Talk:Katy Tur

Obama's Russia policy

What does she didnt remember about Obama and Russia mean? Makes no sense at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4101:4167:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed it. I think it was a minor story that doesn't appear to have any lasting significance. Knope7 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the act that this incident was not notable. All news hosts make errors. An isolated error, not widely covered in media is not significant and not encyclopedic. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel it was covered in the media adequately and error by news hosts are significant news in most cases and should be retained in the article.

Mediaite is one source. A google search shows that the other blogs that covered the occurrence tend to be skewed in favor of the right wing. One source covering what happened does not make it significant to Tur's biography. We don't cover every news story about subjects. Knope7 (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note the answer addresses the concern that this incident is "not significant". Political inclination of some of the sources ("right wing blogs") is not relevant. The fact is the incident is true, appeared in multiple sources and accurately cited. Which is enough for it to be included in a biography. --Wiki vj20 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS we do not include every event covered in the media. Knope7 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is this error was very significant, current affairs journalists are required to remember "current affairs" , the interviewee remembered the promise to Putin and it was widely covered in the public. Taking an example from current news cycle, the event Katy Tur forgot is similar in scope to a journalist forgetting Trump went on a trip to Saudi Arabia. Your dismissal that this event is not significant has no backing and feels like a personal opinion. --Wiki vj20 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you remove the reference to Bill Buckner? Too bad because that is a good example of a big mistake. There are big mistakes and there are small mistakes. Tur not being familiar with every aspect of Obama's foreign policy is a small mistake. Mediaite currently has 3 page of stories about Tur. The one story you are trying to put in to the article is not significant. Finally, we both have our own opinions. I have backed up my opinion with reasons. Please assume good faith.

Please try to understand professionals are held to a higher standard, what you consider a "small mistake" by everyday standards does not apply to someone who is paid to know these things. Here is another example, lay man not knowing Schedule D Tax form is understandable but Tax professional not knowing about is notable. To use your terminology "encyclopedic" knowledge of the Tax Code is a reasonable expectation for someone who gets paid to file taxes. Katy Tur not knowing this is significant. I feel I have backed my opinion with viable reasoning as well, hope you agree. --Wiki vj20 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned what is encyclopedic because we are writing an encyclopedia. Reporters are not expected to know everything. To use your "tax professional" example, a notable tax professional with an article on Wikipedia would not have ever error they made in their career listed in their article. Tur's mistake was not significant enough to warrant inclusion in an article about her entire life. Knope7 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The error made was on national TV with an audience of millions, that is significant. If a Tax professional made an error in front large audience it will very likely be mentioned in his/her article. Rick Perry's "Oops" error is mentioned in his Wikipedia article. --Wiki vj20 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see if other editors have opinions on this. Knope7 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving this detail in, but a thorough summary from the mediaite article should be written. I have a journalism degree and I can relate to occasional factual mistakes. If journalists are holding politicians to a high standard by re-reporting on their constant gaffes, then journalists themselves should be held accountable as well. Only then could liberal media build trust with the conservatives. Supermann (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with a thorough summary become WP:UNDUE. This article is relatively short and we risk making a one time mistake look as significant as half her career. This isn't about liberal or conservative, it's about building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be a catalogue of mistakes for article subject. It's the project of sites like Mediaite to keep track of such things, not ours. Knope7 (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You are implying Wikipedia should only have sanitized summaries as biographies where mistakes are scrubbed. That is not an encyclopedia that is a resume, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. --Wiki vj20 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of my position. Go back and read my comments and you will see I am not advocating treating articles like resumes. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. Also, please start signing your comments. Knope7 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed all your comments, the disagreement here, it looks like, is, whether the event was "significant" or not. I say it is and you say it is not. Assuming you agree with that premise, I would like to request an example of the kind of mistake (by a journalist) that you would consider "significant" to merit an entry. --Wiki vj20 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It is accurate to say I do not consider the incident significant. There is no evidence this effected her life or career and humans, even professionals, make mistakes. I have explained this position and referred to relevant Wikipedia policies. I am not going to engage in hypotheticals. Knope7 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I too have presented compelling case that this incident should be left in the article with at least one another editor agreeing. I was not looking for "hypotheticals" from you, the question was asked to try understand what you consider "significant". Anyway since Supermann agrees this should be left in the article, I will "undo" your removal and add it. Wiki vj20 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to add the content back to the article. This is a WP:BLP and you do not have consensus. Two editors is not enough, particularly since neither has cited to relevant Wikipedia policy for inclusion. Knope7 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as User:Wiki vj20 remains neutral in its writing of this, for example, explaining Katy wasn't a political reporter back in 2012, I don't see why not. This incident is verifiable and has reliable source, meeting WP:BLP.Supermann (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, confirming Supermann, I will make the necessary modifications to verbiage to ensure neutrality. Objections by Knope7 for this incident not being "significant" have not been backed-up by adequate (or any) explanation. Wiki vj20 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wiki vj20: once again, you are mischaracterizing my statements. To say I have provided no explanation is false and sadly not the first time in this conversation that you have misrepresented my position. You do not have consensus and I will remove content which violates WP:BLP. Knope7 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Knope7: Is mentioning the incident with words that ensure neutrality, okay for you?Wiki vj20 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You should always ensure neutrality and doing otherwise would be yet another violation of Wikipedia policy. But no, there is no way to neutrally include this in the article as the entire point is to spotlight a mistake which has otherwise was not widely reported. I do not see a way phrasing this in a way which would comply with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and of course good old WP:BLP. Knope7 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wiki vj20: the content you are trying to add still violates all of the policies I cited in my previous comment which you have not addressed. Knope7 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Support removal I subscribe to Mediaite and generally enjoy its coverage, however its mission is one where the media and journalists are the specific focus of their coverage, not the general importance of the wider news issues themselves. This specific focus means they cover media figures in detail which would generally be excessive for an encyclopedia. Note also the OP's original comment, the casual reader will likely concur with them and not appreciate its significance for encyclopedic purposes. There was no effect in the wider news nor to Tur's career resulting from this lack of knowledge, and no continued coverage of the "gaffe" itself, therefore I believe inclusion is WP:UNDUE.Roberticus talk 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

New York Times profile

This new profile on Tur some useful information for this article. Knope7 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

In case you wonder, I already sourced this NYTimes article to clean up the progression of her career and relationship. Supermann (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Katy's dating life

Two users, first Hullaballoo Wolfowitz then Mirokado undid my paraphrasing of Katy's dating life to Keith Olbermann according to the NYTimes article. If they don't want to see gossip, why did they not remove Keith from the infobox summary first under the Partners portion? Her partner/date is a celebrity, not some unknown. When pressed with her personal dating life with Keith, she responded to the NYTimes reporter, “Keith is a wonderful human being. He is my friend. He will always be my friend.” This is a relationship to be celebrated, not tugged under the carpet. I suggest those who want to delete try to improve my writing first. I wasn't making her dating life salacious.Supermann (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

At this poinbt two editors oppose your edit, no one but you supports it, and there's widespread consensus that BLP and WP:BLPGOSSIP disfavor celebrity dating histories. Don;t add back without establishing consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I would favor a more streamlined version of what I saw a few hours ago. The Times says the years they dated, so I would use that and not mention the mid-twenties or age difference. They are both public figures and Tur herself has confirmed the relationship happened. Knope7 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

BLPGOSSIP did not define dating life as gossip. NYTimes is RS, unless you are a Trump supporter who claims it's fake news. I now at least have User:Knope7's support. So think of a way to improve it instead of deleting it. It's now 2 vs 2. Supermann (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the part about her and Olbermann being friends to this day. That sort of language can become out of date. Knope7 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside the sentence about Tur dating Olbermann, the article currently cites to two sources with Olbermann's name in the title which to me indicates how public their relationship was. Knope7 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Can we please settle our dispute on WP:DRN? You keep edit-warring without contributing to the talk page! Please elaborate your "an established consensus that "dating" relationships don't belong in bio infoboxes." That consensus is no where to be found under BLP. Supermann (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the documentation for {{Infobox person}} where for Partner(s) you see "... 'partner' here means unmarried life partners ...", and, from life partner, "... a romantic or otherwise very close friend for life." To consider adding the information, you need a reliable source stating the principals' intention to be partners for life (for example a joint interview where they say that). Obviously not the case with the NYT reference. --Mirokado (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That page you referred said, "If particularly relevant, or if the partner is notable." Keith Olbermann is absolutely notable enough as a partner. Three years aren't short. The fact that she said, "Keith is a wonderful human being. He is my friend. He will always be my friend” per NYTimes meant this relationship is not acrimonious. Keith has every reason to be put back in. Supermann (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: and @Mirokado: please provide an update? Otherwise, I am taking you to DRN.Supermann (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry I have been exceptionally busy this week (and don't really have time now), but here is a response. I requested a reliable source stating that Tur and Liebermann considered themselves life partners. Unless you provide that, I cannot accept that Wikipedia treat their relationship as such.

I did not quote the start of the sentence, to which you refer, because that is a clause restricting the applicability of the requirement that we are dealing with a life partership. Once you provide a reliable source confirming that, we can discuss the subsidiary matters.

I am under no circumstances prepared to discuss your opinion of anybody's "dating life" (title of this section) and remind you that BLP protection applies to talk pages as well as articles. Please stick to what reliable sources actually say.

Just considering Use of English though, the phrase "He will always be my friend" or similar is extremely common in reference to an ex partner and, as I'm sure you know perfectly well, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the previous relationship had been regarded as "for life". --Mirokado (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"He will always be my friend" is not that common. I wouldn't say something similar to my ex-es. Letting go is already hard enough. But calling them friends for always and wonderful human being? Gimme a break. If we can't put Keith in the infobox, could we please at least mention him as a date/boyfriend in the Personal Life section? That has a reliable source! I can't imagine we are censoring this piece of important info, especially when it's amicable. DRN really seems to be the next logical step. Supermann (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If we can agree not to change the infobox, I will certainly be more relaxed about discussing the article content. Although there may not be an explicit ban on boyfriends or girlfriends in the content, I would prefer a specifically good reason for mentioning them. I don't think, for example, that we should think in terms of always listing everyone with an article who someone has dated, so "notable" on its own is not a sufficient reason. Our BLP protection is stronger than that in the editorial policies of newspapers, and we are not an indiscriminate mirror of published information, so "a reliable source mentioned it" is also not good enough without a specific reason. The fact that they were both journalists is a piece of trivia which in isolation is not encyclopaedic. Actors and other entertainers often try hard to publicise their relationships but mostly other professions don't. What would be a good reason for mentioning him would be any significant work they have done together, see her parents' collaboration for an example. Can you suggest anything which would make our mention of Liebermann more than just someone she dated?

We should also be very careful to avoid a formulation which looks like "she was dating X but is now engaged to Y" which would certainly be regarded as gossip. --Mirokado (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the person being discussed is Keith Olbermann, not Liebermann. My stance is I support mentioning she dated Oblermann with the years, which was in this article for a short time. I do not support adding it to the infobox. I think it's not just Olbermann's notability but the notability of a relationship that it has come up in a number of sources. Also, currently multiple sources cited for this article mention Olbermann in their headlines, so I think it makes sense to address the connection. I think the relationship is something some people will read about and some people may want to verify. Knope7 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that justification. I don't entirely buy it, but in the absence of any further opposition from anyone else I will not oppose the change you suggest (the fact with dates and unchanged infobox). And apologies for getting the name wrong! --Mirokado (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: totally ignored us. Could @Knope7: take the lead in restoring? Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: totally ignored us and kept undoing. How is that not disruptive? Consensus was 3 against 1. Should we take him to DRN or what? Supermann (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Terrible photo

I think this is the least flattering photo I have ever seen on Wikipedia. She looks at least 15 years older than she actually is. It doesn't have to be a glamour shot, but can we at least find something with better lighting? The photo is so bad that it's easy to believe it was selected in bad faith, and I'm tempted to remove it. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Time line of videos FOX is showing

FOX maybe showing videos of 1/6 after Trump had told everyone to go home. So the people in the video could be after the insurrection was over. 47.203.60.110 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)