| Revision as of 15:53, 21 May 2009 edit130.64.130.115 (talk) →Controversies: Maintaining a controversy section.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:54, 21 May 2009 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,956 editsm Signing comment by 130.64.130.115 - "→Controversies: Maintaining a controversy section."Next edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| The thing about Ted Kennedy, it does strike me that's pushing things a bit, but it is about Gretchen. The one about the Major Garrett e-mail, though - what exactly does that have to do with Gretchen Carlson? Perhaps it should be included on a Fox & Friends entry, but unless Gretchen was specifically a driving force, it doesn't belong on her page. And if she WAS a driving force, then the entry needs to state this - right now, it's just an isse with the show she works on, not necessarily with her. ] (]) 19:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | The thing about Ted Kennedy, it does strike me that's pushing things a bit, but it is about Gretchen. The one about the Major Garrett e-mail, though - what exactly does that have to do with Gretchen Carlson? Perhaps it should be included on a Fox & Friends entry, but unless Gretchen was specifically a driving force, it doesn't belong on her page. And if she WAS a driving force, then the entry needs to state this - right now, it's just an isse with the show she works on, not necessarily with her. ] (]) 19:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| It is politcally biased to remove the controversy section here. Obviously Gretchen is a controversial figure among liberal groups. Her hosting on Fox News is relevant for that discussion. | It is politcally biased to remove the controversy section here. Obviously Gretchen is a controversial figure among liberal groups. Her hosting on Fox News is relevant for that discussion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == External Links == | == External Links == | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 21 May 2009
 | Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Beauty Pageants Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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)
- This entry is a tempest in a teapot -- it's like saying she was a foot over the white line at a red light. I see no significance to it at all. Are we going to go through every person in the media and politics and list everything they say that we disagree with? If so, wikipedia will be even more of a laughingstock. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The thing about Ted Kennedy, it does strike me that's pushing things a bit, but it is about Gretchen. The one about the Major Garrett e-mail, though - what exactly does that have to do with Gretchen Carlson? Perhaps it should be included on a Fox & Friends entry, but unless Gretchen was specifically a driving force, it doesn't belong on her page. And if she WAS a driving force, then the entry needs to state this - right now, it's just an isse with the show she works on, not necessarily with her. Nolefan32 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It is politcally biased to remove the controversy section here. Obviously Gretchen is a controversial figure among liberal groups. Her hosting on Fox News is relevant for that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.130.115 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2009 (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)
- WP:NPOV covers ALL aspects of the article. The logic that it doesn't apply to external links is incredulous. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, NPOV applies to the whole article, not to individual external links. If your logic applied, no links would be possible. A Fox bio is not neutral either, it is strictly complimentary. This is nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- How can something apply to the whole article and then not include the individual links? They are not mutually exclusive. At least you readily admit that the external links are currently promoting undue weight. To say that her FOX bio is strictly complimentary is absurd, perhaps you should read up on those types of Bio's to see what a Bio should really look like. I simply don't understand the reasoning that you and others have where by there must be negative information on someone less the article is too positive. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is not my reasoning. If criticism exists, it is our duty under NPOV to report on it. To report only complimentary things if such criticism exists violates NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 18 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)
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- Automatically assessed biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed Beauty Pageants articles
- Unknown-importance Beauty Pageants articles