Talk:Gretchen Carlson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Miss America question

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

• Debra Schuller [1] —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)

Thanks for restoring the Controversy Section. It just wouldn't be American for Wikipedia to have an article on a conservative without one. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (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)

You are correct in that regards, and I'm not trying to hide that fact of hers on there. The situation would be different is a GOP supporter try to remove that fact. But here's something you might not know, I am more liberal than conservative, and support the Democrats, and watch more MSNBC than Fox News. And the liberal part of me would want to have left this particular edit alone. Nevertheless, the edit did not seem 100% legit, and that was why I removed the section to begin with for the reasons that I stated. Contary to popular belief, not everybody at Fox News is a conservative, vice versa at MSNBC. Which is why I still say the first part I don't feel is quite necessary to mention. But the second part, it is sourced. So I wouldn't have a problem leaving it there. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your political leaning, my changes point to a Wikipedia page on Fox News bias, which has sources there. I would claim that Fox News conservative bias is common knowledge. For example, you even acknowledge it in your last discussion post (i.e., "and support the Democrats, and watch more MSNBC than Fox News"). Why would you point that out if you weren't aware Fox News has a history of being accused of having a right-leaning viewpoint? I could source the first sentence with any liberal organization claiming Fox News is right-leaning. Do you want me to do that?

That would be nice. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I should remind 130 that this is a BLP, and as such is subject to specific rules regarding controversy. You can't simply say that she is controversal and conservatively biased and then link to a left wing website, just as you couldn't say she is the greatest and perfect and then link to some other right wing or fan website. If there is a specific incident that has substantial reliable sources talking about the specific incident and why it is important in the context of her entire life then you have something. Additionally, just because she is on FNC does not equate to being biased, even if you link to the FNC controversies page. This would fall under WP:OR and guilt by association in that you are trying to prove or show that she is biased because of some other inforamtion. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arzel has a history of defending all conservative figures on WP regardless of popular controversy. Check his profile. He has been blocked before for breaking the 3 edit rule. It is clear that in his opinion no controversy will ever count as being worthy for these persons. I have still not heard any defense against the fact that Gretchen at least deserves a "controversies" section. Liberal criticism is relevant for her notability (A requirement for BLP). I did not claim Gretchen is a necessarily conservatively biased, I took a NPOV and merely pointed out a fact that several liberal organizations have criticized her hosting on FNC for being biased. Do you contest this is true Arzel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.130.115 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My being blocked is hardly relevant to this discussion. To say that I defend "all conservative figures" is quite a stretch. I have removed minor, meaningless criticism from John Edwards and Elizabeth Kucinich among other liberal figures. Furthermore, I don't consider myself conservative, in the sense that you would apply, I am much more of a libertarian, and watch out for violations of WP:BLP and other issues to which random editors try to insert drivel into articles. I do lean conservative in my history, but this largely because most liberal leaning articles have more than enough people looking out for them already. The number of liberal editors far outweighs the number of conservative or moderate editors here on WP. Now, do you have some specific issues that have resulted in criticism from RS that are not mainly driven from left-leaning websites? MMfA, Daily Kos, DU, and other left-leaning sites regularly complain about just about anything they view as having even a minor conservative slant. Just as Newsbusters and some other right-leaning sites complain about anything they view having a liberal slant. You will notice that I don't go around adding stupid criticism to liberal people simply becuase those sites say that they are liberal do you? Arzel (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, what you have done is to remove criticism that YOU consider "minor, meaningless" and "stupid" as a conservative. The fact that these organizations criticize this figure is absolutely relevant to why Gretchen Carlson is popular in the first place, and not just a random host. Adding this criticism only adds to the information in this article. Why do you want to remove that if not for a biased agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.130.167 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arzel does have a valid point, and he is reiterating what I said earlier about not every at FNC is conservative, and vice versa with MSNBC and liberals. This user comes off as being a conservative, and therefore my polar opposite. I may not share the same views on a lot of things with this editor, but this I concur with. Hey, even Democrats and Republicans must work together. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC) What's truly scary is how enraged leftist/"liberals" become when they aren't allowed to propagandize in peace. Arzel is completely right, leftist/"liberal" viewpoint pages on WP are impenetrable fortresses where it's tough to find coherent criticism that hasn't been edited into oblivion by extremely politicized leftist/"liberal" editors (people who probably make their livings from the taxes of conservatives). All of this, as stupid and meaningless as it seems all of you guys bickering, is exactly why America is dying a fast death. God help us all as we bicker with each other while the rest of the world outdoes us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.166.248 (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's remarkable how thoroughly and consistently intellectually dishonest those on the right are. -- Jibal (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have missed all the rules for posting here, but I point out that personal attacks like that are not allowed. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2014 (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)

NPOV applies to the article as a whole. It's nonsensical to apply it to individual links when the whole point of NPOV is to have a balanced presentation of different POVs. -- Jibal (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2014 (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.

He's an ideological warrior who makes ideologically driven edits to ideologically selected articles. He's been at it for years. -- Jibal (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 . - Nunh-huh 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.Mangala3 (talk) 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. - Nunh-huh 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?Mangala3 (talk) 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 biography of a living person, and all additions must be reliably sourced. - Nunh-huh 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.Mangala3 (talk) 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. - Nunh-huh 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?Mangala3 (talk) 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. - Nunh-huh 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?Mangala3 (talk) 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 WP:NPOV 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 some reliable sources. - Nunh-huh 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 WP:RS 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.Drew Smith What I've done 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection was certainly necessary, as there was edit-warring by IPs who only started [1] discussing and [2] signing after it was initiated. - Nunh-huh 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.Mangalaiii (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be safe to call this resolved at WP:EAR? If a problem crops up again you can just message me...Drew Smith What I've done 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, whats up with the 3/iii thing?Drew Smith What I've done 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 Nunh-huh doesn't think this is worthy from the history.Mangalaiii (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the 3/iii thing, maybe Sinebot substitutes Roman numerals on different pages?Mangalaiii (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is the work of the Daily Kos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.33.80 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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. John Asfukzenski (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur; I think we're foolish to let Wikipedia 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.- Nunh-huh 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. Arzel (talk) 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."Mangala3 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. - Nunh-huh 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."Drew Smith What I've done 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that you don't understand the concept of "undue weight". Please see that section in WP:NPOV. "In determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors". In this case, there are no reliable sources. You may also want to consult Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight . 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 a living person. 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. - Nunh-huh 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 Wikipedia 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.130.64.130.159 (talk) 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: [1] please sign in and sign your comments; you've commented here as at least three different users; and [2] do not edit war to include content for which you've failed to obtain consensus on the talk page. - Nunh-huh 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 Wikipedia are SECONDARY SOURCES, which are not quotes or directly written by the subject. I can obviously use another source to cover this subject, otherwise Wikipedia article would be nothing but autobiographies for the subjects in question.Mangala3 (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It also doesn't help Mangala's case that he [1] uses multiple accounts, for [2] a single purpose, which is of such exceeding import to him that he [3] 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. - Nunh-huh 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.Mangala3 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, 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. JamesMLane t c 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 Wikipedia 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 the page where Mangala3's little forestfire about this had spread 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 original research rather than an actual statement from a reliable source. - Nunh-huh 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. Arzel (talk) 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. Gamaliel (talk) 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. - Nunh-huh 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 Wikipedia 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 WP:NPOV, we must "fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute". JamesMLane t c 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, Category:people criticized by Keith Olbermann? 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. - Nunh-huh 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 "Fox News' Carlson continued media pattern of whitewashing Bush". Media Matters also included Carlson (by name) when it concluded, "Fox News anchors, contributors falsely assert, repeatedly, that Obama's tax credit plan gives money to people who don't pay taxes". 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, Kristen Dalton is also a beauty contest winner, but that's her only claim to notability; Bobby Flay 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 a false statement that Social Security is bankrupt, it's not inherently important. Gretchen Carlson, however, isn't on the Food Network. She's on Fox NEWS Channel. Specifically, she's on Fox & Friends, 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 Sarah Palin 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 pilloried 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. JamesMLane t c 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. - Nunh-huh 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 removed it. 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). JamesMLane t c 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. - Nunh-huh 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 [the passage] 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 this page 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 this version. 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 the policy 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: Michael Moore controversies, given that I linked to it in an earlier post, and Media Matters for America#Criticism, 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. JamesMLane t c 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 Wikipedia: report things other reliable sources report, not our original findings or original formulations. - Nunh-huh 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 Nunh-huh, you just don't want this information in the article due to some partisan defense campaign. Mangala3 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the pattern here too: the pattern seems to be that you assume all people who disagree with you do so out of some invalid motive rather than in good faith. 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 Wikipedia: we report things other reliable sources report, not our original findings or original formulations. - Nunh-huh 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[2]. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if our goal were to drag Wikipedia 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. - Nunh-huh 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. Gamaliel (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 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.207.237.100.138 (talk) 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! JamesMLane t c 08:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Is this the best way to describe her "...a former Miss America and FOX News Channel television personality."? How about just Television journalist? I don't think a person is usually defined by an award they won or by the name of their present employer. Steve Dufour (talk) 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.Steve Dufour (talk) 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? AndySocial (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 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.AndySocial (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 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.ColonelKernel (talk) 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? Mangala3 (talk) 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, Wikipedia allows Op-eds as sources. Mangala3 (talk) 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 Joe Scarborough ("host"), Al Roker ("broadcaster"), Mike Brezezinski ("co-host"), Willie Geist ("host"). On the show that Carlson is notable for, Fox and Friends, she delivers commentary on issues, not hard reporting. [Fox and Friends' bio on Carlson] describes her as both "Co-host" and "Co-anchor". MichaelLNorth (talk) 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, --Tom (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are assuming good faith of other editors here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith up to a point. --Tom (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it appears you gave up in AGF at the starting point. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] --Tom (talk) 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. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh course, there are no partisan POV agenda pushers here.--Tom (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, to change the subject back to the "material" being added to the article, what do others think? --Tom (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The MMFA citation is a search results page with a bunch of articles that mention Crlson how? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 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....--Tom (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? If there is an error, we should correct it. Gamaliel (talk) 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? --Tom (talk) 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. Gamaliel (talk) 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. Gamaliel (talk) 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. --Tom (talk) 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. Gamaliel (talk) 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, --Tom (talk) 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. JamesMLane t c 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Most enlightening...and O'Reilly's daily "Pinheads and Patriots" entries are, one might assume, now Wikipedia-worthy as well? Just wondrin' Mr. Lane? JakeInJoisey (talk) 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.ColonelKernel (talk) 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 WP:CITE page to learn how to attach proper citation to any page. BusterD (talk) 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. BusterD (talk) 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 Tucker Carlson, Jim Cramer, and Ted Stevens 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. Chevy Chase's impression of Gerald Ford).--Louiedog (talk) 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. --Tom (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Has this "material" been widely covered? If not, leave out. --Tom (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Made it to the HuffPo, as well as a few others [3][4][5][6]. This has become notable.--Louiedog (talk) 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 WP:BLP. Regardless, it appears certain propagandists have made it notable, seems like it's always the same players. I'm going to invoke WP:COMMONSENSE and look forward to other editors opinion on this matter. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the purveyors of the opposing viewpoint as "propagandists" does not address the content of the argument. Please explain your reasoning for why this is not notable.--Louiedog (talk) 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? --Tom (talk) 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, WP:UNDUE, and there's something about relevance and the test of time. ThinkEnemies (talk) 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. Powers ^T 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, can you show that notability? Not talking partisan sites or a KC blog ect.. --Tom (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the other three sources I showed. Also Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content.--Louiedog (talk) 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. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NY Mag. And "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."--Louiedog (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And Salon. That's your two print links.--Louiedog (talk) 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. BusterD (talk) 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.[7][8]--Louiedog (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[9].--Louiedog (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Am happy to support the above proposal. It is NPOV. (smjwalsh (talk) 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 Google, but I can assume it changes with the wind. No need for me to give examples. ThinkEnemies (talk) 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."--Louiedog (talk) 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? ThinkEnemies (talk) 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. Powers ^T 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? here is the quote as it appeared on the wiki. I also support the proposal.--Glas(talk)Nice User skin 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.--Louiedog (talk) 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.--Louiedog (talk) 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. Veriss (talk) 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? The Four Deuces (talk) 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. --Tom (talk) 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. BusterD (talk) 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. The Four Deuces (talk) 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...--Tom (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed link to list of articles from MMfA

A link to a list of articles that mention Carlson? --Tom (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was a compromise. As I said in the thread above, I'd be happy to replace the summary with a longer section going into more detail, such as her whitewashing of the Bush administration ([10]), her lying about Obama's proposed tax credit ([11]), or her trillion-dollar error on Social Security ([12]). 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. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an non partisan sources? --Tom (talk) 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, --Tom (talk) 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...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.209.233 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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. Veriss (talk) 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. 134.88.191.136 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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? --Threeafterthree (talk) 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. JamesMLane t c 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop using Wilipedia to promote you own biasis, agendas and hatred of others. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring WP:AGF. Above, especially in the thread the thread "having a political position is not "controversial", I've provided a detailed explanation of why the material is appropriate. Notably, I've cited the WP:NPOV policy that says we report facts about opinions. It applies even to opinions that some Wikipedia editors consider ill-founded. You choose to ignore all the lengthy substantive arguments and instead ascribe my view entirely to my "biasis [sic], agendas and hatred of others." The material that you're trying to suppress is consistent with Wikipedia 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. JamesMLane t c 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. --68.9.117.21 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC).Sorry I wasn't signed in. --Threeafterthree (talk) 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 WP:BLP consideration. WP:NPOV (italics emphasis in original)...

...means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

"Significance" is at issue here and can be resolved by satisfying the sourcing provisions mandated by WP:V. 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 "significance" 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 WP:V sourcing mandates for inclusion is about as lame as it can get. JakeInJoisey (talk) 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. Veriss (talk) 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 WP:V, particularly where WP:BLP governs. Without provision of additional sourcing suggesting some "significance" to Stewart's observations on Carlson, this is triviality masquerading as substance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JamesMLane 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. Veriss (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'll get technical: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia 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 [13]... but is that a reliable source? Turns out Jon Stewart being the most trusted source of news [14] 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 HuffPo, as well as a few others [15][16][17] ... --Louiedog (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 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 Wikipedia'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. 134.88.191.136 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Veriss (talk) 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 Wikipedia: "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. Veriss (talk) 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? Veriss (talk) 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. JakeInJoisey (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalenjm (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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.MikeNM (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013 Gretchen Carlson Fox News

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.109.171 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2013

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

References

Violinist Claims

Moderately interesting if true, but nothing about the violin piece is sourced here. George Bounacos (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please feel invited to correct this. A cursory search renders several reliable sources. Offline sources should be easy to find. BusterD (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)