Talk:Gretchen Carlson: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:03, 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 "Journalist" vs "Host"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:12, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,671,251 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
(29 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}}

	==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> ] ]</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> ] ]</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> ] ]</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> ] ]</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">— 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 217:		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">— 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Women

This 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

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Minnesota High‑importance

	Minnesota portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beauty Pageants High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Gender studies Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stanford University Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This 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.

Wyntermitchell (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

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: