Talk:Jeff Zucker/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I removed the politics section. Not only is it apparently a DIFFERENT Jeff Zucker who worked on the video, but the whole piece was slanted. I don't know anything about Zucker's politics, as there's no listed campaign contributions that I see to anything but the GE PAC, but if there's valid criticism, someone objective should write it up because nonsense is only going to turn people off. --71.90.140.79 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The paragraph entitled, "President of NBC Entertainment" was copied word for word from an article in Business Week. I've copied the URL to the article below. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_39/b3901095.htm 71.99.162.185 (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Zucker, "who is Jewish,....."

Why does it matter that hes Jewish?

Good point....Would you describe someone as Methodist-American??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.74.200 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He is notable for it for the same reason that it is mentioned in the news articles that mention it. Which is the wiki def of notability.

What a blatant propaganda piece this is. Where are the controversies or any mention of the near unanimous dislike of Zucker from within NBC and the media world, or for any mention of the fact that Jack Welch said he woul dhave fired him rather than promote him if he was still CEO and Chairman of GE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.193.233 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant/uncontextedededed fact(s)

In the "researcher" section under "Career", it seems strange that the fact that he was not admitted to HBS would be included with no other context. Plato, too, was not admitted to Harvard Business School. Typically, business school candidates will apply to multiple schools. I don't see how not being admitted to Harvard is relevant to this biography without additional context. - Gwopy 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Peacock terms/neutrality

I promise I'm not just making a really great pun.

What's this about?

In 2000, he was named NBC Entertainment's president.[5] During that time he oversaw NBC's entire entertainment schedule. He kept the network ahead of the pack by airing the gross out show Fear Factor, negotiating for the cast of the hit series Friends to take the series up to a tenth season, and signing Donald Trump for the reality show The Apprentice. The Zucker era produced a spike in operating earnings for NBC, from $532 million the year he took over to $870 million in 2003.[citation needed]

Under Zucker's leadership, NBC was the top-rated network among the key adults 18-49 demographic for four consecutive seasons, during three of which NBC led key demographics in every major daypart, a feat no other network has ever achieved.[citation needed] Zucker also put his mark on the network with Las Vegas, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, and Scrubs. He originated the idea of airing "Supersized" (longer than the standard 30 minute slot) episodes of NBC's comedies and aggressively programming in the summer months as cable networks began to draw away viewers with original programming from the network's rerun-filled summer slate. Also on Zucker's watch, Bravo changed its programming direction towards reality television, seeing much growth with that strategy, while the newly acquired Spanish network Telemundo was positioned to be more competitive with leading network Univision.

No citations, and it sounds like personal puffery. Can anybody fix it, or at least source it? Zucker is getting a lot of attention right now because of the NBC late night debacle, and people are surely turning to Wikipedia to find out more about the guy.

Disclosure: I'm with Coco. Purifiedwater (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't his controversies and failures mentioned? NBC was number one when he became President and are now number 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.55.30 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004-09-26/jeff-zucker-life-without-friends. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

Jeff Zucker Explains Why CNN Isn't Airing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons: “‘Journalistically, every bone says we want to use and should use’ the cartoons, Zucker said. But ‘as managers, protecting and taking care of the safety of our employees around the world is more important right now.’” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/08/confirmed-fear-of-terrorism-is-driving-cnns-editorial-decisions/ 2001:A60:1507:1C01:3DB5:118:6673:D881 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeff Zucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding alleged divorce

Hello -- I just recently reverted a pending change stating that Zucker divorced in 2018. I did some looking around, and all of the results I found for this were from (what appear to be) tabloids, among them the Daily Mail (see WP:DAILYMAIL). There was an existing line in the article alleging this divorce, but it cited Page Six, which is New York Post's gossip section and is almost certainly not usable as a primary source like it was here. Therefore, I have also removed this line and citation from the article. This is a BLP, and so we must exercise plenty of caution in cases like these. –Erakura^(talk) 05:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Captainllama doesn’t dictate what’s true and false

I posted a link to a valid and current major story about Jeff Zuckers negative comments stated about conservatives. Just because Captainllama doesn’t like the story doesn’t mean that they dictate that the god damned page be locked down. If this is what Wikipedia is about, I’ll be encouraging people to walk away with both feet and be asking for my donations back and encouraging others to get their donations back. Wikipedia needs to reopen this page for public editing and shut down Captainllama. This is a god damned outrage. Armband84 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You flatter me Armband84, I don't have anything like the power you imagine. I didn't protect the page, that's beyond me. An admin protected the page because it was being vandalised with the repeated addition of the Project Veritas story. Wikipedia would be very different if it only contained things I like. Wikipedia records what reliable sources say, and is careful to establish which sources are reliable and which are not. It has nothing to do with whether an individual "likes" a piece of content or not, the question is whether the source for the content is reliable. I'm sure you would not wish Wikipedia to repeat any old nonsense invented by a bunch of nutjobs with an agenda? If allowed, it would be rapidly replaced by a different bunch of nutjobs with a different agenda. Project Veritas is not known for its honest unbiased reporting, rather it is known for deception and fabrication. It is not a reliable source for information beyond itself. I encourage you to dig a little deeper to properly understand "what Wikipedia is about" and to appreciate that it doesn't care what you are I do or don't "like", it cares what reliable sources say, that's all. Captainllama (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is wikipedia. They are mostly leftists who like to try to control what people see and think. Their "reliable sources" argument is 1984 double speak. Airpeka (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Captainllama, that was not vandalism. That was publishing a topical and factual story with many recordings of Zucker now on YouTube. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s vandalism. In fact, your repeated removal of these factual posts is vandalism, self styled censorship, and represents everything that Wikipedia should not be. It is a reliable source because THERE ARE RECORDED VIDEOS DOCUMENTING THE PHONE CALLS AVAILABLE ONLINE. So you are clearly vandalizing and perverting the Wikipedia page. I demand that the administrator who blocked my edits allow it to be reposted. If not, then Wikipedia is just another dead source of information that people will tune out. As they have most of the radicalized media out there. I demand that this be unlocked and that my post be allowed. Otherwise, I’ll be making noise about this elsewhere. Armband84 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Veritas story absence indicates bias

The above issue brings up a good point. The veritas leaked audio is a clearly relevant piece of information and its absence reflects poorly on Wikipedia editing standards. It certainly makes it appear as if Wikipedia is protecting zucker from proof of his political bias with bias of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hassan Hassan smith

Call me for big story 3473579207 69.123.45.205 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hassan Smith

347-3579207... Big story.. go to fb 69.123.45.205 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim removing edits based on subjective and arbitrary reasons

Added a link to a video showing Jeff Zucker, a news executive, biasing the news. Was removed by political activists claiming an unreliable source. However, the reliability of the source is subjective. There are links with audio and video that stand on their own. This should not be removed. It is compromising Wikipedia as an objective source of information. Political activists should not be allowed to remove edits on the basis of subjective and arbitrary reasons when there is direct audio and video evidence posted and referenced which supports a post. Armband84 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:VERITAS. That is not a reliable primary source. Perhaps there's a reliable source that is reporting on this incident, and then perhaps that could be considered including. But until then, stop adding this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Captainllama violating Wikipedia editing standards.

Captainllama, previously removed an edit discussing an exposure of video and audio by Project Veritas saying Project Veritas is not a reliable source. The video and audio links stood on their own, regardless of the source. Capital llama is polluting Wikipedia with subjective and partisan edits. CNN, and Jeff Zucker, are proven unreliable sources. Wikipedia should not be a forum for partisan edits. Armband84 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that Project Veritas is not considered a reliable source. See WP:VERITAS. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit was removed by political activists claiming an unreliable source. However, the reliability of the source is subjective. There are links with audio and video that stand on their own. This should not be removed. It is compromising Wikipedia as an objective source of information. Political activists should not be allowed to remove edits on the basis of subjective and arbitrary reasons when there is direct audio and video evidence posted and referenced which supports a post. Armband84 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of being "political activists". The decision at WP:VERITAS isn't arbitrary, but was the result of consensus. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)