Jump to content

Talk:Mark Burnett

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

Biography

[edit]

The section that is "Burnett was eight years old ... remains unclear." seems to be opinion rather than NPOV. Comments? --Silverhand 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing.--Teiladnam 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Career continued

[edit]

The section that reads like it was written by Burnett himself. How about less self promotion and flattery?

I've just inserted an Advert box on it, since I don't have the time to edit myself just now. Prosequimur (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject

[edit]

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

[edit]

The section on his ex-wife seems irrelevant to his biography. All of that information about her (the entire paragraph really) should be taken off and some of it put on her page. The sources seem inaccurate and poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.133.78.100 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — 209.133.78.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As "her page" does not exist, that sugestion is moot. However, as the two were married long enough to have two sons and create business ventures together, some cited mention of his first wife would be approproiate. A trimmed version has been returned. I suggest it be expanded, as this marriage reflects the formative years of Burnett's notability. We do not write about a forest fire without also writing about who struck the match. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant information

[edit]

"Burnett has won four Emmy Awards and four People's Choice Awards. Burnett and his reality series have been spoofed on Family Guy, American Dad, and MADtv, as well as parodied on YouTube.

Burnett has worked with Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Phil, Christina Aguilera, Usher, Shakira, Adam Levine, Blake Shelton, Cee Lo Green, Martha Stewart, Sarah Palin, Jeff Foxworthy, Samuel L. Jackson, and Donald Trump, among others."

What the fuck do these lines have to do with anything? They're just self-aggrandizing bullshit. Oh, parody/comedy shows make fun of things that are popular? YOU DON'T SAY? Where is the editorial oversight here? Get your shit together. This is not an article in Us Weekly or the guy's personal resume, it's an encyclopedia entry. 50.89.174.229 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedia is for information of interest to Wikipedia readers. Information here needs to be expanded, not reduced. How about a section listing his projects, not just his awards? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Son of God" movie (created by Mr/Mrs Burnett))

[edit]

(1) "Son_of_God_(film) comes to theaters Feb. 28, 2014. This major movie event brings the story of the life of Jesus Christ to audiences of all kinds through compelling cinematic storytelling that is both powerful and inspirational. Film producer Mark Burnett says this movie will have a wide impact for Christian evangelism as modern technology brings the film about the life of Jesus to remote areas of the world. "We believe in the decades to come, people in remote places will find Jesus through watching this movie on their iPhones," Burnett told Newsmax in an exclusive interview." [eMail] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Headline: For Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, ‘Son of God’ was a passion project

"Two things are surprising when the interview with Mark Burnett and Roma Downey starts. First, Burnett — the London-born kazillionaire best known for inventing “Survivor” and other pop culture touchstones — pours the reporter a glass of water before pouring one for himself. Second, the husband-and-wife team are clearly, adorably, very much in love. The intensity is striking and a bit unnerving. And they’ve turned every bit of that intensity to their latest project, “Son of God.” Burnett and Downey (who played the lead in the long-running TV series “Touched by an Angel”) were among the producers of the miniseries “The Bible,” which was nominated for three Emmys and became the year’s No. 1 cable entertainment show when it aired on History channel in 2013. Now they’ve taken the parts of the miniseries that dealt with the life of Jesus and turned it into the feature “Son of God,” which opens Friday. Burnett and Downey see the film primarily as a way to reach millions with the story of Christ, and secondarily as an artistic endeavor. ..." (Mrs Burnett is Roma Downey). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Headline: 'Son of God': A miraculous journey to the big screen — By Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, Published February 27, 2014 FoxNews.com

"In all our combined years in the entertainment industry, we’ve never seen anything like this kind of grass-roots support for a project. It is truly miraculous." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trump & Apprentice comments.

[edit]

Authors, since there is no separate article for Mark Burnett Productions (the link will go to a section of this article), you should start thinking about how to frame the Trump controversy in which multiple crew members and guests of The Apprentice iterations recall that Trump used vulgar and inappropriate comments about female guests and a female camera operator. These incidents supposedly occurred with cameras rolling. At least the Washington Post and MSNBC, probably others, have asked NBC about accessing these tapes, but were referred to the Mark Burnett Productions company. They, in turn, have made no statement, indeed, they never responded at all. With the revelation of the Access Hollywood video tape in which Trump implicated himself in sexual assaults, there's going to be renewed pressure on the MBP company to address their own taped incidents of his behavior. Thank you for your input, Wordreader (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Burnett. 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) 06:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Burnett. 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) 14:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Burnett. 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) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies keep getting removed

[edit]

Hi all. I was wondering why there continues to be no mention of Mark Burnett's relationship with Donald Trump and the alleged disparaging tapes from The Apprentice. This has been coming up in the news more often with Omarosa Manigault's claims that Burnett is hiding previously unaired tapes from the show. These rumors -- albeit, unconfirmed -- should still be public knowledge.

Lasalleexplorer (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial opinion in first sentence

[edit]

"and a key person responsible for the election of the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump." Whoa. That's a lofty claim. Such statements of opinion are not usually highlighted so brazenly in the first line of someone's page. Matt2h (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate edits in Connection with President Trump section

[edit]

Editor @Sk5893: added these two sentences to the section and added it again after it was taken out. "Burnett created an independent organization called "Inaugural Productions", which received $24 million from the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies to stage several events for Donald Trump's Inauguration.[12] Burnett sought to keep his involvement with the inauguration private, so as not to appear as an "ally" to Trump." The sources do NOT support these points. The Variety source states, "Burnett, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has not, sources say, used his clout or his Rolodex to help line up talent for the events surrounding Trump’s Jan. 20 swearing-in." The Vanity Fair article stated, "Nearly $24 million was paid for projects related to the work of a subcontractor, Inaugural Productions, an independent organization run by individuals formerly associated with television producer Mark Burnett, which was responsible for staging several events." In addition, while they originally printed the article with misinformation about Burnett, they updated the story with a line at the end which says "This story has been updated to reflect Mark Burnett's connection to Inaugural Productions." I am taking these two sentences out of the wiki. 173.241.48.224 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Vanity Fair source does indeed mention that Burnett sought to keep his involvement with the inauguration private. While the article (which was updated after it was originally cited in this article) mentions that the organization was run by people with former ties to Burnett, it does not specify when Burnett cut ties with said organization. I'm fine with keeping that information out of the article until a better source comes along.Sk5893 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian connections

[edit]

Shouldn't the article include at least a few words about Burnett's apparent connections to Russians, specifically members of Vladimir Putin's inner circle? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight

[edit]

On January 30, 2022, editor Jonas1015119 added content about Mark Burnett's role in the election of President Donald Trump, all based on one article in the New Yorker, which presents several quotes by high profile individuals asserting this claim. The inclusion of so many opinions, as well as the detail of Jimmy Kimmel's interaction with Burnett, presents WP:UNDUE to one theory. I ask that the current content be revised for a more balanced presentation; my suggestion is to summarize much of the current second paragraph in the Productions section to be:

In 2004, NBC premiered The Apprentice, a reality television series in which contestants competed for a job under real estate magnate Donald Trump.[1] The Apprentice spawned numerous licensed international versions of the show.[2][3] Many individuals and media personalities point to the show as the primary factor in revitalizing Trump's image, ultimately contributing to his succesful presidential campaign.[4] After the election Burnett played a role in producing Trump's inauguration.[4]

I welcome a review and discussion of this request. Thank you.Franklyspeaking2008 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklyspeaking2008: I don't think there are any issues, as the undue weight policy covers the entire article, not just individual paragraphs. Quetstar (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Franklyspeaking2008: I understand your concern. However, this doesn't really constitute WP:UNDUE. It's primarily a series of attributed quotes. In other words, what is being said in the paragraph is what the named people actually said - whether that's right or wrong. That, by itself, does not give undue weight, nor POV because the article is not taking a side on this (in this particular paragraph); it's merely stating what was said by these individuals. I did remove the WP:WEASELword "many" from the current text because terms like that are largely unsupportable and generally a matter of opinion as to what constitutes "many". I also edited to make the attributions more obvious. But other than that, from a "due weight" perspective, the only difference between your suggested edit and what is there already is that one is shorter. Can you explain why you think the current text is not WP:NPOV? ButlerBlog (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Butlerblog, thank you for your response. There is no reason for so much redundant detail about one theory. It is unnecessary to offer four different examples and quotes all making the same point that: (high-profile person X) believes Burnett's show played a role in Trump's rise. That information can be conveyed to the reader more than adequately with one summarizing sentence; I offer my suggestion above. Perhaps the inclusion of one quote would be appropriate for illustrative purposes and attributing the idea effectively (per MOS:QUOTE). But four is certainly too many for making one singular point that is tangential to the entirety of the subject's career. Thank you Franklyspeaking2008 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I actually came around to think that same thing last night after my initial response and gave your suggested edit time to grow on me. I was going to circle back around to mention it (but you beat me to it). To be clear, my feeling on it is simply that it's wordy and awkward (with the Kimmel thing being essentially unnecessary to make the point), but that doesn't make it a POV issue. It's simply overstated, which puts the focus on someone/thing other than the section/article subject. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented most of the suggested edit with some minor changes for WP:WEASEL wording and some other minor c/e. But for the most part, the suggestion is good. The previous wording was unnecessary and takes focus away from the actual subject (in this case, Burnett's actual production work). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butlerblog, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue and your implementation of the edit. Thank you. Franklyspeaking2008 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Purdum, Todd (11 October 2016). "The Man Behind the Tapes That Could Sink the Donald". Politico. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
  2. ^ Fox, Emily Jane (7 February 2019). ""I Am Disgusted": Behind The Scenes of Trump's Increasingly Scrutinized $107 Million Inauguration". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  3. ^ Littleton, Cynthia (17 January 2017). "Mark Burnett's Ties to Trump Put Him in Tricky Situation". Variety. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  4. ^ a b "How Mark Burnett Resurrected Donald Trump as an Icon of American Success". The New Yorker. 2018-12-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Burnett&oldid=1194913405"