Talk:Gene Shalit

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Collaboration of the Week : Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Journalism Mid‑importance

The article contains a very long description of an episode of Family Guy that merely mentioned his name once. However, Shalit has guest starred on several episodes of The Critic. Someone ought to make mention on this; the IMDb has some details.

The article implies he provided his voice on 'Family Guy.' I don't think he did. I think someone is imitating him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.142.97 (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy reviews movies for 40 years and now 2/3 of his bio has to do with outside criticism of his review of one movie in 2006?

You have a point, but I think it's more a problem with the article being a short stub in the first place. I tried to expand it a bit and added some additional context for the "controversey." Ohnoitsjamie 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I hate the slanted term "the gay agenda," I was coming here to criticize the same thing. It's kind of a non-issue and it's too bad his biography isn't any longer to counterbalance this one thing. Moncrief 05:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everyone that the article needs more information, but I don't think it's apropriate to remove the Brokeback Mountain controversy. It's relevant and interesting. Since at this time we have two for and two against, I'm going to leave the article alone, but I'd very much like to see this information back. --HarrisX 13:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my STRONG vote for removal (or at least reduction to no more than a line or two without separate heading), albeit belatedly. Quite bluntly, I think the term "gay agenda" is entirely accurate because this is indeed slanted and not a fair representation of man's life's work regardless of how much a specific segment of society likes or dislikes him. While acknowledging that I'm coming to this ball a bit late, I think my timing advances a critical point about this one incident's relevance... the kerfuffle had a modest spate of media attention when it happened two and a half years ago, but to most of the world at large it has long since blown over and is regarded as little more than a footnote in the broad view of Gene Shalit's life today. I sincerely doubt that anyone who looks at Gene Shalit's career objectively (regardless of their sexuality) sees the fallout of his Brokeback Mountain review as the pivotal climax of his entire life, yet it's emphasis in this article seems to make it so. This is particularly unfair since I'm equally sure that the populace at large does not think of Gene Shalit as homophobic or openly bigoted against any group other than directors, actors and screenwriters -- and they are an unprotected class. Even GLAAD itself acknowledged at the time that Shalit's "offensive term" was uncharacteristic of the good natured critic, who had previously written an essay clearly demonstrating a rather understanding attitude toward people of other sexual orientations than his own (specifically his son Peter). I find it unsettling that the Wikipedia Biography Project's "biography" of Gene Shalit focuses on one event which is isolated in nature AND FOR WHICH HE PUBLICLY APOLOGIZED, saying any offense caused was entirely unintentional. There is no compelling reason whatsoever to suspect that he was not being sincere or truthful in that apology, so why paint this as the single most important event for which he should be remembered -- because his 'biographers' can't let go of a grudge? I frequently read "biographies" in Wikipedia (that of Montgomery Clift for example) that focus on the subject's homosexuality to the point of eclipsing the life accomplishments for which they should really be remembered... this article seems to do something equally off target... to denegrate the life accomplishments of a heterosexual because of one run-in with the gay community for which he apparently can never be forgiven. I honestly think that if an article as one-sided as this appeared in Encyclopoedia Brittanica or World Book the editor responsible would be fired -- not because either organization is anti-gay, but because the slanted coverage is unbecoming of a non-biased educational resource. Let's get this right or abandon the Wikipedia Biography Project entirely and hand it off to the Gay and Lesbian Project under a new sub-heading: "Retributional Reminders on Anyone who ever Offended Anyone in the Gay Community -- Either Intentionally or Accidentally -- In Their Entire Life". Odyssipedia (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with previous user for removal. Someone people out there are going to be emotionally attached to every movie Shalit has panned in his career. Their being offended is not worthy of note, and does not become worthy simply because the offended persons are gay.97.83.104.146 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only heard about the Brokeback Mountain review once. Not really sure it needs to be in the article, since it's niether a prominent event in his life nor a notable entry. This guy has been a critic for years and all we can do is mention this event? If it even is an event. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can User:Geneshalit or anyone else verify these? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify each claim except for the "Candle in the Wind" reference. This was told to me by Sir Elton John himself at a birthday party of his many years ago. If you'd like me to post one of the many photos of said party (or any other gathering we've both attended throughout the years) somewhere to verify that I know the man personally, I suppose I can do that for you.

All other claims are simply verifiable if you spend a proper amount of time doing the research.

I will now give you what I can and have no problem adding to this later:

1.) Tank Girl

Many people including Matt Lauer himself were surprised by his picking this movie as a top-ten film of that year. Purchase a VHS copy of this tape and the blurb (and evidence) of Gene's recommendation and rating are right there on the cover.

2.) Cream Sauce

Apparently you're not from the Chicago area. Everybody knows this. Ask a native - CALL the deli! Better yet, visit it! That sauce makes the pot roast sandwich sing.

3.) Breaking Wind/Loretta Swit

I could post the video itself on YouTube.com, but the thought of embarrassing Gene by doing so is something I'm not into doing.

4.) Famous Mask

It's called "The Critic" and you can see it here: http://www.fantasycostumes.com/adult_costumes/critic_mask_m9708.html

5.) Obo/Pittsburgh Philharmonic

The Pittsbugh Symphony is NOT the Pittsburgh Philharmonic as stated in my entry. Gene refers to his stint in his book "LAUGHING MATTERS" (a very good read by the way).

I'm no vandalizer. I'm not into smearing a man's name. I just happen to know a thing or two about Gene Shalit, much like that Horner fellow knows a thing or two about T-Rex. Does he know EVERYTHING? No - as a matter or fact, he's been proven wrong on somethings!

But then again, that man never met a T-Rex. I happen to have met Gene many times, know him quite well and have discussed this Wikepedia matter with him personally.

And BTW, he is amused.

Be that as it may, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research. Such trivia needs to appear in a journal, biography, or other reliable source before it is included in Wikipedia. And, of course, sources should be cited. --HarrisX 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In another episode, Peter obtains the power of transformation. While in the form of Britney Spears he kisses Justin Timberlake and then turns into Shalit, exclaiming to a horrified Timberlake "I'm Gene Shalit now! BYE!". A review that was supposedly written by Shalit was read aloud by Peter, in the episode "Big Man on Hippocampus". These were portrayals, but didn't involve Shalit (he didn't do any voices). Does this belong here? 76.244.154.7 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good little stub, but no mention of what he was doing between the ages of 23 and 41 years, other than the bailing on Dick Clark incident, circa 1960.

It would be interesting to see how he landed a job on-camera on a national TV show at the age of 44... what was he doing previously that qualified him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.138.65.233 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Shalit. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194227/http://www.gannett.com/about/map/ataglance/morrist.htm to http://www.gannett.com/about/map/ataglance/morrist.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 02:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a commercial he was in for either a board game or a promotional restaurant game about "movie stars and trivia" back in the early eighties. Anyone know what this was? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently "Stage II". I don't know think it warrants inclusion in the article, however. —ADavidB 19:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering what he was doing during that big year gap, he's listed as an editor of Somehow It Works; A Candid Portrait of the 1964 Presidential Election (1965) and as having conceived and written the satirical Khrushchev's Top Secret Coloring Book (1962). I will not be adding this to the article as I have a

These and two additional books are now listed in a 'Written works' section. —ADavidB 06:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Clark never spoke to Shalit again, and referred to him as a "jellyfish",