Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gretchen Carlson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:02, 13 February 2018 editHome Lander (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,742 edits OneClickArchiver archived External Links← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:12, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,671,480 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 13 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Broadcast journalists, presenters and commentators.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(33 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Carlson, Gretchen|1=
{{Ds/talk notice|gg}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{Ds/talk notice|blp|brief}}
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=Mid|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}
{{Ds/talk notice|ap|brief}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= {{WikiProject Minnesota |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Women|class=C}} {{WikiProject Beauty Pageants |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |a&e-work-group=yes |listas=Carlson, Gretchen |a&e-priority=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Minnesota |class=C |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Television |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Beauty Pageants |class=C |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism |class=C |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Television |class=C |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |USTV=yes |USTV-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=C |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History |class=C |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low |USTV=yes |USTV-importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Stanford University |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Gender Studies |class=C |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Women writers |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=C |importance=Low}}
| blp=yes
}} }}
{{Connected contributor|User1=Wyntermitchell|U1-declared=yes}}
{{Minnesota Portal Selected Biography|July 2014}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
{{Friendly search suggestions}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|brief}}

{{Annual readership}} {{Annual readership}}
{{Long talk}}

== having a political position is not "controversial" ==
One can be left-wing or right-wing, and it's not controversial. It's a little silly to pretend it is. I've semi-protected the article so this is not re-added anonymously without adequate discussion and talk page consensus . - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 03:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:You obviously miss the point. This is not necessarily mine, or the other user's political position. This is simply pointing out Gretchen Carlson's notability. Gretchen is watched by millions of people and talked about in hundreds of articles specifically because she is criticized from the left and adored from the right. But you want to leave this information out of the article without reason, which disturbs me. This is notable information. Either provide me instruction for where this information in this *encyclopedia article about Gretchen Carlson* goes or stop blocking relevant information.] (]) 14:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::Oh, I don't think I've missed the point. It belongs in the article when you find a reliable source that simply states her political position factually (rather than a biased blog that criticizes her for having a position they don't like). And it belongs there after the wording has been discussed on the talk page and agreed to by all concerned. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I am not trying to include information about Gretchen Carlson's direct political position and so such a source is not needed. And such a request for a source is ridiculous considering there would be no existing source to state Gretchen's political position "factually." Political positions are a matter of opinion by the parties involved in the politics. I am pointing to the fact that her discussion of political issues has been criticized from the left, which you still have not provided a reason for why this is not relevant. Regardless, this is a moot discussion since other similar hosts such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter have political criticism sections. Why should this figure not also have a controversies section?] (]) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::One reason would be that controversy sections are generally discouraged. Another is that she's not the least bit controversial. Simple political disagreement is not a controversy, and certainly not one which required an entire section devoted to it. And yes, this is a ], and all additions must be ]. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::That's not true. The controversy sections on the examples I have listed above list things like WorldNetDaily, which is hardly a reliable source. Yet WorldNetDaily is a perfect example of criticism from the right, which is why it is included.] (]) 15:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::You're quite right: World Net Daily is neither a reliable source, nor important enough in its own right that its criticism merits reportage. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::How can we agree to a correct wording of the controversy when you won't even acknowledge there is any criticism of this figure?] (]) 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: We work by consensus here. Find a source, persuade others that it is reliable and pertinent, and then work on the wording. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::You're being disingenuous, so consensus seems to be impossible. You acknowledge in your latest response that you do not consider anything she has said to be controversial, which is a minority point of view. A NPOV would at least acknowledge that some people consider it controversial, and source it as such. Do you disagree?] (]) 15:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Saying something that your political foes disagree with doesn't make you controversial. So far you have evinced no reliable sources documenting any significantly controversial incidents - things that might be covered in multiple newspapers rather than mentioned in a blog. Please continue this discussion if you succeed in finding one. And you should read ] carefully: viewpoints are given the emphasis they deserve, according to the numbers of people who hold them: simply because someone has a viewpoint doesn't make it equivalent to all other viewpoints. Gretchen Carlson is just not a hotbed of controversy, but feel free to try and prove otherwise in ]. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
<----It appears to me that a simple solution would be to call the section "Political Criticsim" or something along those lines. According to ] a blog can be a reliable source in certain conditions, and I believe this blog may meet those requirements. Semiprotecting the article was not neccessary, as the user is trying to reach a consensus, instead of simply edit warring.]rew ] ] 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:Semiprotection was certainly necessary, as there was edit-warring by IPs who only started discussing and signing ''after'' it was initiated. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:This sounds reasonable. I agree that a political criticism section would be a valid compromise. I will add this.] (]) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::Would it be safe to call this resolved at ]? If a problem crops up again you can just message me...]rew ] ] 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::BTW, whats up with the 3/iii thing?]rew ] ] 20:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::This looks to be resolved as it is currently integrated into the career section. Thanks. I can add the political criticism section when there are more users with more specific political information they want to add. I can already tell ] doesn't think this is worthy from the history.] (]) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't know about the 3/iii thing, maybe Sinebot substitutes Roman numerals on different pages?] (]) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this is the work of the <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This is absurd, this information is references by fringe partisan sources that do not reflect a mainstream point of view. This is a clear NPOV violation. ] (]) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::I concur; I think we're foolish to let Misplaced Pages be made into a mouthpiece for such sources, especially now that it is revealed to be the result of a Daily Kos-based campaign. I suggest we remove the sentence in question.- <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree, this is nothing more than a manufactured controversy coordinated by left-wing groups. I have removed as it is undue weight and is a violation of NPOV. ] (]) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
::::The admins agreed that the inclusion of political information is valid here and that the source is warranted. Please do not remove this information for partisan reasons (i.e., your dislike of Media Matters) as that does not change the validity of the statement "Left-wing organizations have criticized Carlson for what they view as her right wing bias."] (]) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::No, "the admins" don't decide that: editors do, and the person you seem to think is an administrator isn't an administrator. Don't re-add this material without obtaining talk page consensus for it, as the consensus clearly is that Misplaced Pages should not submit to your off-wiki Daily Kos campaigning to include this poorly sourced screed in violation of NPOV in the biography of a living person. The unreliability of a source is not a "partisan reason", but rather an editorial decision, and Media Matters doesn't make the cut. Your campaign to give undue weight to Media Matters' opinion has failed; if you want it to succeed you will have to persuade the editors here of its correctness, and you haven't done that. Do not re-add this material against consensus. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 06:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what is so NPOV about "So and so is criticised by left for her bias right."]rew ] ] 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, it's clear that you don't understand the concept of "undue weight". Please see ]. "In determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors". In this case, there are ''no'' reliable sources. You may also want to consult ] . If Gretchen Carlson were a person about whom '''significant''' criticism had appeared in '''reputable''' sources, there ''might'' be a valid reason for including it in her article, after an appropriate consensus was obtained, even though she is ]. But she is not such a person, and bloggers' online complaints constitute neither significant criticism or reliable sources, and reports of blogger's complaints will properly be removed when inserted against consensus. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 11:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::You're confused. The statement "In determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors" is a perfect argument for my side. I do not have to convince YOU - an editor - that there is criticism from the left, I have an article from a reliably left-wing organization which criticizes Carlson. There might be nothing better I could find to prove the statement that there is criticism from the left. Now, the only question I see as still being up for debate is whether Media Matters is a left wing organization, in which case I could point to a NYT article that covered Media Matters a couple years ago. And your claim that "bloggers' online complaints constitute neither significant criticism or reliable sources" is ridiculous because Media Matters is regularly used by prestigious newspapers to describe political criticism coming from both sides. In any case, I've added another source from a more mainstream organization.] (]) 12:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Similarly, the fact that Keith Olbermann has made snide comments about someone may reasonably be mentioned in Olbermann's article, but doesn't rate a mention in the subject's article. Again: please sign in and sign your comments; you've commented here as at least three different users; and do not edit war to include content for which you've failed to obtain consensus on the talk page. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::"snide comments" indicates that you are clearly disapproving of Olbermann, and obviously for partisan reasons considering your edits. I do apologize for not signing in (I thought I was). Your opinion that a source's coverage of the subject cannot be used as evidence for the actual subject is without merit and also more ridiculous than your earlier statements. The vast majority of sources in Misplaced Pages are SECONDARY SOURCES, which are not quotes or directly written by the subject. I can obviously use another source to cover this subject, otherwise Misplaced Pages article would be nothing but autobiographies for the subjects in question.] (]) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::You still have not presented an argument for the primary reason for inclusion. Just because some left-wing groups don't like her, doesn't mean that she is controversal for having an opinion. She is not a hard news anchor, she does a morning show like GMA. Furthermore, you have yet to provide a specific instance that she is a focus of some controversy. On top of this is the obvious attempt by some at DK to try and insert negative information into a BLP. This last aspect alone is sufficient to remove this coordinated attack against a living person. ] (]) 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It also doesn't help Mangala's case that he uses multiple accounts, for a single purpose, which is of such exceeding import to him that he forum shops (editor assistance, BLP bulletin board, etc.) when the consensus goes against his fervent desire to include this short of stuff in a BLP. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Well you guys are obviously biased so that's why I'm seeking assistance (which is not a crime btw). The "consensus" is you two, which is not a consensus at all. I may have logged out by accident but that doesn't mean I'm intentionally using other aliases. I've already provided several sources, one of which was MSNBC, and you still deny, deny, deny any criticism has come her way. Well, if it's only right-wingers who are paying attention to this article and discussion, then I guess you guys win the day. As one person, I can't keep up with getting double-teamed.] (]) 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Per ], we report facts about opinions. Contrary to John Asfukzenski's assertion, there is no requirement that our reporting about opinions be limited to the "mainstream point of view". Of course, it's hardly a fringe viewpoint to say that Carlson and other Fox air personalities have a conservative bias. I'm restoring the factual report of political criticism. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Er... Per NPOV, we use reliable sources for information, and references that actually say what the Wikipedians adding them say they say. You added the statement "Left-wing organizations and commentators have regularly criticized Carlson for what they view as her right-wing bias" to the article, and claimed two references supported it. Neither does. The first, a transcript of a Keith Olberman rant, mentions Carlson only obliquely, and conveys Olberman's annoyance that Carlson's show included a picture of the president smoking. The second is a link to a "search" for the tag "Gretchen Carlson" on mediamatters. So neither reference says what you, and eariler Mangala3, claims. This is a BLP; we don't add unreferenced criticism, and we don't allow it to be used as the basis for unfounded attack. When Mangala did his off-site recruiting post at the Daily Kos asking for aid on Misplaced Pages in adding criticism of Gretchen Carlson to this article, he received good advice, which he failed to take the advice offered: "Gretchen doesn't matter, certainly not enough to start some wikiflamewar", and to "let it go". There would certainly be a reason to tell our readers about criticism of Gretchen Carlson if there were any significant criticism. But there isn't. She is, as our Daily Kos friends note, a beauty contest winner who appears on a cable show. She's not particularly political or particularly criticized. She's not an O'Reilly or a Hannity, she's just a cable host. We do no one any favors by falsely depicting her as someone who has been "''''regularly'''" criticised; she hasn't been, and saying so with false references is just plain deceptive. Now, perhaps JamesMLane didn't check the references and just assumed (from ] they supported what mangala3 said they said. If so, I encourage him to actually find a quote from a reliable source that states "Carlson is regularly criticised for her right-wing bias" before re-adding what turns out to be, after all, a Wikipedian's formulation from ] rather than an actual statement from a reliable source. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Exactly what biases are they upset about? Simply saying that some left-wing people say she is biased is hardly notable unless there are some specific examples of bias which have resulted in substantial reporting. By your logic anyone that MMfA has a beef with should have a sentence that MMfA thinks they are biased. MMfA is not that notable, just as right-wing websites should not have a similar weight on other BLP's. ] (]) 03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Concur with JML. NPOV requires we report reasonable criticism. I'm not sure why so many editors have trouble with that concept. ] <small>(])</small> 03:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::NPOV requires that we don't elevate unreasonable criticism to the level of important criticism, and NPOV/RS requires that our statements be reliably sourced, rather than supported only by Wikipedian's original syntheses. I'm not sure why so many editors have trouble with those concepts. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 03:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Response to Arzel: The statement is supported by two citations. One goes to an MSNBC page with a specific criticism by Keith Olbermann. The other goes to a list of articles on the MMfA website that discuss Carlson's reportage. Thus, we provide a summary statement here, with more detailed information left to the external links. That is, of course, a perfectly normal procedure and a perfectly valid use of inline citations. I'd be happy to write a few paragraphs setting forth the criticisms in more detail, but I have a wild guess that some right-wing POV warrior would come along and complain that this approach gave the criticism "undue weight". If that happens, will you join me in defending the inclusion of the information? Otherwise, I see no reason to waste my time when even maintaining a simple summary that's supported by Misplaced Pages policy is necessitating an edit war.

::::::::Of course, even if you think that the liberals have no sound basis for criticizing someone, that's not relevant. We don't report facts about opinions once Wikipedians are satisfied that the opinions are well-founded. Instead, per ], we must "fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute". ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::A transcript of Keith Olbermann mentioning Gretchen Carlson in the context of naming his "worst person in the world" could conceivably be used as a reference for the statement "Keith Olbermann once criticized Gretchen Carlson for showing a picture of Obama smoking", but can't be used as a reference for "Left-wing organizations and commentators have regularly criticized Carlson for what they view as her right-wing bias." And the specific complaint by Olbermann is by no means of sufficient import for inclusion. Where is a reference for this "regularity" of criticism? Do we need a category, ]? Of course not. Because it's frankly of no import; Olbermann's criticism is simply not that important. By all means add Carlson to the list of people criticized by Olbermann in Olbermann's article, but the fact that Olbermann said something about someone doesn't make it important enough for inclusion in ''that person's'' article. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 04:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Response to Nunh-huh's multiple posts:
* Your characterization of the Olbermann opinion is inaccurate. (I'll put aside your personal POV that it's a "rant".) Olbermann doesn't mention Carlson "only obliquely"; she tied for the bronze in that day's Worst Person competition. Furthermore, Olbermann wasn't annoyed about Carlson running the picture. He was criticizing her insinuation that the picture would have appeared before the election if not for some unspecified kind of conspiracy.
* As for Media Matters, see my response above to Arzel. When we write an encyclopedia article, we don't include every last tiny detail that we can find. We frequently engage in summarizing. Ideally, we provide links or offline references for the benefit of any reader who wants more information. Having looked at many of the Media Matters reports linked to from the cited page, I believe that the sentence I re-inserted is a fair summary. "No synthesis" doesn't mean that we're restricted to verbatim quotation. Two among several supporting items: Media Matters said . Media Matters also included Carlson (by name) when it concluded, . Yes, we could elaborate by saying, "Carlson was accused of whitewashing Bush and lying to hurt Obama", but I think "bias" is a reasonable summary.
* You write, "This is a BLP; we don't add unreferenced criticism, and we don't allow it to be used as the basis for unfounded attack." Of course, you're entitled to your personal opinion that the attack is unfounded -- and, of course, your personal opinion is irrelevant. We frequently report unfounded attacks made on living people, such as the unfounded attacks against John Kerry by the Smear Boat Veterans.
* You write that there is no significant criticism of Carlson. As far as I can tell, your support for that assertion is: "She is, as our Daily Kos friends note, a beauty contest winner who appears on a cable show." Well, ] is also a beauty contest winner, but that's her only claim to notability; ] also appears on a cable show, but it's a show about how to make great meals on your grill. If Dalton or Flay says something political, such as , it's not inherently important. Gretchen Carlson, however, isn't on the Food Network. She's on Fox NEWS Channel. Specifically, she's on '']'', which, despite segments on health advice and the like, devotes much of its coverage to the news. Given your snide little comment that perhaps I didn't check the references, you're a bit vulnerable here; if you yourself checked them, you saw that the MMfA criticism related to her comments on politics and current events. Her being a former beauty queen doesn't give her a pass, or there'd be a lot of material cut from the ] article.
* It's absurd to imply that we can't report she was accused of bias unless some source says "She was accused of bias." As I stated above, we routinely summarize and even characterize the original material. We say that a bio subject "was criticized" for something when the source doesn't use that word.
* If you take any one specific criticism by itself, you could perhaps make an argument that it "is by no means of sufficient import" -- although when a news personality reports on an objective fact, like the financial status of the Social Security system, and is in error by more than a trillion dollars, some readers would consider that by itself to be notable. Michael Moore has been ] for far less. The point that's succinctly conveyed by the text you removed, however, is that there are multiple criticisms of her journalism, and that in every case her error benefits the right wing.

I conclude with the same suggestion I mentioned in my response to Arzel. If you have a problem with the short form, because it's lacking in specifics, would you be consistent and support inclusion of something more detailed? I gave four examples above. More are of course available. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 05:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

*When one is "regularly criticized", it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources that state it. Instead, you've offered one source that criticizes Carlson (as it criticizes all people who appear on Fox), and Keith Olbermann. We don't use agenda-driven websites to source criticisms - at least we shouldn't. With the sources provided, one might reasonably say "Media Matters and Keith Olbermann have criticized Gretchen Carlson", but one can not generalize from this data that "Left-wing organizations and commentators have regularly criticized Carlson for what they view as her right-wing bias." Frankly, that agenda-driven websites or commentators criticize those who oppose their agenda tells us about those websites but precious little about their subjects. That the Daily Kos and Media Matters criticize right-wing personalities is as uninteresting as the fact that Sean Hannity or Free Republic criticize left-wing personalities. It's just not important enough to merit inclusion. It's different if someone is ''actually'' the target of concerted criticism, or has been involved in some actual controversy covered by reliable sources - but that doesn't apply to the subject of this article. So here's my suggestion to you: if you want to say "Left-wing organizations and commentators have regularly criticized Carlson for what they view as her right-wing bias", find a reliable source that says it. BLPs are not meant to be hat-racks upon which to hang every negative thing anyone has ever said about someone. And if you find such a source, such a statement would need to be integrated into the article, and not placed in a new "criticism" section, as such sections are discouraged. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 05:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::You were focused on the word "bias". Now you're emphasizing the word "regularly". Instead of using such disputes to remove the information entirely, you should have simply edited the passage to conform more closely to your interpretation of what the cited sources will support. What about something like: "Carlson has been criticized by left-wing commentators and organizations for on-air errors and omissions that tended to favor the right wing." Another possibility, of course, is the one I asked you about before, in which we ditch the summary and instead provide some specific examples of on-air reporting by her that's been criticized.

::As for the article organization, the information was integratd into the article until Arzel . It could be re-integrated (as before Arzel's edit), or restored as a separate section, or -- a compromise that seems best to me -- set up as a subsection within "Career", with the other material coming under "Chronology" (for her jobs) and "Charitable work" (for the March of Dimes). ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:::No, though apparently ''you'' were focused on the word "bias". What I want is that ''every'' word we write in the article be true. I quite understand where the "information" was placed, since I placed it there. That was before it became clear that it had initially found its way into this article as the result of a concerted off-Wiki campaign, leading to its removal because a consensus of people felt it was poorly sourced and lent undue weight to non-notable criticism. You haven't convinced me yet that the sourcing is adequate or that mentioning bloggers' complaints is appropriate here. We don't put notes like "Hannity criticized him" or "Olbermann criticized him" into articles because they are pretty much irrelevant. "Carlson has been criticized by left-wing commentators and organizations for on-air errors and omissions that tended to favor the right wing" is close to a tautology, and magically makes two "commentators and organizations" seem like more than two. It's not supported by the references, and crapifies the article. If you can find a reliable source that details the particulars of some specific criticism (rather than is in itself the source of that criticism), then we'd have something worthy of being added to the article. In the absence of some third-party reportage of criticism, we don't. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::One common theme I note in your comments is that you express your personal opinions, which is fine, but you don't give any particular reason for someone else to agree with your pronouncements.
::::* You assert that "it became clear that had initially found its way into this article as the result of a concerted off-Wiki campaign ...." Do you happen to have any support for that charge? Earlier on this page there's a link to on the Daily Kos site. The page isn't now available but its URL suggests it was created on May 22. The information was in our article before then -- see . I see no evidence to support your statement.
::::* I'm not surprised that I haven't convinced you "that mentioning bloggers' complaints is appropriate here" -- given that I never took any such position and, more importantly, given that the issue is inclusion of statements of opinion by a television commentator and a media watchdog organization, not some blogger's self-published rantings. Do you have any support for your implication that Olbermann and Media Matters are the equivalent of bloggers?
::::* We report "facts about opinions". I find it interesting that I keep quoting ] and you keep making bare assertions. Your latest statement is, in effect, that we report only facts about ''reports about'' opinions. Despite your attempted rewrite, however, there is no policy that restricts us to "third-party reportage of criticism". Among a huge number of examples that could be cited, I'll pick two: ], given that I linked to it in an earlier post, and ], given that Media Matters is on the other side of the criticism here. My point is not "There are improper reports of criticisms of liberals elsewhere, so this article should balance that with an improper report of criticisms of a lconservative." Instead, my point is that these reports are ''not'' improper. The policy does not require third-party reportage, although that's certainly one among several factors that can be considered.

::::You still haven't expressly addressed my suggestion that the summary language be replaced by an elucidation of some of the more significant specific criticisms. I'll assume, however, that the mythical requirement of "third-party reportage" would, in your view, prohibit sharing such information with our readers. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::The way we know what is important and what is not is whether or not it is reported in a reliable source. No reliable source has found Olbermann's opinions on Carlson sufficiently noteworthy to report on them, and it follows that neither should we. This is not a "mythical" requirement, but the way we are actually supposed to do things at Misplaced Pages: report things other reliable sources report, not our original findings or original formulations. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I see the pattern here. I found you a source from MSNBC, and now we have to find a source discussing the source that I found. Admit it ], you just don't want this information in the article due to some partisan defense campaign. ] (]) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I see the pattern here too: the pattern seems to be that you ]. Once again: The way we know what is important and what is not is whether or not it is reported in a reliable source. No reliable source has found Olbermann's opinions on Carlson sufficiently noteworthy to report on them, and it follows that neither should we. This is the way things are meant to work here at Misplaced Pages: we report things other reliable sources report, not our original findings or original formulations. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::. ] <small>(])</small> 21:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I suppose if our goal were to drag Misplaced Pages down to the level of Salon, Salon would be a good source. Of course, its former editor in chief said, "Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid." Is using a smart tabloid good sourcing? On the basis of their "Video Dog" web page you would like to include Olberman's criticism of Carlson in her article, and presumably in his? Shall we also include Carlson's criticism of Kennedy in his article, since it too appear on that Salon page? Reposted YouTube clips on a website is not the sort of source we should be striving to use. How about something from, say, the New York Times? In determining notability, we consider significant coverage (i.e., actual commentary, rather than links to YouTube), in reliable sources independent of the subject. Otherwise we can just collect all of Olbermann's "Worst people" - apparently you'd like to do that for the runner-ups as well as the winners - and include the factoid that "X has been criticized by Keith Olbermann" in their article. Not exactly the way to build an informative encyclopedia. More like a recipe for a crappy article. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Salon is a perfectly reliable source that's used in plenty of articles, regardless of whatever lurid pull quote you can produce from google. ] <small>(])</small> 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Why is KO's anti-award notable? He gives out hundreds in a year, granted 50% or more probably go to BOR, but he does them on a regular basis. There is nothing special about them either, unless you happen to either like KO or dislike the person he is targeting. Should every person that KO targets have a sentence in their BIO? And seriously, do you really think that that particular statement was an example of right-wing bias? As for MMfA, they are an anti-FNC website. Almost all of their reporting is targeted towards FNC. They pick up almost everything that mentions Obama to find some evidence of bias against Obama. If there is something that GC did that caused a stir there should be ample sources outside of MMfA that discuss the incident. By your logic, any personality that MMfA has a problem with should have a sentence saying that MMfA thinks he/she is biased. MMfA is simply not that important in the world. You are giving way too much weight to the opinion of MMfA. ] (]) 02:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Carlson has also criticized KO and MMfA for calling her out. The fact that they are engaged in a back and forth relationship seems relevant here.] (]) 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::To Arzel: Your characterization of my position is wrong. Given that you display no sign of having read what I actually wrote, I see no point in writing anything further in response.

:::::::To the 207 anon: That's an interesting point. Would you supply a citation for Carlson's response to the criticism? Thanks! ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 08:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

==Opening sentence==
Is this the best way to describe her "...a former ] and ] ]."? How about just ]? I don't think a person is usually defined by an award they won or by the name of their present employer. ] (]) 10:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:I went ahead and did this but then added Miss America back in since this seems important. Her employer is mentioned in the article of course but I don't think it needs to be in the first sentence.] (]) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::"Journalist" implies a journalism degree, which Ms. Carlson does not possess. Is that not a reasonable criterion for determining whether "journalist" or "host" is appropriate? ] (]) 12:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Journalism is not a professional degree in the sense you would not be required to have a degree to be a journalist, unlike say a MD. ] (]) 13:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Once upon a time, it was expected that journalists had gone to J-School. I think leaving the article as "talk show host" is most in line with the common perception of the differences between journalism and editorializing.] (]) 16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't suggesting it be changed to journalist, I agree that she is better identified as a host. ] (]) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: From what I understand, Fox does not consider her a journalist or a newsperson as she comes from their Opinion programming.] (]) 09:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== Middle Ground on Gretchen's Political Criticism ==

So can we find no middle ground on this? There seem to be several editors on each side of this issue concerning Gretchen's position in US political discourse. We will get nowhere without both sides conceding some ground. Can we come up with a mutually agreed upon neutral statement acknowledging in some way her sensitive statements when it comes to politics? ] (]) 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I found another source: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/01/11/BL2007011100388_4.html) From my reading, Misplaced Pages allows Op-eds as sources. ] (]) 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

== "Journalist" vs "Host" ==

Carlson is described in the first sentence of the article as a "journalist". I think we should do one of two things:

* Call the show she is a "journalist" for a "news show".

* Call the her a "host", and the type of show a "talk show" or "morning talk show" or something of the like.

For examples of this type of naming convention, see ] ("host"), ] ("broadcaster"), ] ("co-host"), ] ("host"). On the show that Carlson is notable for, ], she delivers commentary on issues, not hard reporting. ] describes her as both "Co-host" and "Co-anchor". ] (]) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

==Controversies dispute==
I removed some non notable "material". Has this "material" recieved wide spread coverage from non partisan sources? If so, maybe post links in here and add if consensus forms for addition. Thank you, --] ] 21:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:I'm glad to see that you are assuming good faith of other editors here. ] <small>(])</small> 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
::I assume good faith up to a point. --] ] 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::In this case, it appears you gave up in AGF at the starting point. ] <small>(])</small> 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::: --] ] 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Regardless of whether or not that particular attack is directed at me, please refrain from referring to other editors in such a matter. I've also refactored your ridiculous and insulting section title here into something neutral. ] <small>(])</small> 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Oh course, there are no partisan POV agenda pushers here.--] ] 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Anyways, to change the subject back to the "material" being added to the article, what do others think? --] ] 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::The MMFA citation is a search results page with a bunch of articles that mention Crlson how? Anyways, --] ] 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The KO citation also does not support the material as it currently reads. Oh well, the beat goes on....--] ] 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: Can you be more specific? If there is an error, we should correct it. ] <small>(])</small> 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Sure, the KO citation says..... ''A tie for the bronze between Sean Hannity and Gretchen Carlson of Fixed News. Seen these, the pictures of Obama taken in college, just released by the classmate who took them in the new “Time Magazine?” Carlson need a vacation. She said “there are some very intriguing Barack Obama photos. Look at this one. This is him smoking a cigarette, which we had not seen. Would it have served any purpose to release these photos before the election.”''.....and from that cite we get ''criticized Carlson for what they view as her conservative bias''.....anyways, per the other editors above, I would agree that KO is non notable in this case and the reason to include his worst person is what?? And the MMFA citation that is a search results page, does the user need to go and read every article to find the accusations leveled against this person? --] ] 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:In regards to only the issue of the citation you quoted, I agree. It doesn't appear that the citation supports the statement in this article. I've removed it. ] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:I imagine the logic of the MMFA citation is that we're saying to the reader "here is a list of individual accusations/complaints by MMFA". I think that is an excellent alternative to listing them individually here. ] <small>(])</small> 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
::So every article by MMFA about Carlson is critical? Do you know what every article says in that citation? A number of the articles link make no accusation of bias. This is a horrible way to use a citation and I find really hard to believe that this is "standard" practice for citations(your'e an admin, you should know :) just kidding). I would actually prefer to have the criticism linked to an actual article. --] ] 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I dunno, it wasn't my idea. Compromise is often messy. Perhaps old talk discussion holds the answer. If you want to instead link to specific articles that you dig up in the list, that's fine by me too. ] <small>(])</small> 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I guess I can try to find a specific article that accuses her of political bias since that would have to be better than linking to a results page with mostly articles that are not even related to this accusation. Anyways, --] ] 11:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Removing the second reference to Olbermann is borderline, but I can live with it as long as the first stays in. We don't have to argue about whether a phrase like "conservative bias" is accurate -- we can simply report the fact that he named her on the "Worst Person in the World" list. And MMfA is not the equivalent of a blog. On this basis I'm reverting the edits by Ouedbirdwatcher. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Most enlightening...and O'Reilly's daily entries are, one might assume, now Misplaced Pages-worthy as well? Just wondrin' Mr. Lane? ] (]) 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

==Academic Achievements==
Gretchen's academic achievements need to be included. Beauty and brains should be honored, no?

I simply added the word, "Honors" to her Stanford line as that information is included in the referenced Fox News biography. I am also looking for a good source regarding the Valedictorian claim made by Jon Stewart on his show. There is one (http://pageantcenter.com/pageant%20titleholders/gretchencarlson.html) but it cites no sources and seems generally suspect.] (]) 08:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:I think the sources on this page ought to be cleaned up. Subject deserves better pagespace. Look at the ] page to learn how to attach proper citation to any page. ] (]) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

== Jon Stewart comments of December 8, 2009 ==

Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks. I've seen a couple of attempts to put characterizations (or in one case a lengthy quote) of Jon Stewart's critique of this subject's performance as newswoman for her morning program. Please develop some consensus here before reinsertion, and consider proper sourcing. If we added sections to BLPs every time a comic made a good laugh, our BLPs would be bloated articles indeed. ] (]) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:"''If we added sections to BLPs every time a comic made a good laugh, our BLPs would be bloated articles indeed.''" I point out the cases of ], ], and ] so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. Additionally, many comedian's jokes go on to become a notable part of a person (e.g. ]'s impression of ]).--] (]) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::That "developed" over years, didn't it? That is why I said wait a few months and see if there is anything to this. --] ] 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:Has this "material" been widely covered? If not, leave out. --] ] 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::Made it to the , as well as a few others . This has become ].--] (]) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed that segment last night, never did I believe it would be discussed today on wiki, especially for a ]. Regardless, it appears certain propagandists have made it notable, seems like it's always the same players. I'm going to invoke ] and look forward to other editors opinion on this matter. ] (]) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:Addressing the ] Please explain your reasoning for why this is not notable.--] (]) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::Maybe if this is widely covered, still haven't seen that, over the next few months, then maybe revisit inclusion. Otherwise, is there a point being made here? --] ] 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, I would gladly label organizations to whom I agree with ideologically, as propagandists. I also stated that due to their blogging, it appears to be notable. We can discuss notability as it pertains to a BLP, ], and there's something about relevance and the test of time. ] (]) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:It seems to me that what's notable is not the joke itself, but the inherent criticism -- that Carlson affects a level of ignorance unthinkable in a ''cum laude'' Stanford graduate, apparently in order to seem less intellectual to her audience. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::Again, can you show that notability? Not talking partisan sites or a KC blog ect.. --] ] 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, the other three sources I showed. Also ].--] (]) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Huffington Post, Raw Story, TPM, and two links to another blog? No reliable sources amongst them; the first three have an historical axe to grind against FOX news. Get me two actual print links, and I'll concede the point. Until then, I contend the pedia has had insufficient time to determine whether the Stewart content for this biography of a living person has cultural resonance. ] (]) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::. And ]--] (]) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::And . That's your two print links.--] (]) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Neither of these are "actual print links," but they're much better than the first group (though still considered "lefty" IMHO). I'm not going to revert a well-written and well-sourced insertion along the lines you've discussed above. I'd prefer to see some sourced reaction from the subject or from FOX News before such insertion. I still contend this material hasn't achieved the threshold of resonance appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I hope we can continue to improve and better source this BLP. ] (]) 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: ''In response to Carlson's on-air claims that she needed to look up "czar" and "ignoramus", Stewart unveiled Carlson's accomplished academic background and accused her of deliberately pretending to be less knowledgeable than she is to avoid being seen as elitist by her audience.''--] (]) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:.--] (]) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::Am happy to support the above proposal. It is NPOV. (] (]) 03:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC))
:I believe an elitist is one, a person who thinks they are better than someone else due to economical and educational privileges. And two, someone who believes their upbringing gives them the higher ground (I hope I don't need to explain this). I don't know what people find when they ], but I can assume it changes with the wind. No need for me to give examples. ] (]) 05:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::I was paraphrasing. Actual quote was that she plays dumb "to connect with an audience that you think sees intellect as an elitist flaw."--] (]) 05:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Paraphrasing is fun, but that statement would apply to any anchor on a 24/7 news network. There are networks that true elitists admire... Unfortunately, they are shared by people deemed unworthy. Where do we go from here? ] (]) 05:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:I would avoid "needed to look up", "unveiled", and "elitist": ''In response to several on-air instances in which Carlson appeared to be unaware of the meanings of words (including "czar" and "ignoramus"), Stewart pointed out her accomplished academic background and accused her of deliberately feigning ignorance to avoid being seen as intellectual by her audience.'' ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 13:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:I was the one that posted the content in question, and I believe everyone should see the content in question. I also believe that even if we decide to remove the quote from the article that we should note how she most certainly does "play dumb" or act stupider than she really is, while on the fox news network. Could we perhaps have some suggestions about how we could better incorporate this into the content, is there any way we could incorporate the quote into the content? . I also support the proposal.--](])<span style="font-family:'Garamond','GaramondNo8','Cochin','Big Caslon','Georgia',serif;font-size: 20pt;">]</span> 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::I mean it's really funny quote and all but it's too lengthy and weighty for the subject matter. We don't need to tell the whole joke to convey the gest of it e.g. Carlson plays dumb to cater to an anti-intellectual audience. The rest of the quote is just humor derived from that observation/criticism.--] (]) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I added the last suggested wording. We can always tweak it, but in the meantime it prevents drive-by additions of the subject by people not following the discussion here.--] (]) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
*it's really amazing that people actually consider that statement notable enough for a living person's biography. I don't see how it passes the "who cares" test. It's a morning show with a casual atmosphere, not meant to be heavy. I think it has no business in the article at all. NY Post and Washington Post columnists write tomes and tomes about subjects that don't matter to fill their weekly quotas...don't need to do that here. ] (]) 21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== Studied at Oxford University in England ==

The source for this is the Fox News website. Most likely she studied for a course at Oxford while a student at Stanford. Does anyone have any other sources for this? ] (]) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:The article says she studied at Oxford while a student at Stanford. Is there some contention about that? Is the wording not right? Would you word it differently? Not sure how notable it really is, but whatever. --] ] 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::The Miss America site (which I normally take as authoritative on most Miss America bios; they have lots of reasons to get it right) also includes a mention of the time at Oxford, but is similarly obscure with details. ] (]) 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::The source (Fox) says: "Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford University and also studied at Oxford University in England", while the article says "While a student at Stanford, she studied abroad at Oxford University". Did she take a course at Oxford while a student at Sanford or was she accepted as a student at Oxford University? I would guess the first, but the source is ambiguous. ] (]) 03:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Still waiting for what the point is here or a proposed rewrite. Should the article read ''While a student at Stanford, she studied abroad at Oxford University, but it should be noted that she was never accepted as a student at said school, just in case you were confussed''...--] ] 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

==Removed link to list of articles from MMfA==
A link to a list of articles that mention Carlson? --] ] 14:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:This was a compromise. As I said in the ], I'd be happy to replace the summary with a longer section going into more detail, such as her whitewashing of the Bush administration (), her lying about Obama's proposed tax credit (), or her trillion-dollar error on Social Security (). If that would seem better to you, let me know. In the meantime, it would be absurd to write a bio of Carlson without mentioning the allegations of conservative bias, which your edit would completely expunge, so I'll restore the previous compromise. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::Do you have an non partisan sources? --] ] 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I added this to the BLP board. Going back and reading this talk page, its like ground hog day :)...anyways, --] ] 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

== Is wiki turning into a democrat sounding board? ==

Interesting that wiki seems to be pandering to the left by allowing a 'Controversies' section into what should be simply a non-biased factual account of a persons' biographical info, not injections of personal ideas of what they deem to be a controversy. It's really interesting, and actually saddening, that Jon Stewart, a comedian, is given any kind of merit as a source for a biased controversies section on anything or anyone. Is the DNC invading Wiki now? George Sorros...? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Deleted comedy show's comments ==

A comedy television show, though clever and humorous, is transient in nature and is woefully inadequate as a source for a living person's biography. Please discuss here to show good faith before reverting. ] (]) 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Clever and humorous, sure, but more importantly: grounded in fact. The latter reason is why such material goes beyond being a comedic segment and instead serves as social commentary. "It's funny because it's true," if you will. If it can be shown that relevant parts of the segment were taken out of context or fabricated for the sake of comedy I would fully agree with you that such a depiction of Carlson is unfit for an encyclopedia. At this point, it does not appear that that is the case, and so I have reverted the changes.

Finally, asking for "good faith" discussion before reverting changes, while failing to give the same yourself, is rather backhanded. There has been ample discussion on this material above and it was widely agreed that the comments were fair and appropriate. No new information has been brought forward, merely an unsubstantiated opinion, and so there should be no reason for such an edit.
] (]) 08:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages is not just a collection of "facts". How notable is this incident and widely covered? Does it constitute undue weigth compared to the rest of the bio? --] (]) 15:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

::How much weight should be given to the allegation that she exhibits right-wing bias? As I noted above, I'd be fine with including a detailed litany of her distortions and outright lies that favor conservatives, but as a compromise we've gone with this comparatively brief summary. The latest edits would (as has been attempted in the past) completely expunge from her bio any reference to possible bias. That would clearly be insufficient weight. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Please stop using Wilipedia to promote you own biasis, agendas and hatred of others. --] (]) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Please stop ignoring ]. Above, especially in the thread ], I've provided a detailed explanation of why the material is appropriate. Notably, I've cited the ] policy that says we report facts about opinions. It applies even to opinions that some Misplaced Pages editors consider ill-founded. You choose to ignore all the lengthy substantive arguments and instead ascribe my view entirely to my "biasis , agendas and hatred of others." The material that you're trying to suppress is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. If you don't like that material, do some actual work and find quotations from notable spokespersons that praise Carlson for her fairness and balance. Those opinions can then be considered for inclusion on the same basis. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 05:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::You are using a reference that is a search result for articles with her name in it? AFG doesn't mean I have to ingore editors with an obvious hostility towards BLP subjects. --] (]) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC).Sorry I wasn't signed in. --] (]) 13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::''Notably, I've cited the WP:NPOV policy that says we report facts about opinions.''
::::::Certainly valid, but that observation is not unqualified...particularly as related to ] consideration. ] <small>(italics emphasis in original)</small>...
:::::::...means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all ''significant'' views that have been ].
::::::"Significance" is at issue here and can be resolved by satisfying the sourcing provisions mandated by ]. While an article subject's ideological perspective may be worthy of note, that a "conservative" host might, on occasion, demonstrate a "conservative" bias that irritates those of an opposing ideology is hardly encyclopedic or "controversial". Whether alleged demonstrations of that conservative bias rise to a level of <u>"significance"</u> to warrant mention in this article must be supported by the provision of clearly adequate third-party sourcing demonstrating that '''''significance'''''. The provision of a "Google search" for sundry "Media Matter's" mention of her name as purporting to satisfy ] sourcing mandates for inclusion is about as lame as it can get. ] (]) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is a living person and appears to be piling on of insignificant negative material. Any editor has the right and is in fact encouraged to remove questionable material until it can be shown with a reasonable consensus to be worthy of inclusion. I started a section here to discuss it, which is hardly backhanded. Reverting it without discussion after NPOV BLP was called into question is a problem.

I may be mistaken, but Comedy Central is not well known for rigorous editorial review. I enjoy watching Jon Stewart and many of his colleagues but I certainly don't confuse them with the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, CBS, BBC, etc. Perhaps his sketches carry a little more weight then Jay Leno or David Letterman monologues but certainly not enough for a BLP.

It doesn't pass the "so what" test. She hosts a light-weight morning coffee talk show. They march out cute puppies, interview girl scouts and every thing else. Jon Stewart lambastes every journalist -- who cares. I am still of the opinion that it needs to be removed. ] (]) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:''I am still of the opinion that it needs to be removed.''
:I fully concur. Whatever notable might be the recipient of Stewart barbs is irrelevant to a determination of "significance" under ], particularly where ] governs. Without provision of additional sourcing suggesting some "significance" to Stewart's observations on Carlson, this is triviality masquerading as substance. ] (]) 23:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
::The only purpose of JS in this instance is to denegrate the subject. In general this is a violation of BLP. One of the biggest problems I have with this section, and have had for some time, is that there is no way to determine if it is at all true. The implication is that since Carlson is well educated that she must know the meaning of those words, and by extention she must know the meaning of every word less she be viewed as intentionally playing down her intelligence. I don't believe it belongs and never have. It is not encyclopedic and not very notable, not to mention I do believe it is a BLP violaiton. ] (]) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:::] was the only non-IP acct to respond as opposing over the past two days since I originally raised my objection. Since he self-identifies as a "Hostile to the right wing"" editor and the self-described attorney twice reverted my previous edits, by removing what I think is poorly sourced and insignificant material, even after I raised BLP violation objections, I notified him on his user talk page of my intent to remove the section for good this time.

:::I firmly believe that I am fully in the right if I deleted it tonight but I want to be sure I have a fair consensus and that he has had ample opportunity to respond to my more then fair notice of reversion. If someone else moves the offending paragraph to the talk page, I won't object. ] (]) 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) If the consensus is that someone can graduate with honors from Stanford without knowing middle school vocabulary words, the JS segment would not be funny. But that's rather irrelevant, isn't it, because our consensus on fact is inconsequential.
:"Ignoramous", "Double Dip Recesion" and "Czar" are not exactly middle school vocabulary words. I doubt many people here knew the complete meaning of Double Dip Recesion before 2008, and how many knew that Ignoramous refers to a Lawyer? What it comes down to is if I can find a word which you don't know the meaning of that seems like it should be commonly known, then I can say you are a liar. ] (]) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'll get technical: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Now, obviously it's been published in a video format ... but is that a reliable source? Turns out Jon Stewart being the most trusted source of news in what is, granted, an unscientific sampling doesn't need to come into play based on what Loodog posted below, because other non-comedic sources cited the clip:

::Made it to the , as well as a few others ... --] (]) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Made it into a liberal online newspaper, yeah that is really surprising. Anything that trashes FOX makes into HuffPo. ] (]) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, that only addresses one argument, that this segment is verifiable, not that it's notable. Type "Gretchen Carlson" then hit the space bar in the Google bar on the top right of your browser and read the auto-complete entries: Daily Show and Jon Stewart both appear. I think that is rather definitive evidence that this is something significant about her, and whether we think it's true or even whether it's true at all is rather negligible, because it has been published. I don't know how else one could possibly determine whether something is "notable" about a person without bringing their own personal point of view into the discussion. You can cite other news sources like Loodog did, perhaps, but then we're back to verifiability.

Again, I don't know much Wikipedian policy and there's a chance I'm doing something very wrong here, but I'm simply using common sense. The little Wikipedian policy I have read is ambiguous and contradictory: on the one hand it states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone ... look out for biased or malicious content." and yet on the other hand it states "All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" ... how are we supposed to represent all viewpoints if we aren't allowed to report biased or malicious content? Negative reports are '''by definition''' malicious and the majority of praise and criticism about newspeople, even from so called "reliable secondary sources," is inherently biased. (That's kind of the point of the Daily Show.) Seems like the problem isn't with the article, to me. ] (]) 12:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:As an act of good faith, I personally notified the two who previously were most vocal supporting retention (including the IP) that I was requesting a show of hands for a consensus and we let it run for four days, which in my observation of Misplaced Pages is fairly generous. Both parties I notified have responded and are included in the head count.

:We let this run for four days and it appears the final count is five supporting removal versus three, mostly IPs, supporting retention. I will remove the text and associated sources from the main article at this point. I know that she is not a significant player in the news hosting business but I truly feel that regardless of her supposed political affiliation she is a human and certainly deserves a fair shake on her Wiki bio. ] (]) 03:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

::If I may, a quote copied directly from the introduction of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" article on Misplaced Pages: "Critics, ...have chastised Stewart for not conducting sufficiently hard-hitting interviews with his political guests, some of whom he may have previously lampooned in other segments. Stewart and other Daily Show writers have responded to both criticisms by saying that '''''they do not have any journalistic responsibility and that as comedians their only duty is to provide entertainment'''''." This should hopefully settle the farcical idea of including this, or any other quote from Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Whoever Happens to be Hosting" in any biography of a living person and from any attempts to include it as a supposed collegiate reference. Thanks for bearing with me. ] (]) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

== Recurring vandalism ==

This article receives the same vandalism on a daily basis from multiple IP addresses. It almost appears to be an organized effort. What is the threshold for requesting semi-protection? ] (]) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:Actually I had requested semi-prot soon after this latest spate of vandalism commenced but withdrew it to "wait and see" a bit longer. I think, however, we're getting quite close to requiring it now. Let's see what transpires from this point on before petitioning as there are several (I think) GF IP editors who have contributed. ] (]) 15:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== Show Update! ==

Gretchen is no longer the co-host of Fox & Friends. She is going to have her own show called "The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson." Her bio needs to be updated. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

That seems to have been added to the article and I changed it in the summary box on the side of the page. It might be worth editing the rest of the article at some point, but her new show is still new, so I think it might make sense to wait until the show has established itself.] (]) 19:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

== Edit request on 29 September 2013 Gretchen Carlson Fox News ==

{{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please change the first sentence of Gretchen Carlson's wiki from "who co-hosts the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends... " to "who hosts the Fox News daytime show 'The Real Story' with Gretchen Carlson weekdays at 2PM ET. Carlson was the co-host of the Fox News Morning show Fox & Friends along with Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade." This should be changed because she is no longer the host of Fox & Friends, she is now the host of a new daytime show - "The Real Story" with Gretchen Carlson on the Fox News Channel. I would appreciate it if the wiki was updated. Thank you so much!
<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/09/25/real-story-with-gretchen-carlson-to-debut-sept-30-on-fox-news/</ref>
<!-- End request -->
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:43, 29 September 2013</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Done. I suggest that if you're interested, you start the new show stub at '']''. The Fox News site doesn't have a show url yet, though I see a few press release-y articles in the media. ] (]) 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Violinist Claims ==

Moderately interesting if true, but nothing about the violin piece is sourced here. ] (]) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
:Welcome to Misplaced Pages! ] A cursory search renders several reliable sources. Offline sources should be easy to find. ] (]) 04:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


== Promo language in lead == == Promo language in lead ==
Line 324: Line 55:
==Bill Oreilly and the guy from Red Eye== ==Bill Oreilly and the guy from Red Eye==
I'm fine with this page but we need to reedit Keith Olberman's page to include criticism from Bill O'reilly and the guy from Red Eye...because, you know, it's important to include criticism on any political figure's page from extremists on the other side who are prone to hateful diatribes. I'm fine with this page but we need to reedit Keith Olberman's page to include criticism from Bill O'reilly and the guy from Red Eye...because, you know, it's important to include criticism on any political figure's page from extremists on the other side who are prone to hateful diatribes.

== Unsourced statement probably not true. ==

This statement in the lede is probably not true:

“Carlson has interviewed every Presidential candidate and President over the last two decades.”

There are scores of people who have been “presidential candidates” who you’ve never heard of. They filed paperwork to be the candidate of some irrelevant party in one state or another, and may never have gotten on the ballot. Did she interview Virgil Goode, the constitution party’s presidential candidate in 2012? Or Don Blankenship in 2020? Was she even working during the 2020 primaries? Did she interview Jay Inslee and Julian Castro and the two dozen other Democratic candidates?

More likely, Carlson inteviewed every ''major party'' candidate that won the party’s nomination. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I've removed the statement, partially because it hasn't been cited in ten months, and is very likely untrue as asserted above. ] (]) 23:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

== There are mountains of uncited assertions in this BLP ==

I've tagged many of them. If these assertions are not addressed with sourcing I expect to remove them. ] (]) 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

== Why is there no mention about the scandal during her first job as a reporter?? ==

Souce (already cited as #19 on Misplaced Pages):
https://www.styleweekly.com/tv-8-beauty-queen-back-on-local-airwaves/

"But her tenure was tainted by a nationally publicized, tabloid-style scandal involving a reported affair with her married co-anchor, Kevin McGraw. While McGraw was let go in the wake of the scandal, Carlson left voluntarily to accept a job at WCPO-TV in Cincinnati. Before she left town, a few city luminaries threw her a glitzy, black-tie-optional send-off."

I grew up in Richmond And I can tell you that this was major news at the time. This is not in the source, she was busted providing oral services to McGraw in the WRIC parking lot. The big black tie send off was done in hopes that she would keep her mouth shut about the many local politicians that she was also having affairs with.

I find it odd that there's this great outpouring of sympathy for her when she it seems like Roger Ailes - who was lying, cheating human filth, I make no excuses for him - was just acting on her reputation. ] (]) 03:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:12, 20 October 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gretchen Carlson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject iconMinnesota High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBeauty Pageants High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTelevision Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconWomen's History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Television Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconStanford University Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.


Promo language in lead

Gaining experience as anchor and reporter for several local network affiliates, ...

Either this phrase was meant to begin "After gaining ..." or it's straight-up promotional language.

I suggest:

After gaining experience{{what}} as anchor and reporter for several local network affiliates{{which}}{{when}}, ...

— MaxEnt 13:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gretchen Carlson. 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) 03:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bill Oreilly and the guy from Red Eye

I'm fine with this page but we need to reedit Keith Olberman's page to include criticism from Bill O'reilly and the guy from Red Eye...because, you know, it's important to include criticism on any political figure's page from extremists on the other side who are prone to hateful diatribes.

Unsourced statement probably not true.

This statement in the lede is probably not true:

“Carlson has interviewed every Presidential candidate and President over the last two decades.”

There are scores of people who have been “presidential candidates” who you’ve never heard of. They filed paperwork to be the candidate of some irrelevant party in one state or another, and may never have gotten on the ballot. Did she interview Virgil Goode, the constitution party’s presidential candidate in 2012? Or Don Blankenship in 2020? Was she even working during the 2020 primaries? Did she interview Jay Inslee and Julian Castro and the two dozen other Democratic candidates?

More likely, Carlson inteviewed every major party candidate that won the party’s nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.138.121 (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the statement, partially because it hasn't been cited in ten months, and is very likely untrue as asserted above. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There are mountains of uncited assertions in this BLP

I've tagged many of them. If these assertions are not addressed with sourcing I expect to remove them. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no mention about the scandal during her first job as a reporter??

Souce (already cited as #19 on Misplaced Pages): https://www.styleweekly.com/tv-8-beauty-queen-back-on-local-airwaves/

"But her tenure was tainted by a nationally publicized, tabloid-style scandal involving a reported affair with her married co-anchor, Kevin McGraw. While McGraw was let go in the wake of the scandal, Carlson left voluntarily to accept a job at WCPO-TV in Cincinnati. Before she left town, a few city luminaries threw her a glitzy, black-tie-optional send-off."

I grew up in Richmond And I can tell you that this was major news at the time. This is not in the source, she was busted providing oral services to McGraw in the WRIC parking lot. The big black tie send off was done in hopes that she would keep her mouth shut about the many local politicians that she was also having affairs with.

I find it odd that there's this great outpouring of sympathy for her when she it seems like Roger Ailes - who was lying, cheating human filth, I make no excuses for him - was just acting on her reputation. 71.251.236.155 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: