Jump to content

Talk:Tom Brokaw

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Brokaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Brokaw/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There are a lot of small paragraphs of between 1-3 sentences. Also needs references and inline citations per WP:Cite. Quadzilla99 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Already fixed, can be ignored. LK (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion ?

[edit]

Anything known of Brokaw's religion ?

````

Flat Feet

[edit]

With an author who defined the WW II generation as "great," it becomes important to include his own acknowledgment that he avoided the draft with flat feet. Those who honor the WW II generation (which deserves honor) forget that Truman did not desegregate the military until 1948 and WW II was filled with violence that liberals today would abhor such as the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Context and perspective would vastly improve this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom Brokaw. 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) 10:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sex abuse

[edit]

Shouldn't we not have the sexual allegations in the article yet? It smears the man and BLP is to prevent smearing people. If it becomes more prominent in the news, like Bill Cosby, then, by all means, mention it and have a prominent section on it in Wikipedia. Southwest Boat (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t feel we should remove the section. I feel we should tell both sides of the story; I have expanded the section to include Tom’s longer denial which got leaked to The Hollywood Reporter. I do not think Tom knowingly made a pass at Linda Vesper but I also believe that Linda honestly felt Tom was making an inappropriate advance. Samboy (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That said, now that the news cycle has moved on to something else, I have condensed this section down to a short paragraph. I believe the women (in Vesper’s case, she did tell friends about the incident at the time, and she did write about it in her diary), but, here during the Me Too movement, when an accusation like this becomes public, we usually get a dozen or so other women who come forward, but we only had a total of three accusations, one of which was from the late 1960s (the most recent accusations were from the early 1990s). Considering what happened with Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, these accusations are at most just a minor footnote in Brokaw's long and esteemed career. Samboy (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has changed the wording of the allegations against Brokaw. I wrote it like this:

During the Me Too movement, Brokaw was accused of, 22 to 50 years before the allegations were made public, trying to kiss three different women.

Another editor changed that to read as follows:

In 2018, Brokaw was accused of inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances toward multiple women, primarily in the 1990s.

The references did not change.

I will further revise it:

In 2018, Brokaw was accused of, 22 to 50 years before, inappropriate advances toward three women.

The reasons for this wording:

  • Reference #1 called it "acted inappropriately"; Reference #2 called it "unwanted sexual advances". I will meet in the middle and call it "inappropriate advances"
  • "22 to 50 years before" instead of "primarily in the 1990s". One of the accusations supposedly happened in 1994 and 1995; another allegedly happened in "the 1990s"; the third one is said to have happened in 1968. "Primarily" implies there were more than two 1990s accusations. As per WP:CALC, I will make that 22 to 50 years before the accusations came to light here in 2018.
  • "three" instead of "multiple". "Three" is allowed in WP:CALC; "multiple" implies there are more accusations than the three that surfaced and hence breaks WP:NPOV.

Samboy (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it fairly close to what it was before. I felt that version and the one you propose both soft-pedal the allegations and are awkwardly phrased, particularly "22 to 50 years before." It makes it sound like "Well, it was a long time ago, so why are they bringing it up now?" It also assumes that "the 1990s" is 1996. Better would be:
In 2018, Brokaw was accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward three women, two in the 1990s, and one in 1968.
I don't think that one source saying "acted inappropriately" means that we have to make the other more vague to "meet in the middle." If one source said "it happened in the 20th century" and another "it happened in 1968," we wouldn't say, "It happened in the 1960s," would we? Calbaer (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Let’s try to make that shorter:
In 2018, Brokaw was accused of unwanted sexual advances toward three women, from 1968 to the 1990s.

Samboy (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what I said before: The fact that the events happened from 20 to 50 years ago is quite significant. There are multiple reasons why we have a Statute of limitations, one of them being that an event from 20 or 50 years ago is less relevant today than an event that happened yesterday. Anyway, the reliable sources discussing this matter mention the time frame of when the alleged events happened, so we should mention them too. And, yes, the fact these events happened in 1968 and around 1994 instead of 2018 is quite relevant, because in an era where Tinder and Match.com did not yet exist, men and women interacted differently. Samboy (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

children in sidebox

[edit]

It says in the sidebox "Children: 5." Later in the "Personal Life," it says he has 3 daughters. Are there 2 secret children or is it an honest mistake? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on assimilation

[edit]

Brokaw suggested that Hispanics make a greater effort to assimilate, with focus on learning English, and afterwards he recieved wide criticism.

LA Times: During a panel discussion on the NBC news program, Brokaw commented that “Hispanics should be working harder at assimilation… You know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities, but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel comfortable in the communities,” he said, and added that it’s a view he's been sharing “for a long time.” https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-tom-brokaw-apology-20190128-story.html

Coincidentally, recently a chief minister in Mexico outlined a plan to get Mexico's fluency in English to 100 percent, its current fluency is less than fifty, and they don't yet make English mandatory until the seventh grade.-Inowen (nlfte) 00:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this should be included, and if so, how much elaboration it should get, depends on WP:PROPORTION (WP:NPOV) and WP:BLPSTYLE. Will it be worth including in an encyclopedia five years down the road, or is it just churnalism of the day (see also WP:RECENTISM)? How does it fit in with the scope of Brokaw's career? Do we need to give every pundit's opinion just because they blogged or tweeted? (note many of the above are opinion pieces). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a running diary of everything that happens. I say let's wait and see: if it ends his career, it should definitely get mention. If it fizzles out after a few news cycles, becoming a mere embarrassing footnote in a 50-year career, and something we wouldn't expect to find in a full length professional Encyclopedia Britannica article, it probably deserves no more than a sentence or two, and may not merit mention at all. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to this guideline which says that only career-ending blunders are documented? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inowen: Of course not, and I never said only career-ending blunders are documented. Can you point to a guideline that says everything that's ever happened to a subject must be included? Other guidelines include WP:VNOTSUFF, which means that mere verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. With breaking news it can be difficult to tell whether something passes the '10-year test'. My only goal is to help craft an article that is as good now is it would be in 10 years, assuming nothing else noteworthy happens in that time. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It will be impossible to do as you say for Wikipedia to write an article now that will make it so no one can edit it for the next ten years. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brokaw"s remarks on 9/11

[edit]

Although you quote Brokaw saying something similar at the initial tower collapse, he had already remarked, after the second plane hit the World Trade Center, "Clearly, we are at war." 97.83.108.157 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brokaw story completely left out

[edit]

During the early June 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations Brokaw, bicycling next to a cameraman or woman on another bicycle (or in the backseat of a car), reported on events unfolding around him. 97.83.108.157 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olbermann's story

[edit]

Olbermann's relationship with Brokaw in the news room is quite a story. From what I understand, there are secondary sources supporting elements of it which would allow some of it to be added. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Brokaw&oldid=1252602072"