Talk:Charlie Gasparino

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


Article title[edit]

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Charles Gasparino"?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If he is most commonly known as "Charlie Gasparino", that should be the name of this article. See Jimmy Carter, for example. See WP:UCN for why. --Serge (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His byline at the Journal was Charles, and so is his CNBC bio. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838145 I remember that as his byline too. I think Google bears me out on this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that he is referred to as "Charlie" in the description of broadcasts below. He is definitely referred to as Charlie on the air. Still, isn't it proper procedure to refer to a person by his given rather than nickname in this kind of situation?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK (to continue the dialog with myself) Charlie outnumbers Charles Gasparino in Google by a significant margin. So if Google is the determinant, this article is correct in going with Charlie.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was cut off: I removed several sentences someone added to the lead describing the attributes of Charlie Gasparino. While I agree about the "street smarts" and so forth, I think the drill here is to include neutral information provided in third party sources, not our own opinion and analysis.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a minor error (his book publisher is HarperCollins, not CollinsHarper), added in the title and a link to his new book, and added in some info rom the CNBC bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.47.202 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC stuff: I removed a paragraph of stuff from his CNBC commercial. I don't think that's appropos for a brief bio. But it can go back in if the bio is expanded. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, someone removed info about his Pulitzer nomination recently because "he's not listed as a nominee on the Pulitzer website." The website lists only winners and finalists, not everybody nominated, so the absence of Gasparino's name there does not mean he was not a nominee. The info about his Pulitzer nominations appears in all available bio information about him, on CNBC and elsewhere, so it's in reliable sources. I've added back in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.111.194 (talk • contribs)
The reason information is being removed is that it is not referenced, and this is an article about a living person. I'm sure CNBC's website does have reliable information in it's on air personality profiles, but you must reference it properly. All I see are external links. Considering that the subject is alive you need to cite those sources or stuff will and should be removed repeatedly. I will get around to editing it myself when I have time but if you are taking the time to put it back in you need to cite your sources and make the article look a bit neater. If you don't add actual references within a week or two, information will be deleted. Musing Sojourner (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm of having a nomination in there, if it can be sourced. I believe anyone can nominate anyone for a prize, even the proposed recipient. It is not a big thing, not controversial.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominees and finalists are the same thing. If you aren't a nominee (a finalist, or in Pulitzer parlance a nominated finalist), then you're an entrant, nothing more. He's apparently not a nominee. Yes, a nomination would be notable, and should be included, but apparently he doesn't have a nomination.67.86.9.51 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as long as its sourced AND you add the source in. Currently the article has no sources, only External Links. All unsourced material has to be removed eventually. If you added sources in and added a bit more information the article would merit removing stub status probably. There's enough info out there about Gasparino that a decent article could be made about him. He's broken some big financial stories and has had some colorful pieces done on him that would provide some good encyclopedic content. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0411afae-70dc-11de-9717-00144feabdc0.html . This URL should get you started, its a link to FT profile of him. Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm actually not the one who put that stuff in. He/she really should have signed his post, as it's confusing and your earlier post runs into his/hers. I fixed the indents and added an unsigned tag, to make it clearer who is saying what.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be in the article[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq428cqNZbM I know that it's not important to mention everything that person says, but this sounds big to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager2378 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Charlie Gasparino. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer claim controversy[edit]

Mr. Gasparino is edit warring, repeatedly removing a well-sourced discussion of his false claim to have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

As the material removed makes plain: In 2012, Gasparino was touted as a "Pulitzer prize nominee" in his bio from Fox Business, which said he was "nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in beat reporting" in 1992, when he was a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The same claim was made by his agents at the HarperCollins Speakers Bureau, and on the website of his publisher, Simon and Schuster. In a promotional video in 2008 for CNBC, his former employer, Gasparino declared, "I am: a writer, son of an ironworker, son of New York, Golden Gloves prospect, a Pulitzer Prize nominee..." This was a misleading claim, as pointed out by NBC News reporter Bill Dedman, because Gasparino had in fact only been one of hundreds of entrants in the Pulitzer contest and had never been nominated as a finalist, as the moniker "Pulitzer nominee" suggested.[1][2][3] Becoming an entrant in the Pulitzer contest requires only that either the author of a written work submit an entry form along with a small fee or that someone else does so on their behalf. Nominees, called nominated finalists, are chosen by Pulitzer juries. The Pulitzer Prizes warn entrants against claiming to be nominees: "Nominated Finalists are selected by the Nominating Juries for each category as finalists in the competition. The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from the three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have been announced only since 1980. Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided. Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term 'nominee' for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was 'nominated' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.[4] Following Dedman's reporting, Gasparino at first responded, "I was nominated by the wsj sir," despite the fact that the Pulitzer juries, not news organizations, make the nominations. Later that day, Fox changed its online bio of Gasparino, saying that his work "was submitted for the Pulitzer."[5]. As of 2019, the false claim remains on Gasparino's biography on the HarperCollins speakers' bureau.[6]

The warning from the Pulitzer Prizes trustees make it clear: The only people who can claim to be nominees, or nominated, or finalists, are those chosen by the Pulitzer juries as nominees. This is the same as the Academy Awards, the Grammys, etc. People such as Mr. Gasparino are entrants. To claim to be a nominee, when one is only an entrant, is fraud, especially after it has already been pointed out, and his publisher has removed the claim from its website bio of him, etc.Extremely hot (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the length of the section in half. Still not sure what to do about Mr. Gasparino editing his own bio with puppets.Extremely hot (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely hot. Ultimately, these are decent ok references, and there are several of them, so the issue is probably of note. However, in the context of a moderate-sized BLP, I think this should be written down to just two lines (max) and potentially not deserving of a whole sub-section; I don't think this 2012 issue became a material event in his career, and I have some sympathy with the attempts by (possibly) the subject to delete the current versions of it. Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. I've cut the length down further.Extremely hot (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the peanut gallery: this seems like much ado about nothing. Agents / a website overstated Gasparino, the issue was fixed. Removing it doesn't seem unreasonable. If restored, it seems worth about one sentence to reflect the gravity of the issue: "Garparino's agents and website briefly said he was a Putlizer nominee, this was corrected after people complained that it was an overstatement." or the like. SnowFire (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.msnbc.com/your-business/also-not-pulitzer-prize-nominee-charl
  2. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/fox-business-charles-gasparino-todays-fake-pulitzer-prize-nominee/326505/
  3. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/charlie-gasparino-pulitzer-prize-nomination-2012-6
  4. ^ https://www.pulitzer.org/page/frequently-asked-questions
  5. ^ http://www.msnbc.com/your-business/also-not-pulitzer-prize-nominee-charl
  6. ^ https://www.harpercollinsspeakersbureau.com/speaker/charles-gasparino/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Gasparino&oldid=1212455079"