Talk:Alycia Lane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arrest[edit]

Why was Alycia Lane's statement "f---ing dyke" removed? This was relevant to the case and is backed by the NYC police complaint report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.101.135 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I think it is fairly obvious that an obsessed "fan" of this arrogant, disgraceful woman has done some editing over time.

This woman is best know for her controversies off the air and not her on air work. The Bikini pictures controversy and the NY assault should be in the first paragraph. If you say the name Alycia Lane to most people they will say "Who?" But if you say - the TV anchor who sent bikini pictures to a married man - or the TV anchor who hits a cop in New York - they will say -"Oh yeah, I remember her."

You can't allow her and her PR flack to whitewash her page or it has no credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StormOfTheCentury (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder the neutrality of this article was disputed. Someone actually inserted a hidden comment stating, "Do not add any details about Alicia's arrest other than what has been written". What's more troubling is that the comment remained for over 2 years.Mk5384 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Eisen Bikini Affair[edit]

This section has been removed multiple times. I have re-instated it. Some of the detail could be removed, but Lane's notability outside Philadelphia and Miami are certainly linked to the (US) national media story, so it deserves mention within her article. Also see Talk:Rich Eisen -- Mitico 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (continued) If you search google, most of the hits are about this event, not her broadcasting. Wikipedia would be remiss to not have it included in the article. Mitico 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would BOTH of you please stop the edit war? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started this talk page, posted on the user's talk page looking for their input, directed edit summaries to said talk pages, and have tried to follow steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I will now post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. If you have any suggestions how this could have handled this better, please let me know. Mitico (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding the pictures was deleted with the comment: "its not needed on this page it's documented gossip" by User:Kingofdogs.[1] The closest guidance/policy I could find is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. The policy states: "If . . . incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I believe the content presents NPOV, since it states the events as covered by the media, then includes Lane's statement. The content passes the WP:HARM#TEST and should be kept in the article. Thanks Mitico (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"At a staff Christmas party held at KYW TV later in the day, staff members were embarassed about the situation Lane got herself into. "

Unsourced so it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.163.209 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...pictures of herself and friends in a bikini to the,..."[edit]

I do infer that it is not likely that she & several other persons had all been in a bikini, unless they would borrow it in succession.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

In general WP shouldn't have a article about a person only noted for one event. In this case Ms Lane seems to be noted for two, very minor, stupid events. I'm sure they made the news, but an encyclopedia should be about more important things. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think being a former anchor of nightly news in major American city is "important" and establishes her notability (WP:N). If not, then all listed in Category:American television news anchors,and sub-categories should be reviewed for notability. So I think the notability tag is incorrect. NPOV issues raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alycia Lane may hold water, though. That said, editor User:Rollosmokes has done quite a bit of work to maintain NPOV -- Mitico (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right according to how WP works in practice. However, my understanding of the spirit of WP's notability policies is that just having a job is not enough, even if a person's job puts them on TV every night. There is nothing in the article saying how good she was at her job, in contrast to well-known network news anchor people -- who are notable. If the article is kept, which I expect to happen given the general trend here, the "controversies" should be trimed down to almost nothing. Maybe one sentence saying that she lost her job because of the two incidents. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made that change, leaving the quote from the station about the reason she was fired and all the footnotes. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article back completely for these reasons:

  • 1) She was fired from KYW-TV not for the bikini photos issue, but for the assault arrest. These are two separate incidents which are not related to each other. As far as the arrest, it is important to note that she may sue the station for terminating her contract, so that line was restored as well.
  • 2) Condensing the article in that previous manner made it look sloppy from a visual standpoint. Some of the footnotes should have been removed, and could still be removed.

In my honest opinion, the only thing wrong with the article was/is the IP vandal who keeps calling her a "former" journalist and adds the POV junk. The article was fine as it was before the changes were made. Rollosmokes (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the bikini thing was not a controversy I will move it to the career section.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you read or sense that the bikini photos was a career move, or even related to her career? It seemed your original goal was to remove undue weight towards the controveries (under the term notability). I agree there may have been too much detail. One stated goal was to reduce controveries to a sentence or two. Under the revision I linked above, there was a couple of sentences per "incident." Much improved. As Rollosmokes contends, or at least I inferred, the lawsuit is notable to her career as a journalist, so i move it there. I don't know of any WP policy to remove this cited material, nor against lawyers (publically released) comments to be excluded. Maybe you could explain a little more what you are looking to achieve- Mitico (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, right now the article seems to me acceptable, and is based on reliable sources. In the longer term we'll see to what extent possible changes could or should be made. I also think that Lane's notability is obvious, otherwise the news coverage would have been quite different and rather modest. From the article's history I understand that the only major problem was the conflict about whether Lane ought to be called a "former" journalist. This conflict appears to be resolved. Lane has obviously been fired from her former assignment, but there is no indication that she has chosen a different profession. --Catgut (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "conflict" about her professional status. The repeated change to "was" or "is a former" is vandalism and not supported by any factual evidence. It's not a legitimate editorial disagreement. JTRH (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career section[edit]

How about moving lawsuit to career as of this revision [2]. Seems to clean it up a bit. -Mitico (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to move the information regarding her firing and lawsuit back into the "Arrest and firing" subsection. As I mentioned in my previous post, her dismissal resulted from her arrest, so it (and the subsequent lawsuit info) is out of place in the "Career" section. The structure of the article is fine as it is now. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think the structure as currently constructed is part of the reason why editors will continue to challenge the article as a unfair or wp:coatrack. No argument that the arrest was the final cause of dismissal. But having four paragraphs in this section gives the appearance of heavy-handedness. The middle two paragraphs will make more sense in the career section, once the termination lawsuit is final and it is written: "On . . . of 200-, Lane was hired by W???-TV in . . . " Moving this information puts the emphasis back on her career, which is why she is notable in the first place. I'll leave as-is & wait to hear what others think. - Mitico (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That is NOT why she is notable. She made International headlines for two things - hitting a cop in New York and calling her a F--king Dyke and sending pictures of herself in a Bikini to a married man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melananos (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Eolk71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be engaged in a whitewashing of this article to remove all negative content. I have asked for comment at WP:BLPN. – ukexpat (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eolk71, before making substantive changes to an article, please seek a consensus. Also, remember that information added to an article must be verifiable. When adding new text, especially controversial new text, it is good form to include a footnote reference to a reliable source. This not only helps to avoid extensive discussion and bickering, it also improves the entire article in a general sense. Thank you. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the neutrality tag. In the time since the "whitewashing" took place, I, and a number of others, have made changes to this article that reflect the necessary neutrality. These changes do not seem to have been reverted. It's been over a year. I assume that Ms. Lane's "fan" long ago lost interest. I see no more need for the tag.Mk5384 (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alycia Lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alycia Lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alycia_Lane&oldid=1207532116"