Talk:Gretchen Carlson: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:42, 18 June 2008 edit206.230.48.50 (talk) →External Links ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:43, 18 June 2008 edit undoSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,949 editsm Signing comment by 206.230.48.50 - "→External Links: "Next edit →
Line 51:		Line 51:
	::Arzel, what are you, hired by Fox News to defend Republicans? Why are you against any criticism of these figureS? Criticism is just more information about a person. If you want to contrast the information or clarify it then do so and cite it but do not just remove stuff you don't like. This isn't Arzelopedia.		::Arzel, what are you, hired by Fox News to defend Republicans? Why are you against any criticism of these figureS? Criticism is just more information about a person. If you want to contrast the information or clarify it then do so and cite it but do not just remove stuff you don't like. This isn't Arzelopedia.

	::Also, "not encyclopedic" is a made up defense for deleting liberal criticism.		::Also, "not encyclopedic" is a made up defense for deleting liberal criticism. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 14:43, 18 June 2008

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Beauty Pageants Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Miss America question

Who was Miss Nevada, 1989 in the Miss America contest???? Please email response to KCBirt@aol.com

Debra Schuller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmillerhistorian (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Casey Close

It is almost certainly wrong that her husband is Tom Hanks' agent, unless it's another Hanks. Tom Hanks' agents are CAA and I think he's represented by Ron Meyer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wideeyedraven (talk • contribs) 01:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Hanks and Cruise are not his clients. He represents baseball players. Those two actors are not in the source either. Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Section

It seems that User:TanningLamp has removed the entire controversies section now three times. To leave this information out is to bias the article. Surely a complete picture of the person should be presented. Tanninglamp in the edit summary writes that calling Ted Kennedy an "Enemy on the home front" was not controversial, and that the Obama Madrassa controversy was not sourced. That former hints at bias, and the latter is not a reason for deletion, but to find a source to improve the encyclopedia. I urge TanningLamp to help to improve the article instead of deleting sections wholesale. Arjunasbow 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add the "Hostile enemy right here on the home front" controversy back to the article using a different source to satisfy TanningLamp's objections. Arjunasbow 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

DOB?

One part of the entry says 1964, one says 1966? Sadistik (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Bullet points are generally for lists and not for article sections or paragraphs. In addition, WP:BLP has strict standards of how and when content that is potentially controversial should be handled and referenced in an article.Awotter (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Ok, these two controversies are seriously nit-picking. Neither seem to have garnered any major reporting specific to Carlson. I suggest they are undue weight and would remove completely if not for a single editor. Comments? Arzel (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you using to judge that neither "garnered any major reporting"? I was able to find plenty with a single search. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I had done some searching and was unable to find much on a google news search of these incidents. I agree that the second has after seeing your additions, but I question the first issue. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Most people don't know this, but Google News only searches the last 30 days or so. There is an archive that is searchable, but I don't know how extensive that is. Your library probably offers free access to Lexis/Nexis so you are better off using that. 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the external link to MMfA. It only serves to criticize carlson, and does not offer a balanced view. Per WP:EL and WP:BLP and probably most specifically under WP:UNDUE it does not belong. Save for a moment that some feel it does belong, then by what means does one decide which belong? What makes MMfA so special that their criticism deserves special mention? By this logic we should have stories on Carlson from every source available. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "special mention", it's just a link, and that is what the external links section is for. BLP, EL, and UNDUE do not disqualify this link. Legitimate criticism is appropriate and required by NPOV. You try to fight this battle on every article, and it's just not working. Gamaliel (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, what are you, hired by Fox News to defend Republicans? Why are you against any criticism of these figureS? Criticism is just more information about a person. If you want to contrast the information or clarify it then do so and cite it but do not just remove stuff you don't like. This isn't Arzelopedia.

Also, "not encyclopedic" is a made up defense for deleting liberal criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.48.50 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: