attempt to remain as NPOV about this as possible should be maintained. A story from CNN (and I do not doubt there are others) using the words "racist" and "sexist" does not definitively declare it to be as such. The words are in the wiki article with quotes from individuals already. Wikipedia is not a public forum for judgement. DocGratis 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of places from where we can quote "racist" and "sexist". I posted two yesterday - haven't checked to see if they survived. This caution is overdoing it - Throw is right. And, as I said \bove and did not receive a response: "racial slur" is not less POV than "racist comment" -- in what way do you think it is? Once you identify these slurs as slurs, you are doing exactly the same thing as (correctly) calling them racist comments. Tvoz |talk 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reinstating the line in the lead because not everyone knows or will know the context of the story, and we need to give it. This is well sourced, NPOV material - there are dozens of neutral sources available. Tvoz |talk 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ecostaz's latest edit to the lead paragraph suggests that there are sources who do not regard the phrase as a racial and sexual insult. Since several editors have provided numerous neutral reliable sources that do call it racist and sexist language, and there are many more, are there sources who do not consider it to be such? Saying 'Some sources held the opinion that this was a "racial and sexual insult"[4]' ("4" is an article in the NY Times using that phrase) - instead of just calling it such as my previous edit did , suggests that some sources do not, and I've yet to see any. Tvoz |talk 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I used "some" because it won't require any additional sourcing. If you want to use "all" sources, "most" sources, you will have to prove that with an actual survey. Everything in wikipedia must be sourced if challanged, "some" was the simple solution. Ecostaz 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want to do. You are setting up the straw man, not me. I asked you a question - do you have reliable sources that say this phrase is acceptable language? If you do not, then our calling it a "racial and sexual slur" with the RS citation I posted, or calling it a "racist and sexist comment" as we had it earlier with any of numerous citations, or calling it anything similar - with citation - is the way we'll go. You don't get to reframe the discussion with an impossible request to prove your point. And by the way - since you mentioned somewhere that you noticed Bill Maher and Rosie O'D aren't here - well, they are now. Do you have a reliable, acceptable reference for ROsie? If so, please add it. If not, do you have citations for another supporter you'd like to replace her with? Tvoz |talk 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some, is an "unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group." I think current phrasing covers it correctly. And what is the definition of "reliable source" for an opinion? Certainly someone, somewhere things this phrase is acceptable language. The concept of acceptable language is open to interpretation and context. There is no verifiable factual source. (and on a side note, sorry about scrubing the reference, I didn't mean to mess up the formating) DocGratis 20:38, 13 April 2007(UTC)

(On the lost reference - no prob - I reinstated it; my caps were not really meant to be intentional yellling.)Tvoz |talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Docgratis, reply to Tvoz) I wasn't using a straw man, I was under the impression that you questioned the use of "some" so I explained the reason why I used it. I saw fights over the use of most, all, etc, so I avoided those. My intent was not suggesting anything. But it is true that a lot of people do not consider this any kind of slur racial racist or any some such, but a bad/god joke uttered on a comedy show. NYdailynews JV and Elvis show on WFNY (92.3 FM) states: What's the big deal? It's a joke. Same article Howard Stern states, "He should have said, 'Fuck you, it's a joke.'"just a joke that didn't work states Anthony, nationally syndicated radio host also on XM sat. radio. he was trying to make a joke on wdef news. Also the article by Jason Whitlock uses the term "bad joke". Ecostaz 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Those comments are speaking to his intention, not whether the language is racist or sexist. He acknowledges that the language was racist and sexist, just said that he didn't mean it. But he was fired not because of his intent, but because the language is racist and sexist, and that's all my version said. Reframing the sentence and saying "some sources held the opinion", I think is misleading. Michael Richards' article refers to what he said as "racial epithets", by the way. I've already agreed that "racial and sexual slurs" is ok, although I think it's awkward. But I don't agree that we should marginalize it with "some sources have the opinion" - my quote was not an opinion piece, it was mainstream news reporting, and I have many sources that are similarly vetted by mainstream editorial and news boards of newspapers, magazines and tv/radio operations - all calling it racist and sexist. I could give you a source where 2 professors analyze the phrase and explain why it's such - is that somehow better? That's why I am asking if there are reliable sources avoiding the use of "racist/sexist" in favor of some other terminology. The only reason I think we neeed the characterization in the lead at all is that the phrase itself is not immediately understood by all readers. While I want to assume good faith in this disagreement, I am having trouble seeing any rationale for this article going out of its way to not call the phrase what it is. Tvoz |talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rosie O'Donnel source that you requested. Rosie said the following on the View > "Listen, here's the thing. There's free speech in America. You can say anything that you want in this country. And to think that you could be penalized for it by a corporation is kind of a strange..." Ecostaz 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one, but it's Bill O'Reilly quoting O'Donnell which doesn't warm the cockles of my "reliable source" heart.. if it's a clip, though, it's probaly ok. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sources for reference of "racist" "racial slur" "sexist" etc

Here are some of the reliable sources calling this racist/sexist language or racial slur, or similar. They are all individual pieces, not multiple wire services reprints. Posted here for convenience of editors, and there are dozens more. Tvoz |talk 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• San Diego Sun
• Canadian Press
• Canada TV
• Detroit Free Press
• Uk Guardian
• USA Today

These quotes are all nice and fine. So what? Since when are the opinions of the fourth estate gospel on "racism"? While Don Imus pointed out the tatoos and hairstyles of the laides of Rutgers, he didn't say they were inferior for it. The key element in separating racist remarks from non-racist remarks is intention to separate one race as superior to another. Where was that in the Imus in the Morning show? I don't believe his calling them "hoes" or "hos" is in any way feminist sexist. He didn't say the slept around. There is no evidence to suggest he meant it any differently than "girls" or "young women" or "coeds". The over-reaction by the media was nothing short of a lynching.

The lynching of Don Imus was undertaken by the press, teamed up with a few so-called "civil rights activits." You want evidence? Just look at the text of his speech from 1996, here: http://imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm 95% of this speech is taking pot-shots at television, radio and newpaper people. They all had a motive. The man was taken down from his position of power, not because he made "racially charged remarks," he did not. His remarks were neither racist, nor sexist. If I were Don Imus, I would never have apologized. --Altoids Man 05:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, well, I do agree with one thing you said: I don't believe his calling them "hoes" or "hos" is in any way feminist. -Tvoz |talk 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Altoids Man 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean?

I grew up in a non-western country and I have no idea what "nappy headed hose" means. Clearly it is offensive, but I don't know why. Can someone please explain this (and possibly put a footnote in the article?) Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.205.18 (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

The term "nappy headed" refers to, i believe, the hair style of black people. and a "ho" is a whore. dposse 12:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia article links to both the term natural hair for nappy and whores for hos. The phrase "nappy headed" is used in songs here in the United States, it is being percieved as offensive because it is being used by Don Imus to describe the women of the Rutger's womens basketball team. DocGratis 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple google search for "nappy headed hoes" and "lyrics" turns up exactly zero results. Furthermore, the fact that the term "ho" is used in some hip-hop music has exactly zero relevance to this controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.182.252 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

A search for "nappy headed hos" does not produce hits (and I have altered my statement). "Nappy headed" however does. I posted this comment on the talk page to respond to the above request. *as a side note, I recommend NOT doing a main google search for "nappy headed hos" and "Lyrics", a music search works much better (and avoids a bunch of websites you would really rather NOT vist.) DocGratis 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/musicsearch?q=nappy+headed+&btnG=Search+Music

Guardian article

The power of advertising. Talks about how it was the advertisers who finally brought Imus down. Should be incorporated into the text. 83.233.154.50 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Whitlock comments

Ecostaz, Whitlock is a fine columnist, but you have to put his remarks into proper context. An example of proper context would be to include quotes from those who believe Imus is evil and got exactly what he deserved alongside quotes from others (like Whitlock) who believe Imus got a raw deal--most importantly, quotes from opinion columns should be clearly identified as such. This, on the other hand, is not appropriate:

The basketball team held a news conference where coach C. Vivian Stringer "rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had" and stated that the team would meet with Imus to discuss his comments. Several of the players while "most of them had never heard of Imus before last week" expressed their outrage over the remarks. Team captain Essence Carson said Imus' remarks took "a moment of pure grace" from the team.

Your subtle incorporation of his highly charged opinion (without even mentioning Whitlock or his column by name) as fact blatantly violates the WP:NPOV policy. If you've been on wikipedia as long as I suspect you have, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The only POV i can see here is "rambled" the 30 minutes is factual, the never heard of Imus part is factual. In any case that edit was based on a direct quote from a reliable published source which cannot be said about the lead for example. Ho as a gender slur, without any sourcing? That must be a joke, right? Ecostaz 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a problem with poor attribution or original research in the lead, fix the problem. Don't degrade the quality of the article further by including out-of-context, highly opinionated quotes without mentioning in the body of the text where the quotes came from.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There must indeed be multtiple neutral sources discussing this meeting - I will go look for some - that are not from opinion columns. This is indeed an attempt to subtly introduce a POV piece and I agree with The Fat Man. Come out and introduce it in a balanced way in the text, with the opposing position presented too, and it will be fine, but don't try to sneak it in, and then claimm innocently that it's non-POV. The piece is not. Tvoz |talk 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Veterans Administration and Walter Reed

The article reads as follows:

"More recently, Imus took on the Veterans Administration when the Washington Post published a story uncovering the deplorable living conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center."

I do not know if, in fact, Don Imus took on the Veterans Administration or if the author of this article is presuming that he "took on the Veterans Administration" regarding the conditions at Walter Reed.

I simply wish to point out that Walter Reed is NOT a Veterans Administration facility. It is an Army facility. If Imus took on the VA, then his fight was with the wrong agency and it should be noted so that the misconception is not perpetuated by this article. If the author presumed that Walter Reed is a VA facility than the wording should be changed entirely to exclude the reference to the VA. Bill Spruce wspruce@msn.com April 13, 2007 12:30 pm—The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Fixed, (but not by me.. too slow) Thanks for the correction. DocGratis 17:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Balance

I think the article needed a little more balance - words from his supporters in the media - so I added a line or two more to the graf I previously added that included Pat Buchanan's defense of Imus from a few days ago., adding Bill Maher and Rosie O'Donnell. I know that Rosie O'D said he shouldn't be fired because of free speech issues, but I can't find so far a reliable source to reference it - Bill O'Reilly and Town Hall are biased. If anyone can, pls add it, otherwise we may need to replace Rosie.Tvoz |talk 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fallout of the Imus case" puts the issue in context citing racial slurs by Jackson and his and Sharpton's involvement in the Duke lacrosse scandal. Doc vandalized that addition, so as long as Doc's thought police is out don't expect to see any semblence of balance in the article. W.C. 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The portion about the Duke case is more about Sharpton and Jackson than Imus, the edit I made on the comment cleaned it up and made it about Don Imus, this is a bio page about him. If this were a page about the "nappy headed ho" incident I could see, a stronger cases for it's inclusion. Additional stronger language from the MSN show clip could be used provided it was direct quote. I tired watching it but the interface made it too hard (could not back up). A transcript would be easier to work with. So again either work with the group or just attack me, whichever you prefer. DocGratis 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nappy-headed hos

There has been statements in the media that rappers have used nappy and whore (or ho) together and that is what Mr. Imus was repeating. I have not been able to find any such lyrics.[4][5] Does anyone know of such lyrics or other printed source that existed before April 4, 2007? The existence or non-existence of such lyrics might be useful for the article (perhaps in a note or trivia section to overcome WP:OR issues. -- Jreferee 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I stated above that I am not aware of any lyrics using the phrase "nappy headed hos". Both the phrase "nappy headed" and the word "nappy" return numerous hits. I think the media may be combining the "nappy headed" and hoes (or hos), which independantly exist in songs. As far as the origin of reference, the article already includes the complete quote which references "nappy", "Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes", and Spike Lee. Alluding to Spike Lee's movie "School Daze" (which includes a musical number "Straight and Nappy"). Long response. Short answer no "nappy headed hos" quote unquote, seem to predate April 4th. DocGratis 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As per Wiki standards re: not a forum board. I'm deleting that link. Several sources continue to claim that lyrics searches return multiple hits for "nappy headed hos" (or hoes). Most of these are partial hits (use of one or more word, not an exact phrase hit.) However, I have found one song that has a perfect hit "Nappy-head hoes" by Xzibit - D.N.A (Drugs-N-Alkahol) from his album Restless. Google music does not have the lyrics, and wikipedia does not have lyrics for this song. It seems correct however (multiple unverified sources). I'm still not certain of a need for a mention of this on the front page. DocGratis 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The words "nappy-headed" and "ho" in the article link, respectively, to "natural hair" and "prostitution." I think this is incorrect. "Nappy-headed" isn't a reference to "natural hair," and the word "ho," at least as used in the context of a psuedo-racial epithet, doesn't refer exclusively to prostitution. I'm de-linking these for now unless someone can make a case that they should be linked in that fashion. Don Imus was rather clearly not referring to the Rutgers basketball team as "prostitutes with natural hair." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.38.32 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

It could be linked to "afro-textured hair" "Whore", but those redirect to "natural hair" and "prostitution." What was Don Imus rather clearly referring to? Unless the term "nappy-headed ho" gets its own page, then there is no where to link those terms to, and the links are there for clarification, for non-US people who may not get what the reference is to. DocGratis 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that ho should not be linked at all. "Ho" is etymologically related to but still distinct from whore--the two words have separate denotations (and connotations). Confer nigga and nigger for a similar example. If there were a wikipedia article about hos (and oh how I wish there were), we should link to it; otherwise leave it out.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the less than ideal linkage of Ho and prostitution, and am not opposed that delinking, per say. However, the linkage for nappy headed and natural hair, more important to the understanding of the term nappy, and its connotation. (Sadly the natural hair article is less than ideal, and needs work) DocGratis 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I don't think dynamic linking is that big of deal. However, "Nappy-headed hos" is such a significant event in the topic that our internal linking without WP:RS support may be WP:OR. I think that Imus' use "Nappy-headed hos" in the article needs a footnote which includes WP:RS agreement on what Imus generally meant by the comment. Since Imus himself clarified in his discussion that he meant it as "A Spike Lee thing" the " The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes" which was "a tough watch" according to Imus. We need a WP:RS that goes into what Nappy-headed hos are in the context of Spike Lee's move. Now, all we need is a WP:RS that is representative of what others understood Imus meant by Nappy-headed hos" in the context of the tough-watched Spike Lee movie, The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes. Imus' use of nappy-headed hos did not come from rap lyrics and the article should not reflect that it did. I agree with user 65.188.38.32 in that we may want to delink the words "nappy-headed" and "ho" in the article and use WP:RS footnotes to explain those terms in the context that Imus used them. However, given the clamor for clarity of the terms "nappy-headed" and "ho", we may want to keep them dynamically linked until we find acceptable footnotes that do a good job in explaining what Imus probably meant by nappy-headed hos. -- Jreferee 01:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your points are backward. The internal linking is definition. WP:RS on what Imus ment, and "nappy-headed hos" means in the context of School_Dazes would be opinion (unless the phrase "nappy-headed hos" occurs in School Daze.) The references are an allusion to the movie. (Spike Lee, "Jigaboos vs Wannabes", and Nappy) However, I know of no sources stating that this was his intent. Additionally, the "tough watch" comment does not seem to refer to the movie and as such I do not see the point of expanding the quote to include first 2 line and the last 4. (the word watch first comes up describing the game, and it is Mr Rosenberg who says "It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers; they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors." Which is not about an allusion to School Daze. The reference includes the full text. (oops not singed in) DocGratis 03:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Internal linking of "ho" to "prostitution" is the WP:OR opinion of a Wikipedia Don Imus article editor as to what "ho" means in the context of the Don Imus article. A third-party's opinion from a WP:RS on what Imus meant by "nappy-headed hos" means in the context of School_Dazes may be opinion, but it would not counts "original research" within the meaning of the WP:OR policy since it would be material from WP:RS. Such off-Wikipedia cited, WP:RS opinion is not excluded from the article because of the WP:OR policy. -- Jreferee 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll repost what I posted earlier today in the section below "the n word" - answering pretty much the same point:

That is also one of the reasons we provide off-Wikipedia citations - the Imus article's footnotes attached to the phrase "nappy-headed hos" - currently footnotes 8 and 9 - go into longer and clear explanations of what was racist and sexist about the comment.Tvoz |talk 23:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"a moment of pure grace"

The following sentence:

"Team captain Essence Carson said Imus' remarks took "a moment of pure grace" from the team" 

should be edited to reflect her actual words

"Team captain Essence Carson said Imus' remarks had "stolen a moment of pure grace from us"

Be bold and do it yourself. dposse 17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the new user can't "be bold", because the article is semi-protected. I tire of the way people are snapped at whenever they ask for help around here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'm personally sick of people assuming my intent when i type something on wikipedia. I honestly didn't know this page was protected. And since this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", i thought a user being bold is a good thing. dposse 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, Dposse, but you didn't even check to see that I had changed that wording last night in response to this note. Tvoz |talk 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but cut Dposse some slack. Wikipedia encourages people to be involved... He was sort of trying to do that. DocGratis 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dposee. I *did* try to be bold until I found out the article was semi-protected. Thanks Fat Man for explaining what happened. Thanks Tvoz, I like the new wording. Thanks Doc for being the peacemaker.Rodrigotorres 00:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

the n word

There is a offensive slur starts with n is that nappy? I read the article about nappy but only find "happy to be nappy" "dont worry, be nappy" so it doesnt say if it is an offensive slur or is it the n word. Is the word nappy very offensive or not? Will they get offend if I use it? Also dont understand which part is gender slur? sorry for my english. -QS

Try looking at Natural hair for more information. Using "nappy" in a negative sense is considered offensive by most African-Americans. The gender slur was "ho," which is slang for Whore. janejellyroll 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article referred to is Natural hair, and it is in need of some work. Nappy refers to a type of hair that some Africans have, and is not in of it self a slur. However, context and interpretation can make it one. It has a negative history in regards to precieved issues with westernized standards of beauty and hair. The article vaguely refers to this issue. DocGratis 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is also one of the reasons we provide off-Wikipedia citations - the Imus article's footnotes attached to the phrase "nappy-headed hos" - currently footnotes 8 and 9 - go into longer and clear explanations of what was racist and sexist about the comment.Tvoz |talk 23:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of racism, misogyny, and homophobia

Imus and his crew, Charles McCord and Bernard McGuirk, have been repeatedly accused of racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti-semitism. For example, Imus and his cohorts referred to African American sports columnist Bill Rhoden as a "New York Times quota hire"[33] and PBS anchor Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady."[34][35]

In what way is this an example of racism, misogyny, and homophobia? Well, I can make a wild guess on the "cleaning lady" remark, but shouldn't the example actually show how he's been accused, and by whom? --70.142.42.81 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That lead sentence to the section (not just the first graf) has been clarified. Tvoz |talk 03:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Private citizen comment POV

Regarding this addition "Imus' remarks generated a firestorm of calls for his firing. While he had frequently made cranky and often insulting remarks against public figures (see below), his comments on the basketball team were seen as an unwarranted "cheap shot" against private citizens. Indeed, Ann Coulter said a few days after the remarks that "it's always unkind to attack a private figure." [16]" I have a couple of exceptions to take with it. Firestorm seems excessively POV and inflammatory. The use of the word cranky, (which I edited down suggesting just "made insulting remarks", but was added back in. Imus can be cranky but "cranky remarks" doesn't strike me as correct english, so I again recommend just removing it, if a second term is needed, I suggest surly. The Ann Coulter comment, is not really a citation regarding the "cheap shot" nature of commenting on private citizens. (and her comment is POV and does not really add anything). Lastly, the whole section is riddled with POV slantings, The use of quotation marks inside it (which are not from the citation) strenghtens this sense.

The following would be acceptable (with citations) Imus' remarks generated numerous calls for his firing. While he frequently made (surly and) insulting remarks regarding public figures (see below), his comments on the basket ball team were seen as attack against private citizens . I'm removing the exist section, please revise or discuss here. DocGratis 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, in all the times I;ve looked at this page, I never noticed that sentence. Other than noting the irony of Ann Coulter criticizing anyone for insults, I think the citation that had been used doesn't satisfy RS - a Fox transcript of the show would, however, if that exists. But I tend to agree with Doc that Coulter's comment is not the best for the thought the graf is expressing. I'll see if I can find a better source, and I do think Doc's wording is more appropriate. But I would change the last phrase: his comments were not "seen" as attacks against private citizens, they were against private citizens. But let's see what citations surface and how best to phrase this, based on what we can source.Tvoz |talk 06:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic snipes versus Serena Williams and Venus Williams

References to National Geographic snipes versus Serena Williams and Venus Williams:

http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/serena-williams http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_4_100/ai_76513096 Dogru144 11:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The first link is not a useful source. The second id fine but clearly states that it is Rosenberg who says the comment, and I don't think we need more under allegations (especially when the allegation is not about Imus). This is the Don Imus biography page. DocGratis 11:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

More links:

http://www.annoy.com/editorials/doc.html?DocumentID=100700 http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/10/etan-thomas-has-words-for-don-imus/ Dogru144 11:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No and No. The first is an editorial. The second AGAIN refers to Rosenberg making the comment. Do not persist in placing this in the Imus Article (This discussion is fine, I am referring to the insertion into the Imus article, which I am removing) DocGratis 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Imus Image

Netscott, I understand the issues about copyright, can we not leave the image, with the tag under it that it needs a better "free" image. It seems strange that we can't have an image. I know SOMEONE must have a Imus image they could grant us rights to, but it seems odd that we do not have a picture for this article given the cover it has in the news... DocGratis 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, I understand you point that the image is "more" fair use if down there, but the reason someone brought it back is it would be better to have an image in the lead. We don't really need a picture of a guy doing a radio show on TV. Which means that there is not need for it there. So I would say if you insist it has to be there or gone, it should be gone. DocGratis 10:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a long history regarding well known folks and Wikipedia using "fair use" images... there was much contention on the Mel Gibson article surrounding this. Wikipedia has really clamped down on the usage of fair use imagery and is even more intense about it on higher profile articles. That is why this image to the right has been developed. (→Netscott) 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whore vs. Ho

It is more sensationalistic of course to assume Imus definitely meant the former in letting slip the latter. He probably doesn't know how he came to use the offending word himself or why or how he could have prevented it. My guess is that in the filing system in his head--the one all of us have that we use to access language in fractions of a second--he (McGuirk as well) was simply trying to access a synonym for "women" or "girls" that was in the register they associated with basketball, i.e., a youth-oriented African American register. What they unfortuantely produced was probably the most obvious selection in that context. A lot of the critics may beleive that spontaneous conversation can be consciously controlled and edited applying judgements on appropriateness in advanced. The more likely reality is that it is for the most part automated and programmed in the brain largely influenced according to the language input we receive. In this case, a good deal of contemporary African American music and film. Probably the only way for Imus not to have eventually made such a gaffe would be to stop listening to rap music or watching certain kinds of shows and films that use similar language, and to forego the kind of psuedo-rap-like banter that many among his audience up to now found amusing. Students of language will also note that words that might begin with similar meanings will often gradually depart from those meaning and take on other qutie different meanings. Or change from their original meanings when used in a different context as for example when one uses "hoop" to mean the sport of basketball, rather than its more common meaning. For now, however, it appears that to the degree that ideas about language input and output matter, what contemporary African American youth culture has produced in rap lyrics and film dialogue has come back to haunt its elders, albiet with Imus as a kind of unwitting (sacrifical) messenger. W.C. 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice theory, it is WP:OR, so no. DocGratis 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, Doc. I can see you've been hard at work NPOV zapping away at anything that doesn't fall in line with your pariticular bias from the article. So much for "balance". W.C. 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice Ad Hominum. You might want to read the comments Tvoz, has been accusing me of POV in the opposing direction. Your theroy is just that, if you had a source that could be sited suggesting this that would be a source. Previously, we have had a discussion regarding removing the linkage to Whore - Ho, but this suggestion that it should remain for non US people who may not understand the phrase. If there were a ho page we could link to it. So help, or just call me names, which ever you prefer. DocGratis 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty damned disingenuous to pretend that there is a difference - "ho" is just a ghetto (or fake ghetto, in Imus' case) way of spelling and pronouncing "whore." It's like spelling you-know-what with an -ah at the end instead of an -er. --Orange Mike 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Language is mailable and slang is more so. So some people could argue that there is a difference between ho and whore. Or does 'cool' always refer to temperature? 'Limeys' refer to people who eat limes? Oh and BTW, there are people who say there is a difference between nigger and nigga. Which would be easier for you to talk about if you could type those words. DocGratis 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the end, there are two view areas for ho - published, significant views of what Imus meant by Ho and published, significant views of what others generally understood Imus meant by Ho (e.g., 1. communications sent and 2. communications received) Each of these two view areas need to include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources in a fair context without bias. Since the event still is on going, we probably won't be able to fairly characterize these two view areas until things have settled down - perhaps six months to a year from now. This Imus incident should be treated in the Imus article similarly to the way the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was treated in the Janet Jackson article. However, adifference is that the Imus incident lead to a significant change in Imus' career where as the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction did not. Thus, the Imus incident probably should be mentioned in the lead of the Imus article where as the the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction should not be mentioned in the Jackson article lead. -- Jreferee 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is up with the misspeling of HOE?

Throughout the article there are several misspellings of the word hoe into ho (i only noticed and changed two of these)and probably many other words, be careful when you spell damn it, also someone should do a spell check on the entire article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FranzSS (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually the American Heritage dictionary lists the term as Ho, and plural Hos. It is slang and I am sure there are sources that use alternate spellings, but the one that you changed is in a quote, and they spelled it Hos. (will revert to Hos) DocGratis 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter how a Wikipedia editor thinks Ho should be spelled. If the WP:RS use Ho, then Wikipedia uses Ho. Also, I don't think Imus was refering to the women as 'tools with a flat blade attached at right angles to a long handle.' Using Hoe in the article would cause confusion with the hand tool. See [6] -- Jreferee 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Separation of Fact and Debate?

There should be a separate article for the recent Rutkers controversy and not place it as an individual segment followed by other controversies, that makes no sense, especially since this is an individual event and not part of his biography or an article about him, which then should ideally link to said article. Also the segment "Remarks lead to cancellation of show" is unspecific to which show, and also includes the debate over it, from only one side, there is no mention that on the other hand some consider this whole dilemma as senseless since his remarks were directed at a single team, not a race nor a gender. or the opinion that he is not racist since as quoted he thought the other team looked cute, meaning he was simply refering to the looks of the rutkers team since apparently "they got tattoos and -- " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FranzSS (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, a racial slur can be directed at one person (or the Rutger's basketball team) it does not alter its nature as a racial slur. Any reliable sources can be quoted. The current format is a function of the current nature of the events (hence the current event tag), it will be compacted and cleaned as the event becomes less current. There has been some suggestion that the incident could warrant its own page, but that would depend on if the even grows in importance. DocGratis 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?, im not discussing whether or not it's a slur, I said the other side of the debate is ignored, whether it's right or not does not matter, neither does your opinion nor mine, the other side of the debate is what is discussed as rebutal to the event, and it is not put up.

Changed "homophobia"

"homophobia" is first of all a slang term which is incorrect since it refers to hate of homosexuality, where it should refer to a PHOBIA of homosexuality, that is a retarded term which makes absolutely no sense, especially in this context. therefore the change to "hate of homosexuals", which might sound strange but is more accurate. If there is an actual term for hate of gays/lesbians then i failed to find it and if found should replace my change.

While the suffix phobia usually refers to fear. Homophobia also includes prejudice against, fear, or dislike of homosexual people and homosexuality. So homophobia is the actual term. DocGratis 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."[7] Homophobia is the correct word. dposse 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhhm, didn't know that, it's still a stupid term though...

Prior use of the phrase

I saw the removal of this phrase, and looking back it was a little excessive and distracting "Imus was not the first radio personality to utter such words on the air—for example, Star of Clear Channel's radio show Star & Buc Wild referred to a caller as a "nappy-headed nigger whore" in 2001 but Imus's 2007 conduct sparked a national outrage."

However, complete removal is a bit to whitewash for my impression of NPOV and it does relate to the incident. I shortened it to "Imus was not the first radio personality to utter such a phrase on the air, Troi Torain(aka Star) used similar language in 2001. [12] However, Imus's conduct gained national attention. " I didn't notice the "sparked national outrage" until just now, but it had been there for a long time. I think the dismissive nature of the first part made the reactionary nature of "national outrage" seem NPOV. Additionally, for timeline the 'national outrage' did not occur till after it was reported at 6:00 PM. Comments, suggestions? DocGratis 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who initially posted the Star & Buc Wild quote. "nappy-headed nigger whore" was distracting and I liked the way you tempered it to the essence of why it is in the article. The 'sparked national outrage' comment was already there when I posted the Star & Buc Wild quote and generally I am not one to delete other's material. The national outrage did occur, but as to when it occurred, I don't know. It probably was the next day during or after the evening news or after Imus appeared on Sharpton's talk show. Put it where ever you think best.-- Jreferee 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

HomoPHOBIA?

Can we please delete the non-academic and propagandistic term "homophobic" and replace it with "anti-homosexual?" It is unclear whether or not Mr. Imus is afraid of gay people. The Greek root "phobia" insenuates fear, and this type of labeling has no place in an encyclopedia. --Creton4 3:26 p.m. CST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.172.47.106 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Sure right after we stop using Xenophobic, Photophobic, Hydrophobic. Phobia def 2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion. Common usage of the word is not just "fear of". This battle over the word Homophobic, is NOT going to be fought in the Imus chapter. Go have a fight in homophobia DocGratis 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling his comments "Racist" and "Sexist" is bias and POV.

The articles claims that what Imus said was "racist" or "sexist" and that he said them in a "racially charged discussion" is simply bunk. Not only does it violate NPOV to make assertions that what he said was "racist" simply because many media figures have used that term, it's also unsupported by the facts and the context. There are only two possibilities of it being racist. One is that Imus himself is a racist and meant it to be racist and two is the phrase itself is racist. I don't see how "nappy headed" is 'racist'. By definition "nappy" means "kinky" hair. While it's true that most African Americans do have "kinky" hair, I don't see how this could be racist. Definition of "Nappy" [[8]]. The fact that Caucasians can have kinky hair and that Imus himself has kinky hair seems to show that what he said wasn't racist. Article mentioning Imus' nappy hair[[9]]. Since the phrase itself isn't inherently racist, How about Imus himself being racist? This is also unsupported by the facts. Imus has made racially offensive remarks on his show in the past. He’s a shock jock, That's what he does. He's made offensive remarks to all sort of people. Most of the people he does it to though are his friends. He does it jokingly not angrily. Imus is definitely not a racist. It may be true that most media sources use the term "racist" to describe his phrase but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use it, especially on a living biography. Wikipedia can say "purportedly" or "allegedly" racist and then cite the sources that make that claim (thus not weasle words if claim is cited) but it can't claim outright that what he said was "racist" or "sexist". As far as "Sexist" goes, Imus was using a word that has basically lost all meaning in popular culture. Generally used to describe someone who has sexual relations for money, It's now just a meaningless insult not meant to convey any meaning other than to be offensive. I would suggest we change any mentions of what he said as being "racist & sexist" to "allegedly racist & sexist" or "Purportedly racist & sexist" and then cite the people doing the allegeding and purporting which is acceptable WTA [[10]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's only quotes of other people calling them that. Have you thoroughly read the article? (→Netscott) 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The introduction says "following public objections to a racial and gender slur he made on-air, for which he later apologized." And "during a racially-charged discussion about the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship". Both of these sentences have bias by claiming that what he said was necessarily racist simply because the source states that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It says "racial and gender slur". The words "racist" and "sexist" appear in quotes of others. You might try looking at the Michael Richards article or Tim Hardaway, you'll find similar language corresponding to what they said. (→Netscott) 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. However my contention is that "Nappy headed ho" is neither necessarily a racial or gender slur. See my top post for an explanation of why it isn't. We can't claim what he said was a "racial" or "gender" slur just because the media uses that terminology. That would be POV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we change the lead from "following public objections to a racial and gender slur he made on-air, for which he later apologized." to "following public objections to a slur he made on-air directed at the Rutgers University women's basketball team, for which he later apologized." This is less bias and doesn't make the assertion that what he said was necessarily racist or sexist. I would also change "during a racially-charged discussion about the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship" to simply "during a discussion about the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship" removing the "racially charged" part because that's nothing but "emotionally charged" terminology and is POV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and agree. I think taking "racial and gender" out of the slur (and adding in against the Basketball team, makes it sound like he said 'their shooting average was like drunken hobos.' There has been a previous discussion regarding this and racial and gender slur was as NPOV as we could get it. (previous suggestions and iterations were using sited opinions in quote and issues with some vs many vs numerous) On the second point, I don't have any problem with the removal of "racially charged" I am not certain what it adds. I don't see it as violating NPOV, (and if it does it strikes me as some attempt at appologic cover in pro-Imus stance.) Like it is extenuating circumstances. So I vote No to lead alter and Yes to the "racially charged" Any futher opinions on the racially charged, otherwise I can take that out. DocGratis 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiddudeman, we need to change. First take "public" out of it. It was criticism by a minority of private citizens and personal attacks by the fourth estate that caused CBS to fire him. Say

CBS halted his show following a media storm of controversy over the following comment he made regarding the Rutgers womens basketball team: "nappy headed ho's".

words to that effect. Don't call it a racial slur racially charged, sexist or anything else, without attributing. Somebody get the CBS statement and quote that. --Altoids Man 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MORE -- Here is the OFFICIAL CBS STATEMENT on IMUS, from their OFFICIAL STATEMENT, SOURCED and everything:

Imus in the Morning was carried on 61 stations across the United States and distributed over the Westwood One radio network. The cancellation of the program comes after statements Mr. Imus made about the young women who comprised the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, which reached the finals of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship this spring.

This is the substance of what should be in the first paragraph. Here is the source: http://www.cbsradio.com/press_center/releases/pressrelease175839-04-12-2007.html

CBS does not mention racism, sexism, slur, and it should be removed. Those are opinions, quote someone if you want to talk about that. --Altoids Man 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Jreferee ) CBS is NOT a neutral source on this. They are involved in the story, Imus was on their show. That is not neutral language that is non event language. Steve Capus, NBC news president said the comments were "racist comments" in his discourse on MSNBC's decision to pull his show. That would be like using an Exxon press release as Neutral POV for the Exxon Valdez incident. DocGratis 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the Imus article needs to represent fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Calling his comments "Racist" and "Sexist" clearly is a significant view published by reliable sources. Another significant view published by reliable sources is that of Imus' view - that it was a statement made in the context of trying to be funny. Since more reliable sources focused on the "Racist" and "Sexist" aspect of the comment, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires the article to give more space to the "Racist" and "Sexist" aspect than other published, significant views. In other words, if the media is biased, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that the article reflect that bias. If the media is biased and the editors of the article correct that bias by "balancing" the article, then the article violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Jreferee 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee, You've cited "NPOV" numerous times yet none of them say that you should favor some sources over others. Just because sources claim that what he said was "racist and sexist" doesn't make it so and definitely doesn't mean we need to cite them as such. The fact that sources assert that what he said was racist and sexist ONLY means that we need to change it to "allegedly" racist or "purportedly" racist and then cite who is doing the purporting so that it isn't a weasel word. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes so that they reflected what those who just posted disagreed about from my initial post. Tell me what you think. I also formated the citation in the intro.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who might find a problem with the word "alleged" in the lead, It's not a weasel word if "the identity of the alleger is clear." per [[11]].

I used the citation provided to identify the alleger as the Associated press.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

lead

Can someone expand the lead section? Also archive this page. 129.120.86.70 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For someone reason the intro is "being kept brief per consensus" whatever that means. Can anyone explain?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why do the lead and infobox now only mention radio, and omit television? It should be changed to say, "...radio and television...". I'd go ahead and make the edit, but in light of this quasi-protection admonition (above), I'll ask here first JGHowes ^talk - 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)