This article is rated C-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. Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (the controversy surrounding his hiring and subsequent firing, all highly publicized in the media in itself make him a notable person.) --38.70.6.6 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because the comedians hiring and subsequent firing from SNL will be worthy of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.128.154 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be part of what should be a bigger article regarding comedians negatively affected by political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.55.7 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The popular Twitter account SNL In Review first noticed Gillis praising disgraced comedian [Louis CK] in an interview, alerting comedy journalist Seth Simons, who began digging deeper in Gillis' history. 38.104.236.130 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because this seems to be a controversial addition with certain users (namely two or three unregistered users), can we clarify whether the following passage under § 2020–present: Career expansion is WP:DUE? Christina Izzo of The A.V. Club compared his opening monologue to that of Jo Koy's hosting of the 81st Golden Globe Awards writing, "Remember Jo Koy's catastrophic opening monologue at the Golden Globes last month? Shane Gillis gave him some serious competition here." I personally see no issue. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This particular section is unnecessary. It presents an avoidably biased view towards Gillis' SNL appearance through a reference to a person irrelevant to the rest of the article. As a result, the section reads poorly, reduces the objectivity of the article, and serves no purpose to the article as a whole. It would perhaps be appropriate if presented alongside other views on an article dedicated to the episode in which Gillis appears. In the context it currently appears in on Gillis' personal page, it is not needed and the article benefits from its deletion. 114.77.53.91 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legitimate to include the sourced information regarding his reception of his SNL appearance. The removal is suspect given that it's from one or two unregistered users who have no previous editing history other than repeated attempts to remove the sourced content from the Shane Gillis' page.The One I Left (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it legitimate? As noted by two other editors the quotation is unnecessary and comes from a tabloid, not from a reputable source. The section reads poorly as a result of its inclusion. The current passage reads that Gillis "received mixed to negative reviews". This is a much better solution. 49.179.4.43 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer a quotation from a more "reputable" source? The Guardian and NPR are probably more reputable the The A.V. Club and they are also both cited. My issue with the Christina Izzo quote is that I don't think anyone will remember Jo Koy's hosting of the Golden Globes in six months, so it limits the shelf life (WP:RECENTISM). I'm fine with keeping the current quote but I'd also prefer something longer term from a better source. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with the idea that people will forget Jo Koy's monologue. With every awards show this season with a host, there are references to it. I think it'll be referenced from years to come.The One I Left (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people don't even know who Jo Koy is. They certainly won't remember their hosting of the golden globes in six months. More importantly, Jo Koy has nothing to do with Gillis.

The inclusion of the Izzo quote adds nothing to the article but certainly subtracts from it. I'm very much inclined to agree with Askarion's idea that we should instead have something longer term from a better source. No idea why people are so passionate about keeping a quote in the article that presents zero new information or evidence. 114.77.53.91 (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote seems fine to me. Jo Koy's hosting abilities received widespread media attention. I'm more interested as why as to why a unregistered user is so passionate about removing anything that could be seen as negative on Shane Gillis' page.The One I Left (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Askarion that this sentence has been provided undue weight. The sentence in question is prefaced by the assertion that there were mixed-to-negative reviews of his hosting at large, so why feature a quote from someone who felt that his opening monologue was "catastrophic"? We also have to ask why the opinions of the other more established, and arguably more reliable sources, are relegated to simple inline citations, while Izzo's opinion was directly quoted? I also agree with Akarion and 114.77.53.91 that to simply reference Jo Koy's Golden Globes appearance isn't very helpful to readers at large who may not watch the Golden Globes or, even if they do, may not remember that performance a year out or beyond.

Having said that, the remedy might be to keep the Izzo quote, while providing direct quotes from some, if not all, of the other sources cited in the preceding sentence. But unless someone is willing to do that, the Izzo quote is being given undue weight and should be removed or relegated to a simple in-line citation, like the rest of the sources currently cited in the preceding sentence.

One last thing: Let's keep the conversation civil. There's no need for ad hominem and questioning other editors' motives. Let's keep it to a discussion about how this sentence may or may not adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Marchije•^speak/_peek 19:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this quote provides anything of value that the previous sentence and it's citations don't provide. Furthermore it seems to be reinforcing a specifically negative view point.

In addition it does not seem to conform to wikipedias guidelines for biographies. It does not provide a neutral point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Including this quote gives undue weight to one specific reviewers opinion. It also uses recent pop culture history which to a previous users point may or may not be forgotten quickly. If we'd like to leave specific reviews then some counter examples should be provided.

I'd also question the credibility of the AV club, and this specific article, as non tabloid journalism. Since that is largely a matter of opinion I'm listing it last. 50.125.95.153 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue SNL review quotes belong more on the SNL page than his. Typically reviews for someone who hosted SNL aren't part of their wikipedia career bio, not sure why he's the exception to the rule. Check out anyone else whoever hosted an SNL episode (whether it got good or bad reviews) as no quotes about their episode or performance in the episode is ever included in that person's Wikipedia page. RealAssJGomezFan (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives?[edit]

I went looking through the other articles for some alternatives to this quote to see if the users who take issue with Izzo's quote like either of these better. I think both pass WP:10YEARS better and are from stronger sources, but again, I'm not torn up about this issue one way or the other:

• "It’s hard to imagine that this muted monologue will impress his fans or enrage his detractors. Again: weak tea." Zach Vasquez, The Guardian
• "[V]iewers got an OK episode that, more than anything, might leave them wondering why a middling talent like Gillis got tapped to host the show in the first place." Eric Deggans, NPR

There aren't a ton of great alternatives, but those are two possibilities. 〜 Askarion ✉ 01:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound like good alternatives to me. Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There really doesn't need to be an alternative. The previous sentence "Gillis' hosting received mixed to negative reviews." concisely sums up the issue. There are several sources cited there. The disputed comment could be moved to a citation for that sentence.

This keeps the article more objective (although still somewhat subjective as these are really just opinions anyway) without taking away Christina Izzo as a source (who I'm starting to suspect could be pushing to keep the quote). 50.125.95.153 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider striking that last comment where you accuse another editor of having a conflict of interest, unless you intend to prove that one of us is actually Christina Izzo in disguise or an associate of hers. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everyone is in disguise. I stand by my suspicion. Its is odd that this obviously bias quote, which was validly deleted, has been returned and now has a discussion. One obvious explanation is that it is personal to someone.

It is a clear case of breaking the neutral point of view guideline.

Also, a suspicion is not an accusation. 50.125.95.153 (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS makes no distinction between "suspecting" and "accusing". Either way, I've said before, I'm not torn up about this quote's addition, removal, or replacement. I favor replacing it with Vasquez's Guardian quote instead, and I may WP:BOLDLY do so anyway if this discussion ends without consensus. I just don't think it's fair to suggest that the only reason editors are pushing for its inclusion is that Christina Izzo herself is editing the page. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing one biased quote with another is not a good alternative. I think several people have correctly stated that a biography should not have reviews of specific monologues. RealAssJGomezFan "Typically reviews for someone who hosted SNL aren't part of their wikipedia career bio, not sure why he's the exception to the rule."

The best alternative is to simply leave the previous sentence and remove the quote. 50.125.95.153 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the quote without replacement per WP:NOCON ("In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.") while and if further discussions are had, though it seems to me like everyone who cares has said their piece. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a negative bias against Gillis when referring to his SNL monologue. in the interest of fairness either both sides of the argument should be present or have a completely neutral opinion. 92.40.193.173 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. Classy stuff 104.167.165.195 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]